The Obssession with Homosexuality

[Vuk]

Ya know, I bet if we just made sure they had civil rights, you'd see them acting out a lot less. Pass gay marriage and you'll get a lot less marching in the streets.



Political change often requires that you demand people's attention.



They have a right to express themselves. Any nudity or lewd conduct in public is against the law and should be prosecuted. Other than that, tough it out.

First of all, gay marriage has nothing to do with gay rights. Marriage is a religious institution that is recognized by the states, and it has religious underpinnings. For that reason people of religious persuasion want to protect the word, but it is that, just a word. A gay wanting marriage (a Christian concept of a union before God between a man and a woman) is like me wanting to have gay sex with my gf! The fuss about gay marriage is just another way to grab attention. Heck, just make their own union for pities sake! I personally think that the government should stop recognizing 'marriage' and only recognize unions. I think it is the church that should recognize marriages. Sure, you got some gays of religious persuasion who think that the religious institution applies to them, but the ones I know who get up in arms about it hate religion...and still want to enter into an institution of religious values...go figure. And I hate to clue you ATPG, but the DO have rights and they still demand attention. I am not saying that they are evil for it, but you asked why they get so much attention, and that is why, because they demand it. And like I said, from my own real life experience, those gays who act like normal people (ei don't go around flaunting their gayness at every opportunity) are treated exactly like everyone else. No one gives a toot that they are gay. They don't hide it, they don't avoid PDA, they just don't flaunt it like show-offs every two seconds. When religious people go out of their way to flaunt their religion and start defining themselves to everyone as religious, and wearing religious tshirts, and going on parades, and cannot have a conversation without bringing it up, people roll their eyes at them and people start feeling uncomfortable around them and even feeling animosity toward religion. It is the same thing with gays. If you want people to just relax and except you, then relax and stress what you have in common, not what is different. People need to see that you are a normal person like them, and that you have something in common. When you only ever stress what is different, you will be seen as a freak because you are not like anyone else. That is a stigma that you have to work for. I guarantee you that if gays stopped demanding attention and were just themselves, 99% of any anti-gay fever would dissipate. They could continue to work for any equal rights that they think they do not have without being a bunch of annoying, trollish, show-offs. I have little respect for anyone, man or woman, straight or gay, who goes marching in the street to demand that you pay attention to his/her sexual preference. I'll respect the gay who don't, but for being people, not for being gay. I don't respect anyone for being straight, and I ain't gonna respect anyone for being gay. The straight people I respect for being good people, and the gay people I respect for being good people. There is no line in my mind. The attention hungry retards who want to draw attention to their sexual preferences/fetishes/whatever, I have very little respect for, straight or gay, simply because they seem like pretty base, obnoxious people.

Saw this gem on another forum

Wouldn't happen to be the Armoury would it?

[Samurai Waki]

So you think people should stop acting the way they want?

And I'd be all for trying to convince my gf to have gay sex. My wife usually just rolls her eyes when I bring up the subject.

[Vuk]

So you think people should stop acting the way they want?

And I'd be all for trying to convince my gf to have gay sex. My wife usually just rolls her eyes when I bring up the subject.

Gay sex is not butt sex, it is sex between two people of the same sex. If you are trying to convince your gf to have a sex change, then I can understand the eyerolling. My point was that gay marriage was as much an oxymoron as straightgaysex. No, anyone can act the way they want as long as they do not break laws, but that does not mean you have to like it. If I started dressing up as a darned peacock and acting as a retard, people wouldn't be able to stop me, but they would still think of me as a retard. Act however you want, but if you act like a retard, you will be thought of as a retard. As far as acting like a retard where it is within the law, but still infringes on people's rights (gay parades, ect), I think that is down right rude and I think of people who participate in those things as rude. It is like the fetish parade that went through Chicago when I was there. I don't care if people like dressing in leather and beating each other within an inch of their lives, but please do not push it on me and keep me awake all night and stop me from going into the street. I got my own sex life, but I am not trying to push it on people who do not give a crap. That is rude and infringes on people's rights to privacy, whether the law recognizes that or not.

[Tribesman]

First of all, gay marriage has nothing to do with gay rights.

Marriage is a religious institution that is recognized by the states, and it has religious underpinnings.

No it isn't , marriage is a social contract between two people , religion is not neccesary .

[Brenus]

"Marriage is a religious institution" Was. Marriage is now a contract between 2 adults. The proof is you can divorce without religion's consent and you need lawyers to do so. And to pay duties stamps. Expensive ones...

