Allow gay marriage

Well, this post will probably be quite long, considering I have to quote EVERYTHING you just said and explain how it was not only pulled out of context, but not even close to what you tried to warp it to in the first place. "Because of this, it is more likely, and probably a better idea altogether, that the word itself is returned to the religions from where it came, and all current marriages are simply recognized as civil unions.: "And we're not changing the definition." Now I must ask, where did I say that we should change the definition of the word? Simply to stop using it does not by any means mean to change the definition! In fact, the true definition could only be changed by the people who actually created it. While the Websters' dictionary DOES have slang in it, our government does not. I doubt that they would use a slang word of marriage to encompass ALL civil unions, regardless of the sexes of those bonded together! I will say again, the government is simply using a pre-existing title handed to a man and a woman who are bound in matrimony as a form of reacknowledgment. You said: "To say that the government cannot use a word of religious origin is somewhat absurd. Many religious texts predate American government, and to suggest that THEIR definition of a word should hold sway over GOVERNMENT simply by virtue of their's being here first is unfeasible, pointless, and all around ludicrous." They can borrow the word. They cannot change the definition of the word under the heels of the faithful, or they would be treading on dangerous ground. It is for that reason EXACTLY that the word will not be changed in definition-it would be taken as an offense to those who coined the phrase! And as for your "separate but equal" approach (I will not quote it for reasons of length), the fact of the matter is that ALL marriages happen to BE civil unions. They SHOULD be called civil unions! However, it is not against our government's policies to adopt titles from other organizations. I have said it once, I have said it many times in this debate, they cannot change the definition of an adopted title! If there is an organization OUT there willing to give the title marriage (the government excluded, seeing as how they cannot open fire on such a religious debate) then I'm sure this would be a different scenario! However, to my knowledge, there is no organization OUT there willing to challenge the bulk of the religion's who strongly support the traditional meaning behind it! And as for your comments about the Muslim faith, the government cannot endorse such behavior (locking women in houses and such), but the religion itself can. That is the beauty of America! And as for the comments about the wine? You do realize that it is legal for a minor to drink if it is provided to them by legal guardians? And the MORMON faith itself prevents it, not the government! AGAIN! That is the BEAUTY of America! And if you believe that religion will not, or never has influenced our government...then the rest of my 5,000 characters remaining could not be enough to name the number of times it has. Again. The United States of America was founded on Christian beliefs. Almost every law we have is derived from the ten commandments. And FINALLY back to the original debate...I do not even know what else to say. You have yet to successfully disprove WHY a religious title's definition (a definition that is still defended by the Vatican with a steadfast determination) should be changed by the government. To enrage that many religions by perverting their idea of a SACRAMENT is horribly offensive, and I do not know how else better to explain this. I will say again, perhaps it would be better that ALL current "marriages" were simply viewed by the government as civil unions, and the government stopped recognizing titles handed out by religious communities. Because the fact of the matter is, I highly doubt that religions (in general) will ever refer to a gay-civil union as a marriage. Because that is what the word means, that is where it comes from. This is not the government's word to toy with, and the separation of church and state is simply more proof that they cannot change the definition without crossing many lines, and offending many people. Because of this, two people of the same sex (while they can receive the same rights) will never be viewed as a marriage. It simply does not fit the definition of the word itself. *exhale*