Same-sex Marriage.

[shadowland]

Because if the society goes away from something as obvious as denying two humans to love each other, that's progress.

though that's just my personal opinion but i guess many people agree with me sense "everyone" calls it so.

Remindes me of a scene i heard about where a family with gay parents " don't remember if it was male or female " went to a swimming pool, and thus they wanted to have the family price of course, though they where not allowed sense according to that person or what not, they where not under the definition of family " One pappa and one mamma"

though they didn't go quietly but toke it all to court and stuff for discrimination, witch they won, so they could go to the swimming pool and of course it brught up alot of attention.

i think that's a perfect example to why i myself at least call it progress.

..fair enough o.o I was just saying that equal rights for everyone and everything isn't like the ultimate goal, and a society's "direction" is not something I'd view as linear as that, but w/e, I'm going off-topic now lol.

[Simba]

Can someone explain to me why two people of the same sex would want to be called a married couple? Why does it have to be called marriage? Why not call it something else? To me it just seems like homosexuals are just wanting to attack Christianity by "getting married." Marriage by definition and the way it has stood up over the past thousands of years has been defined as being between a man and a woman. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot marry, unless they want to try and come up with a new definition for the word marriage which seems pointless to me other then the fact that I see it as an attack and only as an attack.

[saitenyo]

Can someone explain to me why two people of the same sex would want to be called a married couple? Why does it have to be called marriage? Why not call it something else? To me it just seems like homosexuals are just wanting to attack Christianity by "getting married." Marriage by definition and the way it has stood up over the past thousands of years has been defined as being between a man and a woman. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot marry, unless they want to try and come up with a new definition for the word marriage which seems pointless to me other then the fact that I see it as an attack and only as an attack.

This assumes that marriage is only a Christian thing which is extremely incorrect and frankly, a very narrowminded viewpoint. Are Christians the only people you know who get married? What about people of other religions? What about atheists or agnostics? Marriage is not a purely religious institution. It may have religious significance in many religions, but bonding ceremonies have existed since long before Christianity, and in fact were often tied to family politics more than religion originally.

Marriage is the word used to refer to the legal joining of a couple under the law in many English-speaking countries, and in the US, that legal joining is supposed to be a totally separate thing from religion. Religion is not supposed to have any bearing on our government and laws. Already in the US it is a word used to describe a legal joining, not just a religious one, so why are you so offended by the use of that word by gay couples if not other non-Christian couples as well?

So according to your argument, I assume you also feel that anyone who is not Christian should also not be allowed to get legally married, including Jews, Hindus, anyone of any other religion, atheists, and agnostics? Do you feel those groups getting married is also "nothing but an attack" on Christianity?

Marriage means different things to different people. Before assuming that someone else's beliefs and desires are simply an attack on your own, perhaps you should take some time to try to understand cultures and beliefs that are different.

I am not Christian. I am not even religious. Yet I still want to marry some day. I will not have a religious ceremony, but a secular one. I want the legal benefits of marriage under the law to make things easier for me and my partner. I also want a secular ceremony because to me it is a symbolic gesture of pledging oneself to a lifelong monogamous relationship. People can care about symbolic events even without belonging to a particular religion.

And frankly, I think the "Why can't they just call it something else," argument is extremely petty. Why do you care what they call it? Again, I ask, what about atheist couples who get married and call it a marriage? It's very evident that "marriage" is not a term used exclusively to describe Christian (or even religious in general) unions in our society. It has more meanings than that. Are you really so intolerant of different beliefs that you can't even stand other groups using the same word to describe a similar but not religiously-motivated union despite the fact that it's simply a matter of the evolution of language, not any intentional attack on your beliefs?

[Sadiki]

Yeah as stated before marriage been around way before any of the "modern" religions.

Also, me and Audra got married in court. Neither one of us really has strong believes on any greater power, so by what you're saying S'04 we shouldn't have had right to marry either. Thought we are man and woman, but religion has nothing to do with it. Also giving right to marry for couples of same sex is a political not religious question and as religion and politics should never be connected in any way, they way religions see it should not even be involved. If church decides not to give right for people to get married in church, that is fine by me. Most religions are against marriage between same sex couples so as it's against their believes, of course it shouldn't be allowed in such practice, but as in political question, yes, it should be allowed and it should not offend anyone.

