Dicks!

How about we just abolish marriage all together? People can live with whomever they want, but we don't need legal recognition for a personal relatinship. If marriage has its roots in religion, then government has no business in it. Make it a purely religious thing with no legal affect.

Of course, interracial marriages have been going on since the beginning of marriage itself. Gay marriage? Not so much. Not the best comparison.

Logan 5,
An analogy need not have every quality in kind to remain an analogy. Attitudes towards interracial marriages, just like those towards gay relations, have varied by culture historically. It's about rights, turd brain.

Spartacus, that's a very interesting point. When exactly throughout history has the culture towards gay marriage ever varied? And by "throughout history", I mean beyond the last few years? Oh wait, you said "gay relations". That's a clever way of avoiding the fact that gay marriage has never existed you butt munch.

Additionally, some of our earliest records of marriage involve the Greeks, many of whom married for status and procreation while maintaining openly homosexual relationships.

And by records, I mean actual written accounts by the people involved on the nature of their relationships. Not just marriage certificates, or their equivalent, which don't really tell us what was actually going on behind closed doors.

You might also want to consult the Theodosian Code before you go on about how gay marriage, and the Christian backlash to it, is somehow a new phenomenon.

Wow, I have read books on the Theodosian Code and nowhere did I ever see where it condones gay marriage or even homosexuality at all. In fact, Theodosous himself declared homosexuality an act punishable by death. Are there different versions out there?

Excellent! You seem to be referring to section 9.7.3, which begins "cum vir nubit in feminam" and ends with "exquisitis poenis subdantur infames." Now my Latin is not as great as I would like it to be, but that last bit is clearly "find, punish, place under infamy." So yes there was punishment involved.

But what about the first bit? Well, we have "cum" or "when" and "vir" which is "man/husband" and "nubit" which is "marry" and then lastly we have "in feminam" which your going to have accept is "in the manner of a woman"

So here we have "when a man marries in the manner of a woman." Don't feel bad, Christian translators tend to translate things they don't like to the word "homosexuality."

Atomic: nice point. All that's missing is your logic explaining why "the greeks did this, so we must do this also" which, in a sidebar, explains why we must do some, not all (like slavery and infanticide) the things the greeks did.

Well YouKnowWho, I was responding to this gem: "Of course, interracial marriages have been going on since the beginning of marriage itself. Gay marriage? Not so much. Not the best comparison." So my original point was simply that the concept of socially legitimate gay relationships (which would be the equivalent to a modern marriage) have existed for quite some time.

Why must we do "all, not some" of the things the Greeks did? We don't have to, obviously. But the homosexual relationship is not a Greek thing, it's a human thing. Plenty of people were doing it (and their cultures respecting it to some degree), from the medieval Japanese to various Native American tribes.

Atomic, I think you're reaching there. I understand how the transition to Christianity changed a few things. Romans seemed to have a problem with men acting effeminate more then anything else and I think the stereotype of all gay men acting that way is a bit out of date. I don't exactly understand where you're coming from. Before, you talked about "what people are doing behind closed doors" as what's really important, then you reference official state decrees from the period as being relevant. If people's private matters are the end all rule, then why does it matter if the US government accepts gay marriage? It's already done.

YouKnowWho kind of clarified my point above. This is a unique country and the acceptance of all types of people is something that we need to go about in our own way. Quoting 2000 year old decrees (like the Bible) is just silly as we've changed quite a bit since then. Dan "death threats every day" Savage just has some serious issues with acceptance and it has nothing to do with anybody else. He could be elected president tomorrow and he would still be hell bent on finding and destroying the two people in Kentucky that don't like him.

atomic, most of those "socially legitimate" homosexual relationships were completely sexual and between warriors and their child apprentices (political interns). I though that gay marriage was about love and commitment, not sex.