[Askthepizzaguy]

That's right, I forgot religious rule number 837; Atheists can't get married. It doesn't count because God doesn't bless their union therefore they aren't really married therefore their children are all Godless sinning "bastards" (correct term if their parents weren't married in the "eyes of God").

I love how exclusionary certain religions are. I once thought of the Bible as being good and Christianity as one of the better religions, but the more I see the "pious" pontificate and preach and persecute, the more I see that it is no better than radical Islam or Scientology. It's looking more and more like a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind, to me. That being said, moderate Christians don't bother me. But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves. You are TOO OBSESSED with gay people. Why don't you speak out against the true evils of society more? Like female circumcision, religious persecution and intolerance, forced conscription of children, aggressive warfare, racism, sexism, gang violence, widespread drug abuse, rape, poverty, hunger, curable diseases killing the poor, dictatorships oppressing their people, and so on?

All I ever hear is gay, gay, gay. Nothing else seems to matter to you, which is messed up.

God can burn them in hell, but you should leave them alone. And since atheists can get married and have it not affect your "Godly" marriage, and polygamists in Utah can get married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Britney Spears can get divorced just hours after getting married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Bill Clinton can diddle an intern and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and people can marry immigrants so they can get into this country and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and intergendered or transgendered people can legally choose a sex and get married anyway and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and gay couples are allowed to be together, and they are allowed in many cases to have civil unions, then what is the big flipping deal with letting them get married?

I'm not sure why I bother. The answers I've been getting in response are actually kind of sad. I keep forgetting; this is religion. And that means we have to ignore the logical part of our brains and just nod and say "God said so" as if we speak with God on a two-way radio. I'm getting frustrated so I'm going to voluntarily take a break from this discussion for now. I'm feeling that one side, more than the other, is giving an honest attempt to bridge the gap, and the other side is just being divisive, stubborn, and bigoted.

Thankfully our society allows us to resolve our differences with a vote. Once the votes are counted and gay marriage becomes law, you can march in the streets and become "attention seekers" yourselves.

[Rhyfelwyr]

But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves. You are TOO OBSESSED with gay people. Why don't you speak out against the true evils of society more? Like female circumcision, religious persecution and intolerance, forced conscription of children, aggressive warfare, racism, sexism, gang violence, widespread drug abuse, rape, poverty, hunger, curable diseases killing the poor, dictatorships oppressing their people, and so on?

All I ever hear is gay, gay, gay. Nothing else seems to matter to you, which is messed up.

Because you still agree with us on that, it wouldn't make for a very interesting discussion would it?

Except for the religious intolerance bit... not everyone has secular values.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And I'd be all for trying to convince my gf to have gay sex. My wife usually just rolls her eyes when I bring up the subject.

So why not have the gf talk to her about it.....

[Samurai Waki]

So why not have the gf talk to her about it.....

bwahaha. Unfortunately, it seems I got one of the completely straight ones.

[Vuk]

bwahaha. Unfortunately, it seems I got one of the completely straight ones.

lol, I prefer my girls to be interested in me, not other girls. :P

[Tribesman]

Wrong Tribesy. The word marriage over the centuries came to describe the Holy Institution ordaned by God.

Talk about getting things back to front
So lets see if I can put it politely without insulting your "intelligence" too much
errrrr...if the word became something over the centuries what were its origins before it became that new thing ?

[Samurai Waki]

lol, I prefer my girls to be interested in me, not other girls. :P

You'll never have a three way with that attitude!

[Vuk]

You'll never have a three way with that attitude!

lol, that's not a goal of mine. I would rather have three times the sex with my gal. :P

[Andres]

Marriage is a religious institution that is recognized by the states, and it has religious underpinnings.

No.

First, you have the contract, recognised by the state, with legal consequences adhered to it by law. No religion should influence law making and religion has nothing to do with the marriage "before the law".

You can add whatever religeous ritual to your marriage, if you want to, and call that ritual "marriage" as well, but that's your religious marriage, taking place in the private sphere where you can do whatever you want. It is not (or should not) be equal to the marriage before the law. Your religeous ritual called "marriage" is not the same as the marriage before the law, which has legal consequences.