[shadowland]

Can someone explain to me why two people of the same sex would want to be called a married couple? Why does it have to be called marriage? Why not call it something else? To me it just seems like homosexuals are just wanting to attack Christianity by "getting married." Marriage by definition and the way it has stood up over the past thousands of years has been defined as being between a man and a woman. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot marry, unless they want to try and come up with a new definition for the word marriage which seems pointless to me other then the fact that I see it as an attack and only as an attack.

As far as the tradition/moral aspect of marriage goes, I'm with this guy, especially with the whole attack thing, but as far as the legal aspect of marriage goes, Idc that much tbh lol.

[saitenyo]

As far as the tradition/moral aspect of marriage goes, I'm with this guy, especially with the whole attack thing, but as far as the legal aspect of marriage goes, Idc that much tbh lol.

Did you read my above reply?

I don't really understand why people don't get this. Do you guys thing gay couples just have this Christian-attack agenda and they've organized this grand scheme to get married just to offend Christians? Doesn't that sound a little ridiculous to you? What would be the motive there?

Why is it so hard to understand that people who may have different beliefs from you may still care about symbolic gestures and ceremonies, and having their loving relationship recognized the same as anyone else's? Do you think morals are solely a Christian thing, and that a couple must be Christian to believe in the symbolism of having a monogamous partnership?

I pose to you the same question I posed to Simba above: Do you think all non-Christians (including straight couples) who get married are just trying to attack Christianity? If not, why do you think they want to marry, and why do you think it would be any different for gay couples?

[Revo]

Even if marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman before, it would simply be inefficient and costly to create an institute entirely separate from marriage which ultimately serves the near exact same purpose. It's just a waste of tax payers' money. Besides, having gay people call their union something other than marriage (like "shmarriage", as has been humorously proposed) is pretty similar to the idea of "Separate But Equal", which was the public policy towards schools for white children and black children in the early 20th century USA. "Separate But Equal" was deemed an unethical policy by the supreme court back then, and I doubt results would be different for the marriage issue today. If they are to be truly equal, then there cannot be a separation.

And it's not like the definition of marriage hasn't changed before. It wasn't too long ago when marriage used to mean a union between a white man and a white woman. Then it got changed. Dictionaries aren't really prescriptive of definitions in the grand scheme of things, they are descriptive. Otherwise there wouldn't have to be new editions made every now and then. Definitions of words change all the time.

And I don't see how gay people getting married in anyway affects or attacks the marriage of straight couples. I can't see how it "corrupts the whole institution of marriage", as I've sometimes heard it said. That's like saying that when slavery was abolished and black people were given basic freedoms, it somehow lessened the value of the freedoms of white men. Or that when women were given the right to vote, it somehow deteriorated the voting rights of men. These arguments are nonsensical. Expanding basic rights to more people does in no way take away from or attack the people that already have said rights.

[saitenyo]

Thank you Revo, for putting it way more eloquently than I did.

[shadowland]

Did you read my above reply?

Yes

Do you guys thing gay couples just have this Christian-attack agenda and they've organized this grand scheme to get married just to offend Christians? Doesn't that sound a little ridiculous to you? What would be the motive there?

I don't know what the motive would be, people are very complex. Rest assured a lot of people are narcissistic too. Besides, nobody said all gay couples are attacking christianity.

And it's not like the definition of marriage hasn't changed before. It wasn't too long ago when marriage used to mean a union between a white man and a white woman. Then it got changed. Dictionaries aren't really prescriptive of definitions in the grand scheme of things, they are descriptive. Otherwise there wouldn't have to be new editions made every now and then. Definitions of words change all the time.

Change is a decision, it's not something out of the control of people, so using that as an argument is kinda silly because you're implying that things must change. And last time I checked, marriage wasn't just a word. We have verbs adjective nouns etc to describe what a word applies to.

And I don't see how gay people getting married in anyway affects or attacks the marriage of straight couples. I can't see how it "corrupts the whole institution of marriage", as I've sometimes heard it said. That's like saying that when slavery was abolished and black people were given basic freedoms, it somehow lessened the value of the freedoms of white men. Or that when women were given the right to vote, it somehow deteriorated the voting rights of men. These arguments are nonsensical. Expanding basic rights to more people does in no way take away from or attack the people that already have said rights.

No it's not at all like saying that when slavery was abolished and black people were given basic freedoms, it somehow lessened the value of the freedoms of white men. The legal denial of marriage is not in any way like the legal enslavement of a man..although some would say marriage is enslavement lol.

