well i think the argument was mainly that marriage has always been about man + woman, and that breaking that tradition would somehow cause an upheaval or chaos.

the thing is, (correct me if i got the state wrong) but didn't massachusettes decide to allow gay marriage? they aren't falling apart as a result as far as i know.

people don't like change.

If marriage is so great, why do you want to not allow the Gays to have it?

'cause then it wouldn't be so great anymore?
I dunno, I kinda agree that there aren't really any secular definitions of marriage. I mean, if gay marraige was allowed everywhere, in a few decades, what if some people want three-way marriages (or more)? What if they want a marriage license with a tree? The same thing will go on again. I think you have to draw a line at what marriage is and is not.

'cause then it wouldn't be so great anymore?
I dunno, I kinda agree that there aren't really any secular definitions of marriage. I mean, if gay marraige was allowed everywhere, in a few decades, what if some people want three-way marriages (or more)? What if they want a marriage license with a tree? The same thing will go on again. I think you have to draw a line at what marriage is and is not.

Yeah, and just in case you think it's not proven, look once more at Denmark and other countries in northern Europe that have had gay marriage legalized since as early as 1989. No outcries from any of THOSE countries for polygamy, bestiality, incest, or pedophilia to be legalized.

Anyways, I never said I was totally against having same-sex marriages legalized, I just don't really support it right now.

Yeah, and just in case you think it's not proven, look once more at Denmark and other countries in northern Europe that have had gay marriage legalized since as early as 1989. No outcries from any of THOSE countries for polygamy, bestiality, incest, or pedophilia to be legalized.

Besides, I could do just the opposite and say that if my right to get married is denied in law, what would be next? My right to vote? My right to petition? My right to be seen in public or even be alive in this country? Why, if you're going to start denying me rights just because of my sexual orientation, where will you draw the line, hmm?

See? It's just as easy for me to create a slippery-slope scenario as it is for you.

after all, men had been the leaders of the household for thousands of years as well.

But they still usually are, naturally. (Nothing against women, just an observation)

But they still usually are, naturally. (Nothing against women, just an observation)

1. The exposition about homophobia has no bearing on the question. I think we can all agree that the violence and hatred espoused by groups like the WBC is just wrong. But that's not the issue.

2. Regardless of how close homosexual relationships may or may not be, it does not make homosexuality right. As someone who does believe the Scriptures to be God's Word, I am convinced that it is not right, and that it goes against God's intended purpose for marriage, as stated in Genesis 2:24ff and Ephesians 5. For this reason, I cannot and will not support homosexual marriage.

While not apparent at first, what I think is actually suggested is that the only true bondage that can be formed is through heterosexual sex. In turn, this is only an argument saying that homosexual sex is not valid in God's eyes. What about the gays who don't have sex, like asexual gays?

Last time I checked, the US was a representational government, which means that I have just as much right to comment on and to help determine policy as anyone else. And if I have religious reasons for believing in certain policies, then who's to say I have no right to speak? In other words, I'm not convinced that this discussion MUST be limited to purely secular arguments.

And my point is that, considering that this is a representational form of government, and since this government represents religious people as well as non-religious, I am still not convinced that purely secular arguments are the only ones that can be applied.

I think that if we tried to make marriage completely secular, we would end up ditching marriage entirely.

In fact, if I recall correctly, the Christian Church didn't take a strong hold of marriages until sometime after the year 1000 AD.

But whether or not the law favours religious values, I believe that the process by which they do that needs to be secular. Because frankly I can't see how writing laws by a religious process can truly be democratic and respresentitive.

The way I see it is that Christianity does not have an exclusive right over marriage - it exists in every religion and culture, and it exists as a secular right too. Imposing laws that only serve the Christian agenda on marriage is an immediate disservice to both non-Christians and secular people alike.

Writing laws on marriage should be about weighing up both sides, and deciding which path will do most to uphold human rights. And really, I don't really see how the Christian Right's need to have traditional marriage upheld outweighs the right of gay people who want to marry.

But whether or not the law favours religious values, I believe that the process by which they do that needs to be secular. Because frankly I can't see how writing laws by a religious process can truly be democratic and respresentitive.

However, consider this: I know of no religion or culture that has historically upheld marriage to be anything other than a union between a man and a woman.

Marriage is, and always will be, a union between a man and a woman, and no amount of legislation can change that.

Paganism has no rules against gay marriage. The only secular law that Paganism has is "An harm no one, do as ye will." Also, in the case of Baehr vs. Miike in the state of Hawaii, when the Mormon church vehemently opposed gay marriage for religious reasons and tried to claim that it represented all religions in doing so, the principal Buddhist sect in Hawaii--a religion that has many more members in the state than Mormonism--stepped forward to claim that they do NOT oppose gay marriage, and that the Mormon church did not represent them.

At least in my own thinking, it would be a lie, and the legislation itself would be calling upon the majority of people to acknowledge it as fact. Marriage is, and always will be, a union between a man and a woman, and no amount of legislation can change that. Nations might very well inact laws that permit homosexual unions, but to call them marriage is no different than enacting a law requiring people to call cheese a vegetable.

I agree to an extent, but not to the extent that this means that religious ideals (like my own) must by necesssity be excluded from the decision making process. You cannot ask one to simply ignore their religious beliefs and convictions in their involvement in politics. It would be absurd to do so.

At least in my own thinking, it would be a lie, and the legislation itself would be calling upon the majority of people to acknowledge it as fact. Marriage is, and always will be, a union between a man and a woman, and no amount of legislation can change that.