As such, I look at it like this: Nobody here has pointed out how gay marriages harm them.
Red herring. 
If anyone in this thread were trying to stop same-sex couples from doing anything, then they might feel obligated to explain such. As has been pointed out at least a dozen times over the past few years, it is the other side that wants to change the law, change an ancient concept, change our culture, etc. They are the ones who must explain why the government should care that two men are pretending to marry one another. The traditionalists, at this point, have shown themselves perfectly willing to let the two men live their own lives as the two men see fit. The traditionalists owe no one an explanation, as they are not the ones proposing bizarre changes.
Closest I see are slippery slope arguments. Thus it becomes a question of religious freedom - on the one hand a group wants the ability to get married. On the other side a group wants to prevent that. An imposition on THEIR religion. It reminds me of how Muslim countries would impose a special tax on non-Muslims. We don't allow that sort of stuff.
Nonsense. Your religious beliefs may be that 2+2=5, but you're not going to get anywhere demanding that be taught to your children in your public school. By this definition of religious freedom, you should be able to claim that your religion believes the home is a sacred place of worship. And therefore, all of your fellow worshipers' households are tax-free. Go ahead and give that one a try.
Take the state's money, follow the state's rules. Don't take the state's money and you should be much more free to operate, though there are limits.
Fine, but the state should follow some rules, as well. In the situation we were discussing, the state is playing favorites with those who have conformed to its new-found (and completely arbitrary) love of the homosexual, while casting aside those whose views are no longer considered fashionable. That's not so religious-freedomy, is it?
