Why exchange opinions when there are facts!

" 20% of homosexuals have had more than 51 sexual partners.
8% have had more than 300 partners
2.7% have had only 1 partner

Those are in fact, actual statistics about the community. With a culture that's not interested in marriage....Why should it be awarded that? How about every homosexual bath house is closed in America, in return for gay marriage? Would that be acceptable to the gay community?"

One of the most hilarious posts I've read on vgc

Marriage is a word - and just a word. Religion doesn't own it - otherwise one church would not recognize the marriages of another church because they were not married in the same tradition...

So marriage, to different groups, means something different. To your church, it's between a man and a woman before god. To the governement, it's a social arrangement between 2 people that guarantees them certain civil rights in regards to one another - god has nothing to do with it. And in whatever country you are, EVERYONE has the rights to the same civil rights, should they choose to obtain them.

Nobody has a copyright on the word "marriage"... stop being so pissed off if someone else uses it differently.

Except, this is false, and I doubt you'd find any sort of argument to support this. First of all, which 'church'? Marriage is present in all cultures. Second of all, you are aware that people would get married before Christianity even existed, right? Marriage actually has nothing to do with religion in most places, as it's more of a cultural/legal practice.

You get marriage benefits? I thought it was better to live together than to get married.

Marriage isn't between a man and woman but between love and love

I agree, civil unions for those who go through courts and the government, but leave marriage as a religious ceremony. Confer upon both the legal rights marriage has.

Everybody walks away happy,

Just kidding, everybody will still be mad.

That's why i'd only confer marriage benefits on civil unions, it'd piss everyone off, but it'd piss everyone off the least while being functionally the same.

Actually, you would find an argument to support this. Church as in the Christian church, or religious organizations in general.

I'd suggest reading up on the contemporary foundation of marriage at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by_culture

You can find a significant amount of information in regards to the church establishing and codifing the requirements of marriage millennia ago, and in law for most European countries for centuries. You can cite many exmaples of marriage existing before Christianity, but again, it was never codified.

Forms of marriage are present in all cultures, but none codified it except for the church. Thus why I argue they are the torch bearer for the definition of marriage. But as such, history shows us that all cultures have had common-law marriages, which should be the basis for the state (civil unions).

Yes. You have a right to marry whomever the fuck you want.

It may not be legally binding by the constitution or otherwise, however, neither is being able to eat a hamburger made out of rabbit meat.

Marriage between two consenting adults, should not be blocked by any institution.

To say otherwise is essentially racist. (yes i know its not about race, but the term fits in a general way)

Also, marraige is not a religious foundation either. That's bullocks.

Even in Islam it is merely labelled as a contract between two people. Granted the religion forbades homosexuality, so it specifies woman/man, but point is, its just a contract.

Look through history, marriage has always been a contract. A way to make a bond or pact between families, wealth, etc. Many countries/cultures still have arranged marriages that have nothing to do with love. Purely a contract between families.

Furthermore, marriage predates any religion today... it has existed in every culture, even those with no defined religion.

Even in religious context of the largest religions... Adam and Eve had no religion. Yet they were married or more specifically joined together at creation.

Marriages is just a title to define the union of two people. It should be considered a basic human right that requires no special laws.