Look, at the end of the day, either party in the debate is going to be trodden on and their feelings on the matter disregarded in the end. Gay marriage stays denied in x amount of countries, the gay couples of those countries get shafted. Gay marriage is approved in x amount of countries, the conservative-minded or whatever get their concerns on the matter shafted. Hey ho, equal rights for everyone amirite.

I pose to you the same question I posed to Simba above: Do you think all non-Christians (including straight couples) who get married are just trying to attack Christianity? If not, why do you think they want to marry, and why do you think it would be any different for gay couples?

Wow, massive generalisation there lol. Why on earth would I think that?

I pose a question to you now. I don't control the law on marriage, so do you think going on march as you've done in this thread and getting all up in my face is going to change a thing?

[saitenyo]

I don't know what the motive would be, people are very complex. Rest assured a lot of people are narcissistic too. Besides, nobody said all gay couples are attacking christianity.

But you said you agreed with Simba that gay couples must be wanting a marriage ceremony simply to attack Christianity. You didn't specify that only certain gay couples must want this and explain why you think they do. You just agreed with that broad generalization.

Also if you don't know what the motive would be, why assume that's what they're trying to do at all? Simply out of prejudice or lack of understanding? What causes you to believe this is what they're doing?

Change is a decision, it's not something out of the control of people, so using that as an argument is kinda silly because you're implying that things must change. And last time I checked, marriage wasn't just a word. We have verbs adjective nouns etc to describe what a word applies to.

The issue here seems to be that the same word is used for both a Christian religious ceremony, and a secular joining in western society. This isn't something people are trying to change for the future, this is something that has already happened. The word already refers to two different things. It is already used to refer to the broad joining of couples rather than only a joining within a specific religion. So essentially what you're asking is that we change it retroactively, and remove its broad application, and allow it to only be used to refer to Christian marriages.

I think Revo was implying that language evolves naturally as cultures change. Change is not always an active decision. Evolution occurs in language and culture as a side effect of the progression of time just as it does in biology. And usually when people try to make active decisions to change a word because they've decided they don't like the natural progression of language, it doesn't stick.

Remember "freedom fries?" When a bunch of people decided they didn't wish a snack in America to be called something French, even though that term was not intended as any attack on American patriotism, but simply a term that came into usage via natural language evolution many years ago. It's pretty similar to what you are demanding we do now with the term "marriage." And guess what? No one calls them freedom fries. It didn't stick. There was already a naturally-evolved word for them and people were already used to that word. And I bet the same thing would happen if somehow Christians succeeded at revoking the usage of the word "marriage" for non-Christian unions. Non-Christians have already been calling their unions "marriages" for enough time that this would likely never catch on.

Look, at the end of the day, either party in the debate is going to be trodden on and their feelings on the matter disregarded in the end. Gay marriage stays denied in x amount of countries, the gay couples of those countries get shafted. Gay marriage is approved in x amount of countries, the conservative-minded or whatever get their concerns on the matter shafted. Hey ho, equal rights for everyone amirite.

Except legalizing gay marriage isn't restricting anyone's rights or freedoms. Whereas keeping it illegal is. That's the difference. I fail to see how legalizing gay marriage actually affects any Christian anywhere. The most it can affect them is they can choose to let someone else's personal business bother them. And that's not a legal issue, nor an issue of rights or freedoms. Gay marriage does not prevent them from having their own religious ceremonies in any way. It simply means they have to tolerate couples they don't agree with using the same word they do. It doesn't affect their freedoms in any way and I think it's extremely stubborn and petty to be so bent out of shape about the simple use of a word. It reeks of entitlement.

Christians like that need to get used to the fact that they alone are not running this country. This is supposed to be a country where people of all beliefs are free to practice those beliefs and not have their freedoms restricted by another religion. Christians have gotten used to the comfy feeling of being the majority in this country, and having a lot of policies influenced by their religion. And now that that's changing, I'm not surprised some of them are upset. But sorry, they're not getting any sympathy from me. Complaining that you no longer get your special unique privileges to control the practices of others by your religious beliefs and that you actually have to tolerate others finally getting the same respect and fair treatment is not a valid legal complaint in this country. It, in fact, goes against our constitution.

Wow, massive generalisation there lol. Why on earth would I think that?

