Here's the thing: most people don't care that homosexuals exist. I myself don't have anything against them. The problem arises when homosexuals in this country start to push for the legalization of gay marriage. Primarily, marriage is a legal union between a male and a female. From Merriam-Webster dictionary: [i]The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.[/i] I'd like to point out here that the marriage is first a legal definition before it is a religious one, no matter the culture. Think about it; a marriage doesn't officially begin until its sanctioned by a court, and doesn't end until the divorce is approved by the court. You might be wondering at this point, well, can't homosexuals just get married like straight people? Well, because it violates the aforementioned definition of marriage for obvious reasons. You are redefining the age-old definition of marriage if you allow homosexuals to marry under the legal term "marriage". This is where people of religious faiths are offended. There only request is that the civil union between two homosexuals be called something different. The term "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron, because again it conflicts with the original statement of marriage. The only reason homosexuals wished to get married (in the U.S, at least) is because they wish to gain the fiscal advantages that marriage brings (i.e couples can file taxes together, thereby saving money). To call it a civil rights issue is appallingly stupid. I think the real solution to this popular dilemma is to grant the civil union between homosexuals the same financial benefits of a normal marriage.