@Jazz

In the United States there is a profound separation between church and state. Technically speaking marriage is just a legally enforceable contract. You need no ceremony to be married, but if you want a ceremony you have a number of options. Firstly you can be married by a judge. Which is usually free or a small fee. Hell its usually in the same building where you got the certificate. Basically you can one stop shop it on gas money in less then a hour. As for churches your assuming a awful lot.

Your assuming there is some kind of state religion. The United States is home to literally hundreds of faiths, and as many different traditions and rules. There are churches where gay marriages are permissible, and members of the clergy that will even preside over such ceremonies even if their faith decries the act. As long as the person that is performing the ceremony has no problem with doing so, and their congregation has no problem. Then yes you can have a marriage ceremony in the most bigoted church.

You have to understand something about the United States. The leaders of our congregations are for the most part altruistic. They literally don't care about your particular faith if they are called upon to perform a service. You can be a hardcore Atheist, and have a pastor preside over your funeral. It is kind of a civic mindedness. It really does seem that it is more important for a lot of them to serve people before their religion.

Beyond that your asking a lot when you say all interpretations of any particular faith admonishes homosexuality in their members or society in general. The truth of the matter is we have so many denominations, because it isn't at all exactly clear what religious texts mean. Some see passages, and say oh well god hates that. While others say it means the exact opposite. If you want my personal take it would have to be this.

Any prohibitions had to do with consequences, and not the act itself. Thousands of years ago wealth was able to be retained through inheritance, and infant mortality by our current standards was exceptionally high. At that time it was probably absolutely necessary for every couple capable of breeding to do so. Not merely to maintain a certain population level, but to ensure that things continued to be carried down through time in the group. After all if the blacksmiths son doesn't have children of his own and dies. Where does the blacksmiths wealth go, and more importantly who carries on his craft.

That may seem to be unimportant to you, but a lot of the communities at that time were smaller, and every loss of a chance for success would be deeply felt. If your community couldn't craft its own tools. Then it may have to buy from another, and that might mean selling much needed livestock. When people live that close to the edge yes it is a fundamentally selfish act to not do what society needs you to do. You wouldn't just be jeopardizing your own family line. You may be jeopardizing the very survival of the community.

That all said in a world where we categorize ourselves into nations of millions. Where we have high childhood survival rates. Where we have incredibly stable legal systems to maintain wealth, and minimize infighting. We just don't need that kind of procreation control. To be more blunt it is probably actually beneficial for society to have more active homosexuals. It slows down the birth rate, provides viable parents for orphans, and allows for even more adult supervision of children. In other words it is good for society.

Don't forget my home state of Minnesota which voted no on an amendment that would've defined marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman. =)

It is up to the church whether or not they marry you, even with legalised same-sex marriages.

All the legalisation would do is allow any religious institution that wanted to conduct a same-sex marriage, to conduct one. So a Quaker church, or a liberal Protestant/Catholic church, or the place of worship of any religion not opposed to same-sex marriage.

I agree that forcing any institution to carry out the ceremony would be unacceptable, and so do 95%+ of the people who support marriage equality.

I am firmly of the belief, anyway, that marriage is an entirely secular and governmental affair, and if it is recognised at all by the government (an argument could be made that it should not be), then religion should not be involved at all.

It'll be like women's suffrage, where about half of the states had at least some form of women's suffrage before the 19th Amendment was passed. Once enough states go for it, then it will just go federal and force everyone else to follow suit.

Edit: that's probably what's going to go down with Marijuana too.

This is about civil marriage rights recogized by the state government.  So a same sex couple can get all the same state rights that an oppsite sex couple would get.

There are many, many religouns and churches that have already perform same sex and other kinds of marriage.  But those marriages are just a ceremony unless the state recognizes it.

In the USA this has nothing to do with having a ceremony in or outside of a Church.  That is up to the Church itself - some Churches do not marry divorced people, or people they know are not virgins, or people of different races.  It is their choice to decide who they want and don't want to marry.  The state can not have any sway over their personal practices. 

I personaly know two priest, on Roman Catholic and one American Catholice that are just happy to marry same sex couples.  But unless that marriage happens in a state that recognizes and issues a marriage license, then it is just a blessing. 

Athiest get married in the states too.

The voting yesterday was about recognizing the civil rights at the state level.  Current at the federal level of the USA it is tied up in courts and their rights are in limbo.

they have a tradition where a women can marry more than one man? what if all the guys want a child do they have to wait for 9 months and then get to impregnate the women? poor women and I guess the men will have to fight over who gets to have their baby first lol

damn there are less males than females yet a women can marry more guys! I suppose it's very rare though

I'm neutral on the subject of same sex marriage

Aren't you gay yourself ?

It's called polyandry, and it is exceedingly rare (for a form of human behavior). I believe Nepal and extremely rural sections of India are the only places where it is practiced today, although there may well be civilizations I'm unaware of.

hahaha I'm surprised how well known that is


if I want to get married I will do it no matter what the rules are so that's why I'm neutral to what the people think

so you do support same sex marriage ?