this is so fucking true, too bad fj is full 12 year old faggots who dont know what they are talking about

i never said that

I'm tired of getting downthumbs for agreeing with the post but offering different solutions. Funnyjunkies seem to have lost all recollection of reading comprehension.

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on the institution of marriage. Many ancient cultures recognised marriage with nothing more than mutual consent. The institution of marriage certainly predates Christianity.

P.S. You're so gay.

Not in this country.

>Not in this country

Stop. People like you are why people hate us. It is a FACT that marriage predated Christianity. I don't give two tugs of a dead dog's dick that marriage was considered religious during this country's founding. Divorce was a sin and interracial marriage was illegal. Fuck off.

And what country is that?

>Marriage isn't a right, it's a religious institution
>If they insist on calling it marriage, fuck off. its Christian in its origin

Because marriage just popped up 2k years ago. There weren't any marriages before then. Gotcha.

so i have to ask for the sake of asking Jews Muslims .... the list of all the faiths out there get to say this guy and this woman can be married my god says so we are on the same page so far i hope

so why cant the gays just make oh i dont know gayism and start there own faith the jews and the muslims disagree on ten tons of shit yet they both get to call what they preform a marriage and yet no one seems to be fighting about that
ps i do agree with your core point who cares what its called as long as the legal shits the same but i understand where the gays dont want this 2nd class BS reminding them they are not the same but equal

My point is that THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO. But it wouldn't be called marriage, just like islam isnt called judaism., My point is that why, if it is all about the benefits, such as shared insurance, is it such a huge deal that i HAS to be called marriage.

I may have delivered it wrong, but clearly some get the point. Marriage is religious in this country. That being said, i also don't think it should have any legal impact. My main point is that activists are going about this whole argument in a terrible way. They should go after the legal implications rather than saying it is their "right" to get married. I'm not against gay marriage at all. In fact i'm the opposite. I think that they should be given all the legal rights of marriage, but i'm also realistic in saying that if they simply called it something else, then more could get accomplished quicker. It appears my posts are making me seem like an anti gay, however, i will say this

I AM CHRISTIAN AND SUPPORT gay MARRIAGE.

My suggestions are simply ways in which i think it could be handled more efficiently than having a gridlock in congress for decades.

Yeah, the ceremony of marriage is religious, however in this day and age, marriage is a needed for certain things to occur in the eyes of the law, and so without same sex marriage we are still discriminating against homosexual relationships... so yes it is there right to be so quit your fucking bible bashing and get some facts.

You misinterpreted my point. I was simply saying that these things could be accomplished mush more easily if they avoided the term "marriage."

Well no because all legal documents state, "Married Couples" so rather than change all legislation containing the term, simply enable same sex couples to marry, and deeming the couple as not worthy of having their relationships called the same thing as heterosexual couples is still discrimination and a breach of human rights... (The right to equality)

Changing a term in legislation, in my opinion, will be easier than changing the opinions of religious groups, which, life it or not, are a large percentage of voters.

It doesn't change the fact that separating the terms of the same basic, joining of two couples would be a breach of human rights... Either same sex couples get "married" or everyone gets the joining called something else.