Because if you don't think that, you're actually being hypocritical and your argument makes no sense. If you're insisting that your only opposition to gay marriage is that marriage is a word that should refer specifically to Christian-sanctioned unions, then logically you should oppose other non-Christian unions that use the term "marriage" as well, right? The fact that you don't totally nullifies your argument and suggests to me this is simply prejudice against gay couples, specifically, more than anything else. If that is not the case, then please explain why you're contradicting yourself here by feeling it's okay for atheists to get married, but not gay couples, if you believe marriage is only a Christian thing?

I pose a question to you now. I don't control the law on marriage, so do you think going on march as you've done in this thread and getting all up in my face is going to change a thing?

Anyone who votes influences the law on marriage, so yes, I do think speaking my mind is going to help because every person whose mind I can change is one less person keeping these changes from happening.

I am not "going on march" or "getting all up in your face," I am sharing my opinion and asking you to actually defend and logically support your arguments. Which is what anyone should be prepared to do if they want their opinions listened to and respected publicly. I am also attempting to explain to you how others may see marriage as it doesn't seem like you really understand what it means to people who aren't religious, and honestly it was somewhat offensive to suggest that the only reason someone who is not having a religious marriage should even care about marriage is if they want to attack Christianity. As someone who strongly defends the right all people have to practice their own beliefs, to suggest that my wanting a symbolic union of my love for my significant other is really just an underhanded attempt to attack someone else's beliefs is honestly kind of insulting. :/

[Lweek]

From my point of view there is nothing wrong as it doesn't hurt anybody. I think gays could adopt kids if they pass thru some character tests .. same tests as normal couples but slightly different as there are different problematic aspects in gay couples. You know, I saw so many horrible mothers .. yelling at children for being children etc. I think nice gays could be better parents than those stupids from straights. I think sexual orientation is not that much important as the fack if they could give parental love and care. Of course there are some problematic aspects about chicane in the school for fact that her/his parents are gay. But it really depends on community. If they can behave liberally. So I don't doubt about parental quality of gays and lesbians but I doubt about general public where are those stupid parents which transfer their stupidity to their children.

[Askaru]

Because I'm a lion, and scientists have proved that I'm bisexual so I think that is normal. However in nature, where it means who is higher in hierarchy, when live two or more lions in one pride.

But what about people? I never say that beeing bi- or homo- is wrong. But it's versus law of nature ... I mean, that relation ship of the sexes is for reproduction, so I can't underestand these people who are gay or lesbian, why they are such? I think it's fail of society, and the education environment in which they live, because the soul of human could be affected by much and much things, which often don't see. In my humble opinion, here isn't homosexual, only people who were affected by something in their life ...

But I know few homosexuals and I know, that these people are pretty cool, and in many casses are clever and very inteligent, I'm not against it, that they can adopt children.

[shadowland]

But you said you agreed with Simba that gay couples must be wanting a marriage ceremony simply to attack Christianity. You didn't specify that only certain gay couples must want this and explain why you think they do. You just agreed with that broad generalization.

Also if you don't know what the motive would be, why assume that's what they're trying to do at all? Simply out of prejudice or lack of understanding? What causes you to believe this is what they're doing?


The issue here seems to be that the same word is used for both a Christian religious ceremony, and a secular joining in western society. This isn't something people are trying to change for the future, this is something that has already happened. The word already refers to two different things. It is already used to refer to the broad joining of couples rather than only a joining within a specific religion. So essentially what you're asking is that we change it retroactively, and remove its broad application, and allow it to only be used to refer to Christian marriages.

I think Revo was implying that language evolves naturally as cultures change. Change is not always an active decision. Evolution occurs in language and culture as a side effect of the progression of time just as it does in biology. And usually when people try to make active decisions to change a word because they've decided they don't like the natural progression of language, it doesn't stick.

Remember "freedom fries?" When a bunch of people decided they didn't wish a snack in America to be called something French, even though that term was not intended as any attack on American patriotism, but simply a term that came into usage via natural language evolution many years ago. It's pretty similar to what you are demanding we do now with the term "marriage." And guess what? No one calls them freedom fries. It didn't stick. There was already a naturally-evolved word for them and people were already used to that word. And I bet the same thing would happen if somehow Christians succeeded at revoking the usage of the word "marriage" for non-Christian unions. Non-Christians have already been calling their unions "marriages" for enough time that this would likely never catch on.


