I'd like to point out that even if religion was somehow responsible for creating marriage, it should have no say in which marriages the government recognizes as legal. When I make the claim that gay marriage should be legal, I don't really care if any churches recognize it or not.

PoorSmeagol83 :

For the most part I agree with and appreciate your post.

However, I do have to disagree when you say that our means of communication never changes and oppose the idea of changing a word's definition. In fact, the entire field of etymology is dedicated to studying the history of words and how their definitions change over time. It's also probably worth noting that online forums are considered a means of communication. While it's not really what you meant, it does help show that communication has evolved quite a bit, even recently.

PoorSmeagol83 : I have read over your arguments, and I have considered them, to which I offer these rebuttals. They have been numbered to correspond with your paragraphs from top to bottom.

1. Your statement falls under the assumption that marriage is a right that must be given to all people. Obviously, I disagree. I believe God defined it when He created Eve (Genesis 2:18-24). Under this claim, marriage does pre-date religion and, therefore, Christianity is not merely religion. By the way, my choice of defining religion can be found on Dictionary.com, definition #1.

2. Race is a man-made idea that attempted to define people based on the color of skin, but we know now that there is no difference. Disallowing people to marry those of other religions is still carried out today despite no laws being in place. Muslims in the Middle East will kill anyone who even converts to Christianity --just for one example.

3. The definition you gave still shows something quite clear. Gay marriage is not the same as traditional marriage --only traditional marriage is recognized by law. If they were, then there would be only one definition that does not even ask what the person's sex is. Instead traditional marriage is put in front of gay marriage, and that is only because it recognizes today's trend in society. And, in all irony, just because you think marriage was not defined by God does not mean you can force my set of beliefs to adjust for it. Changing language is quite the crime. Changing the language of what constitutes sinning violates God's Laws, and that is one way that leads me to sin against Him. God said in the ten commandments "You shall not commit adultery." Jesus came and gave us a more exact answer. "Whoever looks upon a woman and lusts with his eyes has committed adultery in his heart." Under this law, I am just guilty of sinning for pornography just as much as anyone else would be for any other sexually immoral relationship.

4. I realize now that I completely miss-worded my statement here. The world is not against me, but it is against Jesus. The more it turn against Him, the more the world will hate me for following Him. That was clearly spelled out in Matthew 24:9-14. Christians will be persecuted and hated; put to death. Some will turn from their faith and betray others. False prophets will appear and deceive many. With the increase in wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stand firm to the end will be saved. (Verses were shortened here. Click the link in green.) Also, I never accepted Jesus into my heart as a crutch. I accepted Him because I know what it means to learn and how to think for myself.

5. Back to 2 Timothy 3:16, and add 17 as well. "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be fully equipped for every good work." What I do must be done in righteousness. If I screw up, I allow others to step forward and correct me. But if someone else is screwing up, I need to be the one that steps forward to correct them. I won't always have an answer, but that is exactly what learning is for. And even when I cannot find the answers, I choose to keep the faith --which is the belief of the things unseen (Hebrews chapter 11).

If we were in the same room I would reach out for a hand shake.

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'..." - The Supreme Court of the United States, Loving v Virginia.

I just don't understand why people feel the need to get involved in what people do in their PERSONAL lives. It really makes no sense. Why would you want to stop a man from marrying another man if that is who they care about? I mean I'M not the one that has to be married to them, what concern is it of mine?

AuraBlaze : I would, of course, accept the handshake. For what sort of world would this be were it that two persons could not agree to disagree.

Just a few thoughts that come to mind for your consideration, however.

Even though I know most people of faith are steadfast in their belief that all in the Bible is factual and irrefutable, I must suggest that you at least attempt to find other sources aside from the Bible to substantiate your beliefs. Especially with so much doubt being cast upon the validity of the Bible in the eyes of so many, it could only further your cause if you were able to cite something that isn't Biblical in nature.

Thank you for shedding more light upon the 'world turning against me' statement. I can see now where it was you were coming from and would gladly recant a large portion of the paragraph regarding that statement.

I cannot disagree with you in regards to the definition of 'marriage'. Despite the fact that I feel both definitions should be merged into one, we still live in a world where each is regarded separately and only one is recognized by law. I will say this though. Just because the definition of traditional marriages is placed first, that doesn't mean it is regarded, in a linguistic sense, as the most correct. There are two ways that can determine the way in which definitions are placed. The first is how common each usage of the word is. The second is historic chronology. It all depends on which edition of the dictionary you are using. Since traditional marriages are more common than homosexual marriages, and since traditional marriages logically came first, then that definition will always be placed first in any good dictionary. Take my word as an English Major that specialized in the field of Linguistics that this is very much the case.

