I'd seen somebody visit perezhilton.com at school before, but I thought the web site was named after Paris Hilton.  I didn't know it was somebody's actual name.

While trying to minimize the amount of feelings we hurt is a nice idea, it's not a good basis for law.  I'm sure Loving v. Virginia hurt a ton of feelings, and so did Brown v. Board of Education and Lawrence v. Texas.  But those laws were about rights, not worrying about who they offend.

And I still don't understand the sanctity of marriage, or why anybody would feel their commitment is lessened.  I don't see how marriages affect each other at all.  My marriage is between me and my wife, and I don't think Massachussetts or Spain or South Africa is making our marriage any less important to us.

All these people just got married at once, and they don't even know each other.

They think mass weddings get them closer to God.

But hey, they think this is God:

I love Sun Myung Moon.  He's so damn nutty.  He called all homosexuals "dung-eating dogs" and said homosexuality is is a madness of the lowest form of the human race.  And then he goes and married 30,000 people to each other at once, like he's taunting them or something.  He also said Jews deserved the Holocaust.

Sorry for going off-topic, but I think Moon needs to be mentioned in any discussion of marriage.

Watch the video starting at the 2:00 mark.

God, this guy makes me sick though. Does he even have a dick? Act remotely like a man! Freakin' drama queen.

These things (among a thousand of others) are making me hate liberals and gay activists and the same 'holier than thou' type of people.

And they're so unaware of their hypocrisy that it's pathetic.

Wtf? Explain.

Here is where they show their hypocrisy. They scream and cry out for their 'liberalism' and "equality" but when someone believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman they start to boo you and call you a bigot and an idiot, and a homophobe and a "bible-toter" and all that other bull. It's really disgusting.

I think it's worse than hypocrisy though, I think those people (gay rights activists and such) are just wicked and revolting in the way they think, but that's besides the point, that's just me.

By eating meat they're doing a bigger atrocity themselves than what they are condemning others of doing.

I agree entirely. Although I would like to believe all liberals aren't like this..

Oh come on slimebeast.  We should stick to the marriage issue, and not turn this into "the hypocrisy of liberalism."  I could just as easily take every right-wing radical fringe group, and say that they prove "the hypocrisy of conservativism."  And what does eating meat have to do with anything?  Must all liberals be vegetarians or hypocrites?

I think the people who want to limit marriage to a religious institution are literally calling themselves "holier than thou."  People are saying they don't want non-religious people to get married at all, because... it's only holy and not for anybody else.  There was just a guy on Colbert who said atheists shouldn't get married unless they get baptized.  People are telling me I shouldn't be married because I'm an atheist.  What I'm saying is that that's okay.  I will tolerate it.  It's a matter of faith and I have no say in it.  I don't want to change churches.

But the churches shouldn't want to change my laws.  The legal definition of marriage needs to be extended to everybody.  The churches can recognize whatever they want.  Mormons have retroactive baptisms for dead people (as far as they're concerned, Einstein and Hitler are now Mormons), and some churches even do retroactive marriages for dead people.  Those aren't legally binding.  The church and the government already treat divorces differently, so I don't see how having the church and the government treat marriages differently will be any worse.

The main issue here is that some people perceive marriage to be a strictly religious institution, and some believe it to be a secular institution.

Personally, I believe it to be a religious institution, and the only reason the government has any say in the matter is because government and religion centuries ago were intrinsically linked.

The only reason the government even involves itself with marriage at this point is for tax and social service purposes.

I think that government should completely rid itself of its involvement with marriage, instead utilizing civil unions for all. If to people want to be united for whatever reason (taxes, child bearing, what have you), then so be it. This would also allow, for example, a pair of old ladies that live together in a completely non-romantic way to get all the tax benefits a typical couple might have. Marriage, however, should be dealt with entirely by each of the specific religions out there. Catholics will allow who they will to be married, same goes for other Christians, Islamists, etc. If a new Church arises that performs homosexual marriages, then they can do that.

Ultimately, it's a matter of a separation of Church and State. In my mind, marriage has always been a religious institution, and the government should have no involvement in such matters.

How does being insulting go against equality? You can insult me, I can insult you, we'll all have a good time with our equal right of free speech. As for insulting them with the words bigot, idiot, homophobe, or bible toter...

I don't think all people who are against gay marriage are bigots. They're just illogical. I do think people against gay marriage are idiots however, as they try to support their position with cultural or religious bias, rather than with a coherant line of logic. There's no reason to oppose gay marriage other than to support cultural or religious bias, and those are both terrible reasons. Equality is a much better standard to follow than social or religious tradition. Homophobe doesn't really fit as an insult... Well it might, they are afraid of gays getting married because *somehow* it will ruin straight marriages. I've never heard it explained how gay marriage devalues a straight persons marriage. As for people getting called bible toters, they deserve it if they're using a biblical argument, or if their religion is the only reason they oppose it.

Explain how the way they think is revolting. I find the way they think firmly grounded in logic, even though some do have hostility. I think the hostility is justified however, because their hostility is towards people who want to promote injustice.

EDIT: I'm not against people who think all marriage should be abolished. I agree with that. Either everyone can get married, or everyone can get civil unions. It's only fair.