Originally posted here by THE RADICAL
Surely you will of course claim that these laws of kindness are not soley religious and we're founded under common principle and ethics
Probably the most sensible part of a very nonsensical post. Considering that a great deal of your post was false, could this not then be the case? Your country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, to the extent that these ran parallel to common principles and ethics. It does not mean that the Ten Commandments is the law. A Christian might feel that adultery is wrong, but if someone wants to sleep around, is it any of their business? I would say that adultery and homosexual marriage are similar inasmuch as they are both things which some Christians find distasteful and inappropriate from a religious view - however adultery is legal while homosexual marriage is not.

I don't understand why people think that legal marriage for homosexuals is wrong. If it is a legal construct, which allows several advantages over living as a de facto couple, then it should be available to homosexuals. I don't know why these points are so hard to concede.

Question on marraige, is it a religious instatution or a secular one? if it is a religious one, why do Ihave t obuy a licenese, and why do I get special advantages under tax and insurance laws. If it is religious all legal advantages and disadvantages (includeing legal devorice) should go away.

On the other hand if it is a purly legal contract between two adults then why can't two gay people get married, restricting marraige by gender (if it is a social/legal contract) is discrimination and illigal.

If it is both, well then the US instatution of marrige is unconstitutional as it breakes the seperation of church and state.
No-one's bothered addressing this except for rcgreen. I think it pretty much perfectly summarises why legal marriage for homosexuals should be an option in light of your separation of church and state.