At least, that's how it should be. Belgium has it right: a) you marry "before the law", an officer of the state (usually the mayor of your residence) takes note and that's it ; b) after your "legal marriage", you can go to church and marry again, for a priest (or you can perform whatever ritual you want or no ritual whatsoever) which has no legal consequences

Strict separation between church and state, as it should be in any modern, civilised society.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No.

First, you have the contract, recognised by the state, with legal consequences adhered to it by law. No religion should influence law making and religion has nothing to do with the marriage "before the law".

You can add whatever religeous ritual to your marriage, if you want to, and call that ritual "marriage" as well, but that's your religious marriage, taking place in the private sphere where you can do whatever you want. It is not (or should not) be equal to the marriage before the law. Your religeous ritual called "marriage" is not the same as the marriage before the law, which has legal consequences.

At least, that's how it should be. Belgium has it right: a) you marry "before the law", an officer of the state (usually the mayor of your residence) takes note and that's it ; b) after your "legal marriage", you can go to church and marry again, for a priest (or you can perform whatever ritual you want or no ritual whatsoever) which has no legal consequences

Strict separation between church and state, as it should be in any modern, civilised society.

That's the only sane choice, in my opinion. I still go for breaky-wakeys now before I pop a blood vessel.

[Vuk]

No.

First, you have the contract, recognised by the state, with legal consequences adhered to it by law. No religion should influence law making and religion has nothing to do with the marriage "before the law".

You can add whatever religeous ritual to your marriage, if you want to, and call that ritual "marriage" as well, but that's your religious marriage, taking place in the private sphere where you can do whatever you want. It is not (or should not) be equal to the marriage before the law. Your religeous ritual called "marriage" is not the same as the marriage before the law, which has legal consequences.

At least, that's how it should be. Belgium has it right: a) you marry "before the law", an officer of the state (usually the mayor of your residence) takes note and that's it ; b) after your "legal marriage", you can go to church and marry again, for a priest (or you can perform whatever ritual you want or no ritual whatsoever) which has no legal consequences

Strict separation between church and state, as it should be in any modern, civilised society.

Marriage is a religious institution that was adopted by the government. That now means that there are two institutions, the legal, and the religious. I never said there was not seperation of church and state, but the point is that marriage was defined by religion, and the state adopted it. Christians are worried that by the State changing the legal definition, it will cheapen the religious definition. That is why they seek to protect the meaning of the legal definition.

That's right, I forgot religious rule number 837; Atheists can't get married. It doesn't count because God doesn't bless their union therefore they aren't really married therefore their children are all Godless sinning "bastards" (correct term if their parents weren't married in the "eyes of God").

I love how exclusionary certain religions are. I once thought of the Bible as being good and Christianity as one of the better religions, but the more I see the "pious" pontificate and preach and persecute, the more I see that it is no better than radical Islam or Scientology. It's looking more and more like a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind, to me. That being said, moderate Christians don't bother me. But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves. You are TOO OBSESSED with gay people. Why don't you speak out against the true evils of society more? Like female circumcision, religious persecution and intolerance, forced conscription of children, aggressive warfare, racism, sexism, gang violence, widespread drug abuse, rape, poverty, hunger, curable diseases killing the poor, dictatorships oppressing their people, and so on?

All I ever hear is gay, gay, gay. Nothing else seems to matter to you, which is messed up.

God can burn them in hell, but you should leave them alone. And since atheists can get married and have it not affect your "Godly" marriage, and polygamists in Utah can get married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Britney Spears can get divorced just hours after getting married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Bill Clinton can diddle an intern and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and people can marry immigrants so they can get into this country and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and intergendered or transgendered people can legally choose a sex and get married anyway and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and gay couples are allowed to be together, and they are allowed in many cases to have civil unions, then what is the big flipping deal with letting them get married?

I'm not sure why I bother. The answers I've been getting in response are actually kind of sad. I keep forgetting; this is religion. And that means we have to ignore the logical part of our brains and just nod and say "God said so" as if we speak with God on a two-way radio. I'm getting frustrated so I'm going to voluntarily take a break from this discussion for now. I'm feeling that one side, more than the other, is giving an honest attempt to bridge the gap, and the other side is just being divisive, stubborn, and bigoted.

Thankfully our society allows us to resolve our differences with a vote. Once the votes are counted and gay marriage becomes law, you can march in the streets and become "attention seekers" yourselves.

