BBVD is asking a legitimate question. It has nothing to do with hatred as far as I can tell. H2o, do you know him personally and know his agenda aside from his honest (and perhaps a little naive) question??


The question and point made suggest that marriage is essentially a religious institution. The purpose is many fold including forming a strong family unit that is the cornerstone of society and the families within.

Overtime it became clear to societies around the world that aside from the religious aspects, stable marriages and families made for stable communities, economies, and countries.

Clearly marriage is not immune from attack and as the 'lawyer jokes' in this thread indicate, we continue to see the institution lose ground in our society - even in the lives of the religious people who generally feel the strongest about it.

In the end, marriage is not just about 'love'. It is not just about children or families. It is not just about social, legal, or monetary privilege\status. It is about all these things and more. At the core, for those belonging in some way to the Jewish, Christian, and other groups whose religion has helped shape and define (and created) marriage as we know it, it is a sacred and very personal covenant between them and God.

I think the idea that gays somehow need marriage to be equal or happier is complete non-sense.

I think most people who feel strongly about man + woman marriage would quickly choose to give up some of the government\healthcare\taxes\etc 'privileges' that come with being married if that is what it takes to keep the traditional definition of marriage in tact. Marriage should be recognized by churches, families, society\culture - and not government.

Government should be in the business (maybe) of recognizing civil unions - as a way to promote and reward stable families and relationships that are beneficial to our economy, security, etc.

Therefore, if a certain church on capital hill decides to marry a same sex couple, brother and sister, cousins, etc - it is up to that church to make the call. It is up to society and individuals there in to decide how legitimate they think that marriage is.

Most churches will choose support only man + woman marriages based on how they feel their religion\God has created\defined the institution. But this is what freedom of religion is all about - right?

In either case, the gay couple married on Capitol Hill or the hetero couple married in Forks, WA can both apply for state\federal recognized civil unions for tax, health care, and other purposes.


Well, that's my thoughts anyway. I think the gay activists driving this (and their lawyers) would gain a little more respect and ground if they would show a little respect for the those who feel strongly about traditional marriage. Find common ground, seek equal GOVERNMENT recognition, but respect those who have strong religious or cultural feelings. Respecting diversity needs to go both ways...