Speaking of which...

@soxfan
Indeed, you are right about the field of etymology. However, instances of words changing are far less common than one might guess. In most cases, a word doesn't lose any definition, if just gains new ones through slang or association. The most common place to find words whose definitions were altered is in translation from one language to another. Here, definitions can become vague and start to jumble together a bit. Mistranslation is the bane of our existence, I feel.

I don't really have any problems with gay marriage but the topic does make some questions arise .

Who gets to wear the dress and get the big diamond?
How do they do the bouquet toss and girder toss? Throw both of them to men only? lol
I'm too scared to even think about how the honeymoon goes down.

Ok I actually have a serious question.

Why would Gay people want to get married anyways? It seems like it would be very open minded people having a ceremony that represents close mindedness.

Marriage, as far as I'm concerned, is a direct result of religions... the exact same religions that persecute them. I see nothing wrong with gays and lesbians wanting to spend their lives together, but I just find it odd and almost ironic that they would choose to get married.

I really don't see any problem with homosexuality. From my point of view, love and desire have no boundaries, I see nothing wrong with Gay marriage or anything related to it.

PoorSmeagol83 :

But there are words that have changed, even without the cause being a translation. And my opinion there is nothing wrong with that.

I do, however, take exception to people just making definitions out of thin air to fit their argument, or ignoring definitions because they're inconvenient. But if culture weeds out a definition, or changes the meaning of a word entirely, I see no problem with that.

smotpoker86 :

There are a lot of legal benefits that married couples can enjoy which homosexuals cannot. And the origin of marriage predates recorded human history, so it's impossible to say that they come from religion. Besides, legal marriage has very little to do with religion. Very few people would want to force churches to recognize gay marriage.

soxfan849 :
What exactly are these legal benefits? The only thing I can think of is receiving a tax refund/break. Fair enough, some butt buddies want to sign a contract so they can pay less money. Perhaps this is why gay people like to adopt children as well...

You do realize that religion also predates recorded history so it is entirely possible that our concept of marriage stems from religion.

smotpoker86 :

Ignoring the obvious reason to want to marry, denying homosexuals these benefits just because they're gay is pretty messed up. And I do have to say that I find your blatant ignorance and unwillingness to even take five seconds from your day to perform a simple google search before making such an unreasonable claim to be a tad ridiculous. A few of the biggest benefits include hospital visitation rights and the ability to make medical decisions for your spouse if needed. You can look up the rest on your own.

And were I to guess, I'd assume that most homosexuals want to adopt so that they can raise a family...

I also never said religion didn't create the concept of marriage. I simply said that it's impossible to claim that because we don't know.

smotpoker86 : If you think marriage is just some easy way to get a tax break, I recommend you read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

I'm not actually sure what country you are from, but you can easily find the rights and responsibilities of marriage for pretty much any country with Google.

And unless you are living in a theocracy, marriage is a secular affair mandated by the government. Religion really has no bearing on receiving a marriage license.

soxfan849 : No one is denying these benefits to gay people. Gay people have just as much ability to get married as everyone else (to the opposite gender of course).

Let's for a second pretend that gay marriage is recognized by law (which it actually is in my country) and that they have special benefits that are excluded from traditional marriages. Now I am heterosexual and have no inclination to marry some one of the same sex, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from gaining these benefits. If I wanted to get these benefits then I could just go and get gay married. I am not saying gays and straight people have equal rights in terms of marriage, just that there is nothing that denies them these benefits

In my opinion, the real problem lies with married people getting benefits that the rest of the population are excluded from. Mostly just the economic benefits (which according to the site Traduweise linked seems to make up a large chunk of them)  and not the more family orientated ones as I view  as being part of the territory. Why should married people be able to transfer ownership of property without paying taxes while single people do have to pay? Why should married disabled veterans receive more benefits than single disabled veterans? Why should spouses have special visitation rights?

Those questions aren't meant to be answered as much as they are meant to make you think. In my opinion it is just as wrong to give married people special  privileges that single people don't get as it is to give straight people privleges that gay people don't get.