ATPG, no offense, but you are the most closed minded person I have ever talked to. You are so sure of everything and your opinions on everything so set that you constantly imagine people saying things they never said. Arguing with you is annoying and pointless, as I consistently have to spend the first half of my post pointing out to you that I did not say half the things you think I did. The reason you always put words in other people's mouths is because you think that you know everything, and you assume way too much. Don't assume, it makes an out of you and me. Words to live by.

That's right, I forgot religious rule number 837; Atheists can't get married. It doesn't count because God doesn't bless their union therefore they aren't really married therefore their children are all Godless sinning "bastards" (correct term if their parents weren't married in the "eyes of God").

First of all, I myself expressed my opinion that the war over gay marriage was silly on both parts. I was simply trying to explain to you WHY it is that Christians get upset about it, since you admitted that you did not understand. People can do whatever they want under the legal definition of the law. And I hate to clue you, but christians do get upset when people abuse and misuse the institution. It is supposed to be sacred, and what motivates people to live good lives and stay together. There is plenty of outrage about people not taking marriage seriously.

I love how exclusionary certain religions are. I once thought of the Bible as being good and Christianity as one of the better religions, but the more I see the "pious" pontificate and preach and persecute, the more I see that it is no better than radical Islam or Scientology. It's looking more and more like a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind, to me. That being said, moderate Christians don't bother me. But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves. You are TOO OBSESSED with gay people. Why don't you speak out against the true evils of society more? Like female circumcision, religious persecution and intolerance, forced conscription of children, aggressive warfare, racism, sexism, gang violence, widespread drug abuse, rape, poverty, hunger, curable diseases killing the poor, dictatorships oppressing their people, and so on?

All I ever hear is gay, gay, gay. Nothing else seems to matter to you, which is messed up.

All you ever hear is gay, gay, gay? Maybe that is your heart trying to tell you something.
Seriously though, how can you compare Christianity to radical islam? You say that because Christians want to protect marriage that they are as bad as extremists who kill and torture? (and this is after in a previous thread you said that there was no difference in living conditions in America and Cuba) I think you should try to be a little more decerning.

It's looking more and more like a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind, to me. That being said, moderate Christians don't bother me. But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves.

Christians are the paranoid ones? a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind
hmm...The protection of marriage has nothing to do with disliking or distrusting gays. It is because they believe that God made something with a meaning, and when you try to change that meaning you are twisting God's words. And as I said above, legal marriage stemmed from religious marriage, so they see the need to protect legal marriage in order to safeguard religious marriage. It is not that they are trying to protect it from evil people seeking to kill them, but that they are trying to preserve God's wishes. They would be just as upset if it was changed to a union between a man and a table, or a horse and a pig. They believe that it is between a man and woman, and anything else is not marriage. It could be equal to it, but it is not marriage. You bash the Christians for being exclusionary for that? It is a darned religious institution given to them by their God! That would be like me saying that Jews are exclusionary because I cannot make my dog a Rabbi! I want the legal definition of a police man changed so that my pig can be one! STOP BEING EXCLUSIONARY!!!!! Get the point?! It is a darned word! It has a meaning! It has nothing to do with protecting against evil people, it has to do with preserving an institution. Are Jews evil and exclusionary for wanting to protect the institution of Rabbis? For keeping my dog out? They are not picking on my dog, they are just not gonna call him something he isn't! Since when is marriage such a great and important thing that not being able to use the word means that you are persecuted? As I said before, I think the state should get rid of marriage as a legal institution altogether, and end all the fuss. The entire argument on both sides is stupid! I believe that gays and straights should be given equal rights in their relationships, but a gay union is no more a marriage than a man and a woman having sex is gay sex! I don't see any straight people insisting on being able to call their unions 'gay'. It is ridiculous for gays to fight to change the meaning of the word.
And all Christians ever talk about is gay people, huh? Funny, I hardly ever hear them mentioned by the Christians I know. In fact, it is non-Christians at school who I hear talking about gays all the time. I think it is you who is obsessed ATPG, not me. Personally, I couldn't give a flying about gays. If they want to do it, that is their problem. What I don't like is ANYONE, gay or straight pushing their darned sexual preferences in my face! I don't bloody care and I don't want to be bothered with it!

God can burn them in hell, but you should leave them alone. And since atheists can get married and have it not affect your "Godly" marriage, and polygamists in Utah can get married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Britney Spears can get divorced just hours after getting married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Bill Clinton can diddle an intern and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and people can marry immigrants so they can get into this country and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and intergendered or transgendered people can legally choose a sex and get married anyway and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and gay couples are allowed to be together, and they are allowed in many cases to have civil unions, then what is the big flipping deal with letting them get married?

