The spirit of the separation is the same. I mean, what is the message you're sending by creating the different name for otherwise equal rights?

And for what? Just to appease some people without otherwise affecting them? Why have 2 identical institutions with different names? If you make changes to one, you're now going to have to do double the work. Easier and more efficient to avoid the mess and just merge them together under the same roof.

But you're not and you clearly don't understand what it's like. There are reminders everywhere that being gay is different, and sometimes it's associated with being different in a bad way. To be able to be the same as everyone else in some aspect of life is comforting. But to be told by the government that you can't have what straight couples have, or that you can but we're not allowed to call it the same thing, is slightly depressing. I just want to be able to do what everyone else is doing.

Many gay people are religious, and there are religious groups that are perfectly fine with gay people. As for the intolerant religious groups, marriage existed before them and marriages takes place today without them. They don't own the institution, and you don't have to pretend that marriage is really tied to them.

Marriage started in the church as a religious ceremony.

The government then, despite the separation of church and state, adopted the word marriage and recognized this as a sort of union of rights between two adults.

The religion in which marriage started does not like gay people.

But you are saying that it is super important that the government continue to use the word marriage which of course originally belonged to the religious people as one of their ceremonies instead of simply letting them have marriage, which belonged to them originally, and using a different word civil unions which would give gays all the exact same rights as heterosexually married couples.

Do you think the government should also make it illegal for religions to deny homosexuals the right to marriage?

Honestly, my guess is that many of homosexuals probably just want the advantages of being married but the heterosexual pro-gay marriage people probably just want to troll the religious people and they probably don't really have gay rights as their top priority. Look how much homosexuals are already losing financially every year by being denied these rights.

Do you think the government should make it illegal for Christian churches to deny gays the right to marry inside their church?

This pretty much...I have had many arguments with my parents about this. They are pretty intelligent people, both attorneys, but pretty conservative even though they are lawyers (ABA gives more money to Democratic candidates than almost any other organization despite the narrative that lawyers=upper middleclass/rich=republican). My mom attends church every Sunday and is a huge part of it whereas my Dad only goes (like me) on Easter and Christmas to appease her side of the family, but both just say "something something sanctity of marriage something something". For the most part I think they are sympathetic to basically giving gay couples every single perk of marriage as long as you don't call it "marriage". I don't know why its such a trip. I don't get into arguments about religion at all for obvious reasons with my mom and I have not gotten into it with my dad enough to know his excuse, but suffice to say the word marriage is a no go for the gays


I fully support them 100%, no doubt about it. That being said, I can somewhat understand the hesitation amongst heterosexual males. Maybe I am just a terrible homophobe but I understand the trepidation certain older white males feel from conversations with other people. The vast majority of gay men are very hard to tell from heterosexual men. But there is a vocal minority that frankly can be a little uncomfortable. I think alot of people feel like its natural for heterosexual men to feel a little weirded out by the flamboyant gays, the ones who you know right away are gay and talk with a lisp. Alot of guys do not like this at all and are very creeped out. I don't know the reason for this exactly but many seem to believe it to be true. If any one of these men seem to "hit" on them then they will be weirded out quite a bit. I don't know how you define "natural" or "unnatural" but I guess I'm not willing to pass judgment on the older generation for feeling like that is a little bit unnatural. As biological as it is for gay men to like guys I think it might be equally biological for straight men to be a little weirded out by the flamboyant gays

that louis c.k. bit is amazing

but this is just speculation from conversations I have had, I don't claim to be an expert

Are you gay? if not you don't understand either.

At worst it's slightly depressing for gays, but at worst for religious people it's govt denial of sacred religious texts and a complete redefinition of a thousands year old institution. This can't be brushed off like its no big deal.

I dunno what percentage of marriages involve a religious ceremony but off the top of my head I would guess at least 80% in the US. Marriage and religion are very closely tied, and govt involvement becomes close to playing the role of ruling on theological issues.

Edit: Acually closer than I thought but tough to get real stats:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070100687.html

Evidently Elton John and Rush Limbaugh both favor civil unions over marriage.

http://www.people.com/people/article...391960,00.html

First People magazine cite eva? Sorry to go high brow.

I say the same thing to all my Republican and Democrat friends, if you're in favor of an omnipotent central government, remember that half the time the government will be controlled by the idiots in the other party, and they'll be invading Iraq, nationalizing health-care, or regulating personal behavior.

Personally I'm a libertarian and anyone can marry anyone they want. It's a totally personal decision that doesn't affect me in the slightest.

An underlying issue is portability of benefits.

For instance, my dad worked very hard to earn a pension which came with excellent health care for two... but since my mom passed away, he only can use half of what he worked so hard to earn. He can't assign that benefit in a portable manner to, say, his son who doesn't have any health coverage at all. But if he re-married, he could assign that health coverage to his new wife.

It's the same with gay marriage... as soon as it becomes legal, all sorts of new spouses are going to appear, and the free-roll that the insurance and health care industry owners currently have at the expense of the LGBT community is going to be significantly reduced.

Basically gay marriage is a "gateway" right to full benefit portability... and if you follow the money... a lot of it is coming from these mega rich owners in the insurance and health care industries, who don't really care about gays one way or the other. They wanna hold the line and nip the concept of full benefit portability in bud.

According to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
"the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history"
To say that it started in the church is clearly just wrong.

Also, "From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required." So then the early Christians were getting married, some without involving the church?

As shown above, it does not seem that marriage started in religion. And if it actually did, it was not Christianity, as marriage existed before Jesus.

No. The churches should be allowed to marry whoever they want.

Yes, so I do.

The government isn't forcing the Church to redefine marriage or accept gay marriage or anything. Look, divorces are legal in the US, as are remarriages after divorce. Is the Church forced to recognize the divorces? Does it have to marry someone who's been divorced, even if to the Church the guy is still married? (with regards to certain Christian sects and certain reasons for divorce, for example: http://www.thetabaptistchurch.org/si...&cpage_id=7058 )

So this shows my point well. Marriage isn't tied to homophobic religious groups. Gays can marry without feeling like they're taking part in a ritual that belongs to homophobes.

I am all for gay marriage but what tilts me most with those people are that the moment I mention that polgamy should be legal also they all get in a hissy fit. Such hypocrites.

Nobody is forcing churches to change their traditions. They can continue to have only straight marriages if they want.

Are they immune to anti-discriminatory laws?

Define "those people".

I think we all, including gays, lose accuracy in language and the integrity of our institutions. I think that the idea of calling gay unions something different necessarily implying that it is less -than is just empty fear. The underpinning of my view is that men and women are different. If that is true, then different relationship combination of men and women are also different and should be recognized as such.

When I debate this I usually bring up that, by the logic of the pro marriage crowd, we should expand the idea of marriage to any group of people including polygamists. They always get pissed and say "NO No No No". But really, if you are going to let people self define marriage, why close the gates after gays? If I can get a tax break why shouldn't I just marry my buddy?

Marriage, in some form or another, probably pre-dates the state itself. Therefore the state should not re-define it. This is why we don't have the state telling us who our mother is, for example. I think marriage existed before the state, the state recognized it, but does not have the right to alter it. New types of unions have emerged and might need certain rights so they should be recognized. However those unions are their own thing. They are not marriage, which has it's own origin, evolution, and corresponding recognition.