Serapheart, your argument is useless until you actually explain what is special about marriage between a man and a woman. IT's not a law of the universe, and it really doesn't matter if it's a tradition. Removing the female clitoris is a tradition in some places...

Also, your view has *not* been since the beggining of humanity, only the beggining of some humanities. There's been tribes and cultures that have allowed gay marriage. Why should we take the example of the less open, less tolerant societies, instead of taking the example of the societies that allowed it? You say we have no idea what marriage is? What makes you so special that you get to define it?

I was comparing the uphill civil rights battles of gays to the uphill civil rights battles of other races, sexes, and people who want to marry across racial lines.  Sorry if that was somehow too off-topic for you.  Ya know, doing research and using history.  How can we even argue without doing that?

You're the one who keeps saying "it's been only this way always forever," which is dead wrong, and I've proven it wrong several times with historical examples where marriage was different or even gay marriage was accepted and celebrated, and you keep ignoring it.

Please feel free to point out exactly how and where I'm being a hypocrite or intolerant.  Sorry if I don't tolerate the denial of equal rights under a secular government in a nation with a separation between church and state.  Were abolitionists intolerant because they wouldn't tolerate the slavery of others?

I stoped using terms like always the moment you pointed out isolated and largely irrelevant incidents of homosexual "marriage" occuring.  Of course what you actually 'proved' was simple ceremonies of partnership, but I am sure you're correct that some sort of gay marriage would have occured in the past in some small corner of the globe.  You can find an example of anything if you look hard enough.

What you fail to conceptualise through your ridiculous holier than thouh exterior on ANY level is that most people simply don't agree that the question of gay marriage as a definitional issue is in any way a rights issue.  Marriage is an institution that is ideologically based on love between a man and a woman.  It's simply a part of the definition.  It does not make room for homosexual relationships. 

You're not debating with someone who argues for relgious dictation of how our society operates.  The vast majority of humanity does not consider this a rights issue at all.  If you want to argue that homosexuals need more economic and social rights worldwide to bring them on par with heterosexuals I'm right there with you.  But your ridiculous attempts to frame the debate in terms of slavery and race are a sign of weakness in your argument, and a classic left-wing tactic to distract from the issue at hand.

@Sepiroth

If you're black and know discrimination, then you should know better than to discriminate against other people. Gay people not being able to marry is the exact same thing as denying interracial couple the right to marry. Please tell me where anybody says gay people are "special?" We only want the same rights as everyone else.

There is no causal link between race and homosexuality issues.

Marriage is a definitional term that refers to the union of a man and a woman.  That definition has extreme importance to the majority of humanity.  Not one "right" is being argued against by a single person in this thread as far as I can see.

You're simply requesting something that simply doesn't apply to the homosexual community, and you make the request at the expense of arguably the most important instition on the planet.

And as has already been pointed out, special or not, you're actually requesting different rights.  Currently, (in civil union countries ESPECIALLY) we all have the same one ones.  You're just less happy with them than most.

So is your entire argument that we can't change definitions?  Because if that's your argument, they already did in a few other countries and states, and we have done so in the U.S. several times.  And I could just say "study linguistics for half a second" to see how fast definitions change.

I want equal rights for everybody, and I don't care who's tolerant or intolerant about anything.  You can refuse to recognize any marriages you want, and so can I, and so can every single religion and church and person and family out there.  But the United States government should not.  If that requires a definition change that bothers some people, so be it.  It won't insult their marriage, and if it does, I would like to know precisely how and why.

And I would like to know how I'm being hypocritical and what I'm "failing to understand" and how I'm being "holier than thou."  I want marriages for everybody or civil unions for everybody.

Umm, so what you're saying Star, is that marriage is somehow different than ceremonies of partnership? Now you've lost me.

It doesn't matter what the majority thinks, it is a rights issue, not a definition issue.

Certaintly you have no right to define it then, so we should all leave it alone, eh? You know, the way it was/is...

But seriously arguing with you about this would be pointless. The internet isn't the right place for this kind of arguing, you are on the complete opposite side of an extremely contraversial debate. I can see now that any hopes of me trying to convince you (or vise versa) would be completely futile. Not here at least.

The topic at hand however, that I can argue with. It's the original topic, one that we have strayed from. Is Miss California a victim for believing that marriage is meant for a man and a woman? No she is not, and many are hypocrites to say that she is.

Normally I would say "God help us all", but I've come to believe that God waits until a nation is completely wrought with sin before he steps in to destroy it, and rather than make the people do "his will" he watches his Christians fight and fail for it. All so that he can judge a nation more harshly.

So if you want me to stop going against gay marriage you never will. As long as I'm alive there will be a outspoken contender of such an atrocity. But what i'm asking is that we at least be fair and equal. Doesn't she have the right to be Christian? So doesn't she have the right to be raised and believe in that christian value of proper marriage? This trully is a terrible, terrible world.

I'm not trying to concince you of my side, I really just have an interest in the oppositions logic, and would like to learn how it makes sense to them. I strive for understanding.

Now if your argument is religious, I can easily understand it even though I highly disagree with it. Your book says it's wrong. But with secular arguments, anti-gay marriage people don't seem to have any logic, all they seem to do is use the "appeal to tradition" fallacy.

Anyone has the right to believe in anything they want, and follow any traditions they want, but they can't force it upon others if it's unfair.

There are a great many black homosexuals who disagree with you, and they don't see a difference between the people who hate them for their race and the people who hate them for their sexuality.  A black gay man could easily tell you that you don't know shit about discrimination like he does, and tell you you're "nothing special" the way you're talking down to gays right now.  When there are black gay men protesting the gay jokes of Eddie Murphy, yes there is a huge intersection of race, gender, and sexuality.

The modern American gay rights and women's rights movements grew directly out of the Civil Rights movement.