Except legalizing gay marriage isn't restricting anyone's rights or freedoms. Whereas keeping it illegal is. That's the difference. I fail to see how legalizing gay marriage actually affects any Christian anywhere. The most it can affect them is they can choose to let someone else's personal business bother them. And that's not a legal issue, nor an issue of rights or freedoms. Gay marriage does not prevent them from having their own religious ceremonies in any way. It simply means they have to tolerate couples they don't agree with using the same word they do. It doesn't affect their freedoms in any way and I think it's extremely stubborn and petty to be so bent out of shape about the simple use of a word. It reeks of entitlement.

Christians like that need to get used to the fact that they alone are not running this country. This is supposed to be a country where people of all beliefs are free to practice those beliefs and not have their freedoms restricted by another religion. Christians have gotten used to the comfy feeling of being the majority in this country, and having a lot of policies influenced by their religion. And now that that's changing, I'm not surprised some of them are upset. But sorry, they're not getting any sympathy from me. Complaining that you no longer get your special unique privileges to control the practices of others by your religious beliefs and that you actually have to tolerate others finally getting the same respect and fair treatment is not a valid legal complaint in this country. It, in fact, goes against our constitution.


Because if you don't think that, you're actually being hypocritical and your argument makes no sense. If you're insisting that your only opposition to gay marriage is that marriage is a word that should refer specifically to Christian-sanctioned unions, then logically you should oppose other non-Christian unions that use the term "marriage" as well, right? The fact that you don't totally nullifies your argument and suggests to me this is simply prejudice against gay couples, specifically, more than anything else. If that is not the case, then please explain why you're contradicting yourself here by feeling it's okay for atheists to get married, but not gay couples, if you believe marriage is only a Christian thing?


Anyone who votes influences the law on marriage, so yes, I do think speaking my mind is going to help because every person whose mind I can change is one less person keeping these changes from happening.

I am not "going on march" or "getting all up in your face," I am sharing my opinion and asking you to actually defend and logically support your arguments. Which is what anyone should be prepared to do if they want their opinions listened to and respected publicly. I am also attempting to explain to you how others may see marriage as it doesn't seem like you really understand what it means to people who aren't religious, and honestly it was somewhat offensive to suggest that the only reason someone who is not having a religious marriage should even care about marriage is if they want to attack Christianity. As someone who strongly defends the right all people have to practice their own beliefs, to suggest that my wanting a symbolic union of my love for my significant other is really just an underhanded attempt to attack someone else's beliefs is honestly kind of insulting. :/

Sweet jesus, can you not wall-o-text? Urgh.

"Which is what anyone should be prepared to do if they want their opinions listened to and respected publicly."

Idc if they're not respected.

" Anyone who votes influences the law on marriage, so yes, I do think speaking my mind is going to help because every person whose mind I can change is one less person keeping these changes from happening."

You're not going to change someone's mind when their mind is already made up.


"
I think Revo was implying that language evolves naturally as cultures change. Change is not always an active decision. Evolution occurs in language and culture as a side effect of the progression of time just as it does in biology. And usually when people try to make active decisions to change a word because they've decided they don't like the natural progression of language, it doesn't stick. "

I didn't mention the change of words, stop jumping to conclusions.


"It doesn't affect their freedoms in any way and I think it's extremely stubborn and petty to be so bent out of shape about the simple use of a word. It reeks of entitlement. "

And feeling that a specific group/ethnicity/whatever is entitled to marriage doesn't reek of entitlement?


"
Also if you don't know what the motive would be, why assume that's what they're trying to do at all? Simply out of prejudice or lack of understanding? What causes you to believe this is what they're doing?"

You can feel something is afoot without knowing the motive behind it. And what the f*ck reason would I have to be prejudiced on the issue, I'm bi myself. I'm just not a slave to this issue because I think too many supporters of it are whining instead of making the best of what is currently to be had. Jeez, if you love enough why be desperate for marriage? love is love, its simple. Also I'm offended you assume that my beliefs are led by some illogical prejudice. there are two sides to every coin.


Ok, here I said "Change is a decision, it's not something out of the control of people, so using that as an argument is kinda silly because you're implying that things must change. And last time I checked, marriage wasn't just a word. We have verbs adjective nouns etc to describe what a word applies to."


The issue here seems to be that the same word is used for both a Christian religious ceremony, and a secular joining in western society. This isn't something people are trying to change for the future, this is something that has already happened. The word already refers to two different things. It is already used to refer to the broad joining of couples rather than only a joining within a specific religion. So essentially what you're asking is that we change it retroactively, and remove its broad application, and allow it to only be used to refer to Christian marriages.

