Feel free to check out my signature whenever you've got some time to spare.

Not that I care much anymore (gay marriage has been legal in Canada for several years now) but your signature, and most pro-gay marriage stances, fails to address the underlying question of "What is marriage?"

We live in a society where the institution of marriage has been under assault for over 60 years, and today it has been so watered down that the average person's definition would be something along the lines of "What happens after a wedding". There is far more to it than that, and one of the reasons the divorce rate is already so high is most people have forgotten what a marriage is supposed to be; and simply want a wedding with their partner because they lust for them. I don't fear a "slippery slope" argument with gay marriage, but I have never seen anyone explain how two people of the same sex can be married ... Being in love is not enough, having a ceremony is not enough, having a stable monogamous partnership which lasts a lifetime for the purpose of raising children is required.

This isn't about "good vs. evil" or about "tolerance" this is purely about definitions ... Just because you want to call your cat a dog doesn't make it a dog

"Just because you want to call your cat a dog doesn't make it a dog."

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Tell me one single difference between marriage with different-sex partners and marriage with same-sex partners other than their biological differences. It is two people who love each other and who wants to be able to officially show it to others.

I posted this on my wall earlier, but I guess it fits ferfectly here as well:

Sex differences are no different than skin-colour differences; They are entirely biological. Just because you are born gay you shouldn't be excluded from the happiness that marriage may bring.

This is true, but there's no reason gays can't do that too. Where in there is "monogamous partnership that lasts a lifetime" missing?

I'd also argue the children thing is out. Married couples shouldn't be thinking primarily about having children, nor is a marriage needed to raise children

Sadly, most people do not see this.  They see D or R, or they see white and black while missing the fact that everything else (the important parts) is pretty much the exact same thing.

Except there are substantial differences between same sex relationships and heterosexual relationships ...

With the debate over gay marriage in Canada there were lots of statistics that demonstrated that there are substantial differences between same sex relationships and heterosexual relationships. For example, lesbians are far more likely to be involved in domestic abuse (which seems counter-intuitive) and their relationships are far less stable and more likely to break up; gay male relationships also tend not to be monogamous, and long lasting gay male relationships tend to more closely resemble open marriages or swingers.

You still haven't defined what a marriage is or how a homosexual relationship can meet that definition. All you have done is resorted to ad-hominem attacks, which demonstrates that you don't have an intelligent logical argument.

There are only a limited number of studies, that are several years old, that studied differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships and found substantial differences between incidence of monogamy and the longevity of relationships. I suspect more haven't been done because the organizations that fund these kinds of studies tend to be highly political, and wouldn't fund studies that work against their interests.

I would personally argue that a marriage is about creating the stable family structure for having children. Monogamy within this relationship is driven to ensure paternity and to protect the children from being abandoned by their father. The life-long vows and social stigma about breaking up this kind of relationship was to ensure that the shared resources of both parents (and their families) are available for the children. The entire arrangement was in preparation of children ...

Being that children raised in single parent households are 9 times as likely as married households to be involved in crime, the poverty rate of single parent households is 6 times as high as married households, incidence of childhood obesity are higher in single parent households (26% vs 22%), and most studies demonstrate negative results of single parent households, while children can be raised outside of marriage it is obvious that they do best in stable dual-parent household; most often represented by married parents.

The whole gay marriage thing is red herring. Obama wanting to talk about anything other than his record.

But on gay marriage. Marriage is a religous sacrament. Government should not be involved at all. But in years past religous leaders has sold marriage to the government for tax breaks and other benefits. Heres the deal all citizens should be treated equal, but marriage is at its core a religous union. So lets just get marriage completely out of government, and lets all couple have the same benefits in the eyes of the government in a "civil union". All "marriages" should be handled by various religions to interpret the way they want.... If Baptist does not allow for gay marriage than so be it, they can join a unitarion church and get married. Either way no gets treated differently and no one is forced to go against their religous beliefs.

You're demonstrating correlation, not causation. The fact is people in poverty, involved in crime and generally on the wrong end of social demographics are more likely to be single parents. It's not the fact that they're single parents that are causing the kids to turn out bad, it's all the other factors that are causing them to become single parents.