Sorry for assuming gay people want the economic benefits. Truth is gay people want to get married so they can visit their partner in the hospital and decided what medicine they will take.

Traduweise :
I live in Canada and we are fortunate enough to have equal rights for gay people wanting to get married. Now the USA isn't so lucky, and for the most part I believe it is because of how religious that country is. Governments may operate secularly but you have to understand that politicians may very well have their religious background influencing their decisions. They also try to appeal to the majority of people to help ensure their position in government is both attained and sustained. When the majority of people are Christian they will try to appeal to them more so than they would to other groups.

Religion may not directly be issuing marriage liscenses but they do directly influence the people who create the laws about marriage licenses. Try saying "Religion really has no bearing on receiving a marriage license" to a group of people picketing with signs that say "god hates fags" and see what they think about that.

smotpoker86 : the government in scotland just aproved plans to legalise same sex marriage, most of the churches oposed it and are staging rallys, claiming that 68% of scots were oposed, funny since oficial consultation showed only 1/3 of scots disaproved.
1 christian minister stated that it was undemocratic because it ignored the majority (using his weird figuers).
Id say undemocratic is treating people different based on insignificant things. Like in the us when they had the 'seperate but equal laws', some people being more 'equal' than others.
Then there was a guy talking for the church saying there was overwhelming evidence that gay marriage is overwhelmingly bad for the health and welbeing of gays. Oddly enough he never bothered presenting any of this evidence.
Progress is being made, 1 nation at a time.
I dont know if any eu countries even have it legalised.

I'm against gay/lesbian marriage.  Have you ever thought about what happens after you die?  I'll tell you.  You will go see God, and He will judge you for your crimes.  You and I have sinned, we all fall short of the infinite perfection of our creator.  We have sinned, so we will go to Hell, Eternal punishment.  Once you die, your path is set.  However, God sent His only Son to be crucified and die to pay the debt for our sins, yours and mine, so we can go be with Him forever in Heaven.  Heaven is perfect, unimaginably so.  God sent His Son, the perfect sacrifice, so we can be with Him forever.  He has set some guidelines for while we live on this earth though, which are not to be broken.  Among them is do not have sex with the same sex.  Diseases such as AIDS come from relationships outside of God's guidelines.

mrfe :
Read isaiha 45:7.
'i create light and darkness.i create evil. I the lord do all these things'
So god made gays?
And isnt man made in gods image?wouldnt that make god...
Im an atheist so i guess hell awaits. But to be fair, its really cold here and who can afford gas these days, hells starting to sound good.

smotpoker86 : Naturally, but Canada is also a predominantly Christian nation with Christian leaders, and it enacted same sex marriage (although Harper tried to get rid of it and failed). It goes without saying there is pressure from people, but I am simply pointing out that legally, marriage has nothing to do with religion unless one is living in a theocracy. The only people with signs saying "God hates fags" are Fred Phelps and his friends, and they are just trying to piss people off.

In one sense, there certainly is an unfair advantage for people who are married, which is just another reason to let homosexuals marry and gain those rights as well. Of course two people of the same gender can defraud the government and marry just for the legal benefits, but the thing is, two people of the opposite gender can already do that. Same sex marriage levels the playing field in that regard as well.

I don't really have much opinion of it, my sister is lesbian, so I am fine with it.

Personally I don't really care either way. Apart from the legal benefits, all it does is have you take an extra step towards saying you love each other. You both already know it, so why do you need to go through a ceremony just to prove it to everyone else? I should be for it since I'm gay, but I just don't care that much. The only reason I have to support it is the concept of equal rights.

I support it. I think they should be able to get actually married. There are some places in the states that have "UNIONs" instead of marriage and some that don't even allow it. Honestly I believe that they should be treated just like normal people. For example, people ask "are you gay?" and rarely ask, "are you straight?"

The problem is that this subject is incredibly hard to judge. On one hand, humans are all different, have different needs, have different wants. It may be that being gay is irreversible and unpreventable, at which point it is hopeless to argue against gay people getting married, because they will never change anyway else. On the other hand, most religions of the world are against gay marriage because marriage was intended to be between a man and a woman- it was intended for procreation. Because gays cannot procreate, gay marriage is invalid by most religions of the world. And I'm sorry to say that I agree with them. I have sympathy for gays, as they are stuck as they are with no place to go. But I will also say that nobody should ever criticize them for being gay, because that is similar to criticizing a cat for having hair. It's just who they are.