I think Revo was implying that language evolves naturally as cultures change. Change is not always an active decision. Evolution occurs in language and culture as a side effect of the progression of time just as it does in biology. And usually when people try to make active decisions to change a word because they've decided they don't like the natural progression of language, it doesn't stick.

Remember "freedom fries?" When a bunch of people decided they didn't wish a snack in America to be called something French, even though that term was not intended as any attack on American patriotism, but simply a term that came into usage via natural language evolution many years ago. It's pretty similar to what you are demanding we do now with the term "marriage." And guess what? No one calls them freedom fries. It didn't stick. There was already a naturally-evolved word for them and people were already used to that word. And I bet the same thing would happen if somehow Christians succeeded at revoking the usage of the word "marriage" for non-Christian unions. Non-Christians have already been calling their unions "marriages" for enough time that this would likely never catch on.

You didnt really answer that one and im kinda confused, and it was very very long.

I'm not even bothering now, urgh

[Lweek]

Because I'm a lion, and scientists have proved that I'm bisexual so I think that is normal. However in nature, where it means who is higher in hierarchy, when live two or more lions in one pride.

But what about people? I never say that beeing bi- or homo- is wrong. But it's versus law of nature ... I mean, that relation ship of the sexes is for reproduction, so I can't underestand these people who are gay or lesbian, why they are such? I think it's fail of society, and the education environment in which they live, because the soul of human could be affected by much and much things, which often don't see. In my humble opinion, here isn't homosexual, only people who were affected by something in their life ...

But I know few homosexuals and I know, that these people are pretty cool, and in many casses are clever and very inteligent, I'm not against it, that they can adopt children.

No it is not. Bisexuality is normal. Personally I believe there is no hetero or homosexuality. There is just behavioral interests in sex. So Let's pretend that You are not interested in reproduction and You more enjoy same sex because You feel more comfortable in such relation. There are like bilions of people on the world. So there is no need for reproduction. I also think it is not a fail at all. I'm more interested in women because I like their differentness and I'm interested in reproduction. So I definitely prefer women but I can understand attractivity of same gender. Both genders have its bonuses and it is only on your personal preference what You are more interested in.

[Askaru]

No it is not. Bisexuality is normal. Personally I believe there is no hetero or homosexuality. There is just behavioral interests in sex. So Let's pretend that You are not interested in reproduction and You more enjoy same sex because You feel more comfortable in such relation. There are like bilions of people on the world. So there is no need for reproduction. I also think it is not a fail at all. I'm more interested in women because I like their differentness and I'm interested in reproduction. So I definitely prefer women but I can understand attractivity of same gender. Both genders have its bonuses and it is only on your personal preference what You are more interested in.

Yep, if you don't want to reproduce..., but we are born to to start another life ... If everybody (animals, flowers etc...) had the same view of reproduction like you described, "because here is millions of the same species," the whole planet will die, couse here will not stay someone who will have child... ... children are our future, we need them, that is my reason for say, that homosexuality is versus law of nature.
Your opinion is right in case that the other (which is now more in population) want to proliferate, otherwise life on Earth has big problem.

[Revo]

I don't know what the motive would be, people are very complex. Rest assured a lot of people are narcissistic too. Besides, nobody said all gay couples are attacking christianity.

Just because you explicitly stated that you don't know what motives gay people would have to get married, I took the liberty to find a list of legal rights that couples receive once they get married.
To not make this post too lenghty, I will link the list here instead of posting them myself: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30190.html
Would you agree that these would be reasonable reasons for the desire to get married, aside from attacking Christianity and traditions?

Change is a decision, it's not something out of the control of people, so using that as an argument is kinda silly because you're implying that things must change. And last time I checked, marriage wasn't just a word. We have verbs adjective nouns etc to describe what a word applies to.

Even if what Saitenyo already pointed out about change not only being the result of conscious decisions but also the result of the evolution of language over time wasn't true (which I think it is), the change is still very reasonable to make.

Consider again my example of the definition of marriage being expanded from people of the same race to people of different races. This was a surely a judicial decision and not something that gradually changed over time. Was it right of them to change it? Of course it was. They made the simple observation that if we are to have a nation in which people are given equal rights and are not discriminated against because of their skin color, then interracial marriages must be allowed. All you need to do is make the same observation regarding to gay marriage. If we are to have a nation in which people are given equal rights and are not discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, then same-sex marriages must to be legal. And if changing a definition of the word "marriage" is what it takes to do that, then that is what must be done.

