not all marriage is religious. that's how it started. But that's not how it is today.

two people can get married in a quick non-religous ceremony, and get a little piece of paper (or whatever) from the state, giving them certain benifits that single people don't have.

I know, but I'm saying that marriage was founded on religion, and that's why you can't leave religion out of it. There is no seperation of church and state here.

true that u-235...
the there is no definite definition since things are always changing

these are exactly the benefits i want to know about. what makes it SO important that marriage _has to be for everyone_.

if marriage was a right then do i have the right to marry myself, my son, daughter? whats to stop that? how is this ANY different? where do you draw the line?

i can't find a solid example of why this should be illegal when gay marriage is legal.

you're a master of rhetorical bullshit statements.

have you been reading this thread at all? If you had read any of it you'd realise there is a strong arguement for it, obviously there are religious reasons against it, but also gay people are a prominant part of our society and there is no reason for them to not have the same rights (hospital visits and financial benefits) as straight married people. If this had been 50 years ago, would you be asking "well why should blacks have the right to vote? just tell me why i should really make it legal for them to vote"


btw, marriage is not just religious anymore, also there is marriage in many different cultures that do not have the same religion as us, so marriage means many things, and is not solely something that exists in the christian religion. As a result the practices of any one religion are not a valid arguement, because we live in a very multicultural society where many religions are practiced.

thats all for now :nod:

I just want GW to say the phrase Seperation Of Church and State.

Probably come out as gjgsdikjsd;sdkgsdIRAQf'lgkdjfg'dsfg

GW?

george w