I think where the difficulty in comming to an appropriate "solution" to gay marriage is the fact that there is (at least) two distinct definitions of marriage which support opposite positions on the issue.

The "Traditional" definition of marriage more or less relates to a man and a woman entering into a partnership in order to raise children with legitimate paternity. This is the predominant view of marriage throughout the world, and has been the predominant view of marriage throughout history, and a relationship that can not generate children does not make sense under this definition ... A man declaring he is menstrating makes as much sense as two men declaring they're married under this definition.

The "Romantic" definition of marriage really started to exist as literacy increased, and then exploded as Hollywood brought movies into everyone's life. Essentially, under this definition two people enter into marriage as the ultimate symbol of their romantic love for eachother. Under this definition any two people entering into marriage makes sense as long as they love eachother and sexual preference doesn't matter.

The western world has moved more and more towards the "Romantic" definition of marriage for a couple of generations which has its good sides (a much more loving and romantic relationship) and its bad sides (far greater divorce rates). At the moment people who hold each definition are (roughly) equal in size and until something changes there will be people on both sides who try to enact legislation to support their view of marriage.

I agree wholeheartedly. Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a government act. It should hold no bearing whatsoever. I further this point to allow people to be chosen to be added to legal documents without marriage - like a live-in girlfriend to be able to be added to your medical insurance plan so they have coverage too. The legal binds of marriage shouldn't be only for people that are married.

So a guy married to a barren woman should divorce her because his marriage makes no sense if you use the "traditional" definition of marriage?

gays will have to fight if they want right they desvered

No, they should not divorce. They should not be allowed to marry in the first place. Only those who have the ability to reproduce should receive the right to marriage.

But how could they know? They're not supposed to have sex before marriage?

Sure thru history you have had blights on this bond but for the whole it has been a blessing to those that are willing to make compromises and give it their all

The two greatest days in my life are the first night of my marriage when I held my wife and knew that for all of my life to my last breath I will strive to make you happy, and I was blessed in the knowledge that she will honor me with that commitment as well

The second was in the hospital when I held my daughter a product of this union and knew that no matter what I had another being on this planet I would gladly give my life up for

That is why I find this little conflict so tragic

The idea of marriage has been around long before the foundations of my faith we laid in place however, the practice of marriage as it is being sought here is the one mine and other faiths have fought to establish

I see it as this,

Marriage was this grand home that despite certain crowds mocking and tarnishing was a wondrous affair. Religion moved in and worked to really make the place a life long dream. Fresh paint, new windows, a two car garage and so forth.  Sure, along the way bad ideas were put in place, I mean who really thought leopard print wallpaper would work? But overall the home was welcoming.

Now you have a group seeking to take the house and use it as a place how they see fit and few summer vacations. So they approach the government, “I demand you force them to give us what we want” the government offers them this second home that is everything the first is but with a different paint on the outside.   “no sir that is not good enough we want that one make them give up something they have been working hard on to us so that we can use it as well”

So now the government is being forced into a situation that leaves them only one option “sorry religion I have no choice your right to the practices and traditions that you have fostered and developed and worked togther are not going to be yours any longer”

I like how my post that gave a very brief and non offensive explanation for why gays should be given the word "marriage" has been ignored.

Either they should be given the word marriage or they should be given civil unions and have civil union mean the same thing as marriage by a legal standpoint.

The former seems like the simpler solution. The fact that in some places they aren't even given a civil union is what is particularly disturbing.

^i think that is wrong, this country is not a religious based one and should not deny legal rights based on such

but i think civil unions should also get some of the baggage that comes with marriage


if a couple ends a civil union do they have to do the whole divorce thing?

A fertililty test would be required before any couple is granted a certificate of marriage.