I don't find this logical conclusion of how things must change silly at all. Do you still find it silly, now that I've provided a more detailed frame of reference?

No it's not at all like saying that when slavery was abolished and black people were given basic freedoms, it somehow lessened the value of the freedoms of white men. The legal denial of marriage is not in any way like the legal enslavement of a man..although some would say marriage is enslavement lol.

Could you explain to me in more detail how these two things are not comparable? Not out of tediousness, but because there really is no difference in my eyes. The way I see it both slavery and illegalization of gay marriage deny part of the population rights which are not denied from the rest, on the basis of things people should not be discriminated for (namely skin color and sexuality, respectively).
This is only of course relating the the argument I stated before that "Allowing gay people to marry insults the marriages of straight people." If this is not the argument you are defending, then you are right that my counter-argument doesn't apply to you.

Look, at the end of the day, either party in the debate is going to be trodden on and their feelings on the matter disregarded in the end. Gay marriage stays denied in x amount of countries, the gay couples of those countries get shafted. Gay marriage is approved in x amount of countries, the conservative-minded or whatever get their concerns on the matter shafted. Hey ho, equal rights for everyone amirite.

As unfortunate as some people may find it, the right to not be offended is not one of the rights provided by the government. I'm sorry to put it this bluntly, but if religious folk get offended for legalizing gay marriage, too bad. Getting offended or having hurt feelings is not a valid motivation for any legislative action or non-action.
Homosexuals however have more of an argument in pointing out that they do not have access to the same rights as straight couples, such as the ones in the link I provided above. And if a nation is to be non-discriminatory against people of different sexual orientation, then they should have access to those rights.

[Lweek]

Yep, if you don't want to reproduce..., but we are born to to start another life ... If everybody (animals, flowers etc...) had the same view of reproduction like you described, "because here is millions of the same species," the whole planet will die, couse here will not stay someone who will have child... ... children are our future, we need them, that is my reason for say, that homosexuality is versus law of nature.
Your opinion is right in case that the other (which is now more in population) want to proliferate, otherwise life on Earth has big problem.

It is scientifically proven that every animals that are too much overpopulated start suiciding themselfs, killing other, refuse reproduction etc. So maybe this is one of the factors. :-) And because people are creatures who enjoy their sexuality, they choose what is more pleasure to them. Sexuality is very interesting topic. I read many books about social impact to sexuality. For example there are tribes in indonesia who believe that older shall learn children how to enjoy sex before marriage with oposite gender. So children are grown teached how to enjoy themselves with same gender. After becoming adult rituals they are free to have sex with both. Same some tribes in africa believe that woman must be able of woman ejaculation before they are ready for marriage. So their mothers teach them how to ejaculate. Very interesting fact is that they learn such practises with easy without any problem. In our society there is many myths about fenomenon of woman ejaculation. Even some book written by "doctors" are sharing myths about this fenomen. There is many very shocking facts about human sexuality nor animal sexuality. For example bonobos chimpanzees enjoying raping even their children. I won't say it is ok as we can understand how painful it is and we are simply able of empathy.

[Askaru]

I never say, that these (for us strange sexual behavior) isn't in nature.
But bonobos, Africas women, and everybody that you mentioned here, eventually have their own child ...
Lion are raping the same sex, but they have cubs ...
Bonobos raping they own kids ... but they have brood.
Every animal species, whether to they behave sexually, still reproducing...

[Lweek]

I never say, that these (for us strange sexual behavior) isn't in nature.
But bonobos, Africas women, and everybody that you mentioned here, eventually have their own child ...
Lion are raping the same sex, but they have cubs ...
Bonobos raping they own kids ... but they have brood.
Every animal species, whether to they behave sexually, still reproducing...

I think people are still quite successful when it comes to reproduction. We are overpopulated. I cannot say why some people decide so because I'm not the one who refuse own reproduction but I'm not worry about this fact. I think it is only good when population stop growing so fast.

[Askaru]

I think people are still quite successful when it comes to reproduction. We are overpopulated. I cannot say why some people decide so because I'm not the one who refuse own reproduction but I'm not worry about this fact. I think it is only good when population stop growing so fast.

I just converted your idea into exaggerated reality and outcome you read.