The same-sex marriage debate is unethically rooted in Christianity

Hey, sorry for missing the countdown last round, I've fallen pretty ill!! I'll respond to your last post and offer a further argument. I understand your an American posing a question on American politics and religion etc. (naturally!). I'm actually an Englishman, however I felt like I could pose a counter-argument as I firmly believe that under globalism, the western world currently faces the same/very similar issues, regardless of nationality. I'm not sure if you guys across the pond have seen much news coverage on UK and Irish politics, but gay marriage has also been legalised over here completely. Whilst my view is subject to a slightly different cultural viewpoint, even I'd agree that you not being able to run for office for not being a registered Christian is a little on the 'stringent' side of things. However, I would also argue that that goes back to my initial point, from what I do know of America and its people and politics (with variations, depending on the state your in I suppose?) is that there is a strong emphasis on your culture and history. And I think I can speak for the western world in this regard, Christianity is seen as a fundamental pillar to our history and culture, despite many of us being more atheistic now; can I ask what states require you to be Christian to run for office? The figure you raised is an interesting one, it would certainly back up what I've just reiterated, but I would also pay reference to the fact that those stats were likely inflated by the populations general desire to assimilate itself with its own sense of nationhood - as religion does not just have theological connotations, but as we under our respective nationalities, like to identify with our collective indigenous and homogeneous 'roots', will likely label ourselves as 'Christian', as even I have done. Respectively, over in the UK, Christianity in its self-identifiable form has dropped to 59.3% from our last 2011 census (we are due another one soon I believe). http://www.ons.gov.uk... With Islam being the second largest religion at 4.8% - and given the current socio-political climate in England, this stat has likely been tampered with to reduce the domicile publics' understanding of how many Muslim folk there are, but that is an entirely different debate to be had! The UK's current cultural climate also permeates a decreasing need for even the indigenous peoples to identify with their religious roots (even as atheists), nor have we had any say in whether or not gay marriage should be allowed. Now the Catholic Church, which is far more vigilant in its anti-gay stance, legally has to accept a request from a gay couple to marry in the Church, if they so wish. Not to mention, the history of Ireland and much of its conflict is based on 500 years of Catholic/Protestant battles, Northern Ireland is Protestant (and in the UK) and the Catholic Republican South is as said, even more against (culturally, as well as religiously) the notion of an imposed set of legislation that forces a diametrically opposed institution to allow a gay couple to marry not only in the face of religion, but under its codes too. Again, this is seen as subversive. And to counter this initial point with regards to American politics, I'm going to put myself out on a limb and say that you guys (generally) are far more nationalistic than we are in the UK, there are probably less Christians than stats can reveal, but that American sense of allegiance to those aforementioned 'cultural pillars' would inflate this, and it indicates that maybe the gay marriage debate is not unethically rooted in Christianity (bearing in mind homosexuals are executed under Islam), but rides a very rough grain against this cultural and religious institution of Christianity, and the overarching heterosexual, atheistic population also. Furthermore, whilst I did not outwardly mention 'love' in my initial point, I was deliberately being scientifically objective to demonstrate how at a fundamentally 'objective' level, humans, and mammals in our entirety, are not designed to be homosexual. And by a very Darwinian approach, homosexuality (although it is hardly at a dangerously disproportionate level worldwide) does in essence, undermine the survival element of nature. I will also insist that 'love' is an entirely subjective thing with differing layers of meaning; I absolutely 'love' sex (sorry if I appear crass!) with my female counterparts (both long-term and one night stands); I 'love' my Harley Davidson boots and bike, but I do not feel an innate psycho-sexual attraction to said inanimate objects; I 'love' my brother and father, but do not feel in the slightest need, to consummate a very Freudian psycho-sexual attraction - as the 'love' I feel for them is entirely different to the love I can feel for a woman, and the necessary bond this creates at a fundamental level of our very being, to enable the continuation of our genetic lines and rear a socially and biologically stable household. I do not pretend to have the answers for why and how homosexuality occurs, and I'm sure that for people like your father and a cousin of mine who quite humorously fits a very stereotypical image of the alpha-butch lesbian, their 'love' feels real to them. She's a laugh and a good party-goer, but again, I pose the same repost, I do not accept that homosexuality is normal, and that the religious response to the proposition of gay marriage is not unethically rooted in Christianity. I also hope all's good with you and your father, whilst I may seem cold in my political argument, I wouldn't wish for a father-son dynamic to be eradicated because of his own sense of feeling. And lastly, to offer further debate, I pose to you, that perhaps simply, there is no need for gay 'marriage' in the first place. Again, I can't speak for state-side politics, but over in the UK we have had 'civil partnerships' for gays only for over a decade now, that process was designed to consummate a homosexual couples' love. And in the spirit of the dialectic of 'equality' as nations like ours fashion it, surely heterosexuals should have access to this form of 'marriage' too? More so, the institution of heterosexual marriage at an economic level, is something that has been hijacked from the arms of tradition and ceremonial love, to that of a form of economic bondage to a capitalist state. It is no longer about the 'marrying' of two otherwise alien clans, but about essentially 'prostituting' our joint labour and income to the state; and for the elites of society, this is all marriage has been to them since the birth of feudal kingship! So to expand this question and my proposition, I'll say that not only religion, but at a culturally tribal level, traditional marriage is being undermined two-fold; by gay marriage and now the signing away of said communions to the state, and not each other.