I don't think gays will burn in hell ATPG, that is your opinion. In fact, you are assuming that I believe in hell...which I don't. You are making an absolute fool out of yourself. As I said above, Christians DO get bent out of shape about other abuses of marriage. They make a big deal about gay marriage because gays make a big deal about it.

they are allowed in many cases to have civil unions, then what is the big flipping deal with letting them get married?

My point exactly ATPG, why is it a big deal?! Why is it a big deal to them? Why do they need to fight to change a legal definition stemming from a religious institution that will result in the cheapening of the religious institution in the minds of the followers of that religion? Why cause trouble over something of no importance at all. Marriage does not help gays one bit if they can get the same rights in civil unions. I think all couples should have the same rights, but I also think it is silly for them to instigate a fight with the Christian community over a word that the Christians view as theirs. The gays got their own words too, let the Christians have theirs. As I said, I do not think that the state should recognize either.

I'm not sure why I bother. The answers I've been getting in response are actually kind of sad. I keep forgetting; this is religion. And that means we have to ignore the logical part of our brains and just nod and say "God said so" as if we speak with God on a two-way radio. I'm getting frustrated so I'm going to voluntarily take a break from this discussion for now. I'm feeling that one side, more than the other, is giving an honest attempt to bridge the gap, and the other side is just being divisive, stubborn, and bigoted.

A perfect example of your unbreakable preconceptions at work here ATPG. That is the view you have of religious people, and rather than base your view on what they say, you have been basing your perception of what they say on that view. You show here (as you have in previous posts) that you have absolute contempt for those of different opinions than you. They have different opinions and do not believe that what I KNOW is right is right! THEY MUST BE ILLOGICAL BIGOTS! Maybe what you KNOW is right is not. Maybe you are not even paying attention to what I am saying because you are seeing what you want to see. I got better things to do than argue with someone who has no intention of treating me with any respect or taking anything I say seriously.


Oh yeah, and if gay marriage becomes legal, no, I won't march in the street, and I won't dress like a peacock.

[Andres]

Marriage is a religious institution that was adopted by the government. That now means that there are two institutions, the legal, and the religious. I never said there was not seperation of church and state, but the point is that marriage was defined by religion, and the state adopted it. Christians are worried that by the State changing the legal definition, it will cheapen the religious definition.

Then those christians fail to make the distinction between legal and religious marriage.

A misunderstanding is not a justification for a difference in treatment between gay couples and straight couples.

Gays should be allowed to marry for the law. Religion is private, church and whatever religious institution can decide who they want to marry, that's none of the state's business. But when it comes to the legal marriage, gays should be allowed to marry. There's no justification for the current discrimination.

[Vuk]

Then those christians fail to make the distinction between legal and religious marriage.

A misunderstanding is not a justification for a difference in treatment between gay couples and straight couples.

Gays should be allowed to marry for the law. Religion is private, church and whatever religious institution can decide who they want to marry, that's none of the state's business. But when it comes to the legal marriage, gays should be allowed to marry. There's no justification for the current discrimination.

Difference in treatment? Christians are not arguing that they be treated differently, simply that they shouldn't apply (what Christians see as) the legal representation of a Christian institution to themselves in a way that will change its meaning. Christians are afraid that if legal marriage is changed, that religious marriage will follow. They are two entirely different things in reality, but in perception, the same. As I said, it is about as much discriminating as not letting my dog be legally recognized as a Rabbi! You can see why it means a lot to Christians (because it is literally sacred to them), but why should it mean so much to gays who want to change the legal definition? To use my dog example, you could see why Jews would justifiably be very angry if I tried to make my dog legally classified as a Rabbi, but it would be hard to understand why it would mean anything to me or my dog. As I said, I think that marriage should not be recognized in any form, but as it is, it is impossible to seperate it from its religious origins. (simply because of the way that it is percieved) Don't let there be any difference in treatment, but if it means that much to them, let them keep their silly word. They got a claim of thousands of years on the institution.

[Andres]

Difference in treatment? Christians are not arguing that they be treated differently, simply that they shouldn't apply (what Christians see as) the legal representation of a Christian institution to themselves in a way that will change its meaning. Christians are afraid that if legal marriage is changed, that religious marriage will follow. They are two entirely different things in reality, but in perception, the same.

