Yes

Nice to see a reply that totally dismisses what these people believe in order to please another group.

Yes marriage may not have started out as a relgious term but they took it up many years ago to signify a sacret bond between man and woman when msot athiasts couldn't give a fuck about marriage. Same could be said for white people who invaded america and took the land from the Indians. I don't see Americans handing over their land back just because it wasn't theirs to begin with.

Also you are asking people to change their ways of thinking that has been in place for centuries. After all same could be said about people and guns in America. Where I live guns are stupid and pointless yet in America it is part of the culture. Look at all the uproar Obama had when he wanted to change a guns policy. 

So why is it so hard for people to compramise and accept everyone has different beliefs? Like what is the main goal of getting the term marriage for gay people apart from pissing other people off?

It is? Not in all states afaik.

Anyways, yes and no. Yes, because any opposition  to same sex marriage in the States (and western world to an extent) exist only among relatively religious people and parties, which is sad. I remember there was a thread created by the guy with Kim Il-sung avatar, where he wondered if there's any reasonable argument against same sex marriage outside religion -- his confusion is understandable as there're no strong opposition to it outside often oppressed religious groups in his media-reality. Yet there's indeed a correlation between being religious and have anti-gay sentiements in general, but with few notable exceptions:

It's not "the Christians". It was cultural. The culture is just changing.

Minorities are more likely than Whites to disapprove of same sex marriage than Whites. Considering that religous Christian extremists are a small minority I wouldsay it is just the religious in general holding it back and more like non-whites.

Because marriage doesn't belong to Christianity, period. Many other religions and theological stances have been using the term and concept for ages. Before Christianity ever came to be. Should we now tell them they can't use it, not even just in the US but around the world, because Christians cried about it? Don't even talk to me about compromise when many of these Christians want nothing of the sort. The whole point of calling it something different is to deny the idea in some way, shape, or form to the gay community for being able to be considered married. So that's no better than what you're suggesting because they had no problem with it really when it was non-Christian straight couples. They even want to deny them the same kind of benefits that you get for being able to say you're married. There are significant differences between a piece of land where people live and an ideal and you know that. Having people change their ways of thinking that has been in place for centuries? How terrible. Because surely Christians have never been guilty of such a thing nor do they continue to be, right? I suppose we should have been more careful about slavery and women's rights because that was asking people to change their centuries-old ways of thinking. 

What are these so called benefits? I here everyone talk about this but they never define them.

They are already recognised as couples, and thus are subject to the same benefits and paying the same taxes etc as straight couples.

Comparing gay marriages to slavary is like comparing apples and oranges. One is a humane issue the other is trivial just like guns it would seem in america.

maybe.. although most americans are christian extremists when compared to most other catholic/protestant countries..

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. Until Section 3 of the Act was ruled unconstitutional in 2013, DOMA, in conjunction with other statutes, had also effectively barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, or receiving federal marriage benefits.

Initially introduced in May 1996, DOMA passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in September 1996. By defining "spouse" and its related terms to signify aheterosexual couple in a recognized marriage, Section 3 codified non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, social security survivors' benefits, immigration, bankruptcy, and the filing of joint tax returns, as well as excluding same-sex spouses from the scope of laws protecting families of federal officers (18 U. S. C. §115), laws evaluating financial aid eligibility, and federal ethics laws applicable to opposite-sex spouses.^[1]:23–24

Clinton – along with key legislators – later advocated for DOMA's repeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had concluded Section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law while it existed, it would no longer defend it in court. In United States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.^[1]

On July 18, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which had mounted a defense of Section 3 when the administration declined to, acknowledged that in Windsor "[t]he Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3's constitutionality" and said "it no longer will defend that statute".^[2]

- from the wikipedia

If it's so trivial then it shouldn't be an issue for them to accept it then, should it? It was still an example of centuries-old thinking that so many people were fine with until it was challenged and they eventually had to give it up. Along with the rights of women and racial minorities in various nations. They survived the just truly terrible transition of having to give up their bullcrap. Calling something 'tradition' is pretty much just a way for cowards to avoid having to defend it with any actual merit or reason.

Its not just the Christians. If all religious types shut their mouths things will be fine. I fear for gays in the middle east with Muslims just like I fear for a woman who wants to have rights. The religous are backwards in thought. The only thing forcing Christians forward is culture aided by education with arts and sciences. Christians are adapting themselves to the culture showing they are willing to skew their belief in order to live with the times. Look at the TV channels. They will do anything to stay in power even though cultural movement is pushing forward regardless of their two thousand+ year old beliefs. We're moving pretty fast in education, military & science for a world thats only been around five-six thousand years, don't you think?