Aren't Christians morally obligated to support same-sex marriage?

If you mean to ban same sex marriage but allow civil unions then it allows for legal definitions to be defined that acknowledge that same sex "marriages" are different from traditional marriages. For most situations such distinctions are irrelevant for the purpose of many activities such as obtaining insurance for a family member irregardless of gender differences or being able to get a job or home etc. However for the purpose of adoption one can argue that child placements can be given preferential placement to traditional couples over same sex couples. If this is the case then you are allowing some level of discrimination that can be legally supported by maintaining two classes of couples.

Whether or not you agree with this will most likely set on one side or the other of this argument. For the sake of this arguments illustration consider traditional placement is preferred. So now we have two classes of couples, Traditional Marriage vs. Civil Union that can be legally defined to be identical in all aspects except adoptive rights.

Placing children with traditional couples frist before same sex couples.... Its a subtile difference that places one group under the other as a second class. If you elimiate the different groups and combine all types of couples under the banner of marriage you eliminate any legal distinctions and treat all couples equally. Thus an adoption agency could not use sexual make up of a couple in determining placement or waiting lists.

So if you outright ban same sex marriage as in this example or define a second group (CU's) then you could legally allow some forms of discrimination (preferential treatment of one group over the other) to ocurr if they are not already written into law. (How do you prevent further modifications and add more distinctions later on? ) For example: There are laws that currently mandate insurance coverage for same sex partners.

And an adoption agency can give preferential treatment to tradional couples which same sex couples cannot challenge due to a lack of a legal definition that include them equally as a married couple. This is not to say that same sex couples can't adopt but rather they can be made to wait longer to obtain a child. So if you do an outright ban on same sex marriage you prevent the same sex couples from gaining full equality in terms of legal standing.

Any forms of distinction between traditional and same sex couples could then be legally challenged in the courts.

The "purpose" is not so much to "ban" same sex marriage as it is to prevent the establishment of a potentially dangerous legal precedent. First, there is an established means by which laws are changed and created in this country....state licensing laws, whether for gun ownership, practicing medicine, or marriage are no exception. Allowing these laws to be changed OUTSIDE of that established process means that any future law may be similarly changed by any minority with well-paid lawyers.

Second, besides precedent, "tradition" is another cornerstone of American Law. We all know, for example, that gun rights are defended according to the "tradition" of the 2nd Amendment and not the explicit words. If you eliminate the tradition of marriage as being between a man and woman, you open the door to future generations altering the definition further.

The "slippery slope" argument is not so outlandish as some claim. For example....once you have given the individual the right to define marriage (remember, you already eliminated the right of the Majority to enter into the equation) on what grounds will you oppose incest and polygamy? Tradition?

Morality? It's just not right? See?

No bigotry....no hate....no quotes from the Bible....Just a simple thinking exercise. I have done my best to answer your question, so please take a moment to answer mine: When you demand that the law be changed to suit your personal feelings, what will you do when the law is changed against your wishes based on the feelings of someone you don't like? ( Hint: Look at the path to 20th Century dictatorship in Western Civilization...the answer lies therein...).

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.