Quote Originally Posted by Andres View Post
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.