If legal and religious marriage are different in reality, than the perception that they are the same, is wrong.

You can see why it means a lot to Christians (because it is literally sacred to them), but why should it mean so much to gays who want to change the legal definition?

Now, this is where the mistake is made.

One of the underlying principles of our legal systems is equality or, in it's negative definition non discrimination.

That's the principle.

If you say "straight couples can marry, gay couples can not"; then you are asking for different treament. It's not up to the gay people to back up their demand of being allowed to being married with sufficient reasons; by asking to be allowed to marry, they simply ask the application of a principle: equal treatment.

It's up to those opposing gay marriage to give convincing arguments as to why gays should not be allowed to marry.

Asking gays to explain why they should be allowed to be married, is turning the world upside down, more: it's infuriating.

Equal treatment is the norm, the people opposing gay marriage demand the exception. If you want an exception on equal treatment, then you have to justify it. So far, I have seen no justification.

No, religion is not a justification, since we're talking about legal marriage, not the religious institution. Seperation between church and state; another of our fine principles.

The more you think about it, the more opposing gay marriage equals throwing overboard modern principles that are the basis of our current societies.

[Vuk]

If legal and religious marriage are different in reality, than the perception that they are the same, is wrong.




Now, this is where the mistake is made.

One of the underlying principles of our legal systems is equality or, in it's negative definition non discrimination.

That's the principle.

If you say "straight couples can marry, gay couples can not"; then you are asking for different treament. It's not up to the gay people to back up their demand of being allowed to being married with sufficient reasons; by asking to be allowed to marry, they simply ask the application of a principle: equal treatment.

It's up to those opposing gay marriage to give convincing arguments as to why gays should not be allowed to marry.

Asking gays to explain why they should be allowed to be married, is turning the world upside down, more: it's infuriating.

Equal treatment is the norm, the people opposing gay marriage demand the exception. If you want an exception on equal treatment, then you have to justify it. So far, I have seen no justification.

No, religion is not a justification, since we're talking about legal marriage, not the religious institution. Seperation between church and state; another of our fine principles.

The more you think about it, the more opposing gay marriage equals throwing overboard modern principles that are the basis of our current societies.

So if there is a legal institution of Rabbis and I want my dog to be a Rabbi I can make him a legal Rabbi? THAT is where the connection to religion comes. Christians want their institution to be recognized by the state, and it is being. Still, it is a religious institution being recognized by the state. It is seperate, and the church doesn't control it, but it stemmed from religion, and represents a religious institution. That is why changing it would cheapen the religious institution in their minds. Likewise say there is a legally recognized position of Rabbi (not sure if there is or not), and the government recognizes them as people who have the legal right to declare food Kosher. Why should non-Jews care about being Rabbis and being able to declare food Kosher? Is it unequal treatment to say that they cannot? (or that their dogs cannot be Rabbis :P) Sure, the state could make it that tables are Rabbis, because it is a seperate institution, but it is REPRESENTING a religious institution. As I said, best to do away with legal institutions that represent religious institutions, but as long as you have them, you should respect that religion's definition. And how is it being treated differently? If they have the same rights, they will be treated the same. Likewise, me declaring myself a Rabbi is not gonna help me and suddenly make me equal with the world. I understand your point Andres, but I think you should be arguing for absolving the legal institution of marriage, not changing it. Surely you can see how changing it would weaken the religious institution in the minds of Christians. Why do that? Like with my Rabbi example, why do that? My dog being a Rabbi doesn't help me at all, I just tread on Jewish tradition and get them angry with me. That is why I say, it is sillyness on both sides. Marriage should be defined by the religious definition as long as it exists, but I think it would be much better and take care of the problem to get rid of government representation of religious institutions.

[Tribesman]

Marriage is a religious institution that was adopted by the government.

Its a social institution that was adopted by religions .

[Vuk]

Its a social institution that was adopted by religions .

Wrong Tribesy. The word marriage over the centuries came to describe the Holy Institution ordaned by God. That is what it still means today, and the legal definition of it was adopted as a way to recognize and protect the sanctity of those religious marriages.

EDIT: There are thousands of different types of human bonds and contracts, and marriage through the centuries became the word to represent the specific one sanctified by God. I will try to look up a little linguistic history on the word itsself, but I have seen it proven before in a documentary and read it in a history book that European governments, and then colonial governments, and then the US government adopted legal marriage as a way to protect the rights of those in the religious institution and recognize it as valid.