Why change the definition of marriage?

Because spoiled little children want what they want, and pampered politicians can't say no to a voting block.

There is no legal distinction between a civil union and a marriage.

However, when you are trying to convince others that you are just like them, when you are clearly not,

you have to have it YOUR way or you throw a fit.

No it hasn't.

In traditional marriage, a woman could be purchased from her father and a man could have as many wives as he could afford. Women were little more than property like cattle. If you read the bible, If a man raped a woman or slave, he was allowed to marry her.

Is that the return to traditional marriage you want? Would you like a stranger to come up and rape you then have the government force you to marry your rapist?

How about letting your husband beat and rape you whenever he likes. Up until the government changed the definition of marriage in 1970, a man could not be charged for beating and raping his wife since a woman was basically a man's property.

Divorce used to be illegal. If your husband died, the woman would lose all her property because it would go to another man. The only way out of a marriage was murder or suicide.

My guess is when you say traditional marriage, you are talking about the definition of marriage over the last 50 years, and you want to ignore the traditional definition prior to that.

Everything with so-called gay people is "drag". Gay marriage is simply "hetero-drag", or, in other words, we're no different from straight people. Straight people marry, so "we" [but not all gay people want to marry because they are smart enough to know about how divorce lawyers make their livings] should be able to marry too. It is simply another manifestation of "drag".

And marrigage hasn't always been between "one man and one woman". eg. David [of David and Goliath fame] had many wives and more concubines. Michelangelo spent a lot of time in Churches [even painting one famous ceiling in the Sistine Chapel] and he was allegedly gay. Some gay people can be religious, just like some straight people. Hence, if one is both gay and religious, they will want to marry in a church which is "welcoming" of their attendance.

People often change the meanings/definitions of words. The definition of "marriage" has already changed --- especially in Canada my home and native land. But it is a litigious definition --- made in and by Canadian Courts. And any intelligent person knows that lawyers are notorious "casters of doubt" upon the truth, which is why Shakespeare argued --- even in renaissance England that the first thing that such renaissance Brits ought to do is KILL ALL THE LAWYERS.

Personally, I think that killing the half of them, who represent cases of/for "bad guys", would be sufficient. Unfortunately or fortunately such behaviour is and ought to be illegal. So there you are. If you don't like it, there is no gay marriage in Saudi Arabia. Of course there is neither women's rights nor gay rights in Saudi Arabia.

One thing about our modern age. If you don't like it, you can get somewhere else [even almost anywhere else in the world] for the price of an airline ticket.

Kevin

From a religious point of view, marriage is meant to create a solid and blessed foundation for raising god conscious children. From that point of view it indeed makes no sense for two people of the same gender to get married. How will they reproduce?

Marriage, as so many other 'rituals' these days, have no longer any spiritual meaning (defining spirituality as "in relation to the Supreme"). It became a sentimental, shallow 'picture' event without any deeper meaning.

I have no objection for homosexuals to obtain the same legal status as married people, with the same legal benefits but don't ruin the meaning of marriage for the sake of financial benefits.

By the way, in some cultures, polygamy is religiously allowed.

Shall a fake dollar note be the same as a real dollar note if a I n a nation where truth is relative where laws can be passed which are not required to be just why are the people surprised that a truth men and women marry can become not true simply to appease those who shout loud and long about freedom to do strang things,BUT and this is a big but those who would like the freedom to be known as married in the manner and custom as it has always been understood shall not have that freedom

There seems to be a populace of gay individuals that would like freedom to marry, because they choose to. Are you saying we eliminate their right to freedom? What is marriage any ways, but a lasting bond between two beings. Poetically, I may express my relation to the computer as marriage, although no legal documentation exists to prove it in court, in case one wanted a divorce. :)

It affects you in no way. If you're straight, marry the opposite sex. If you're gay, marry the same sex. Your point of view isn't better than anyone else's. The more you complain and try to shove it down everyone's throat, the less intelligent you are.

marriage is not between one man and one woman, it is between two families and at times two traditions as well as cultures.

It is being changed because most people are becoming well educated.

When you start out with a false premise, the rest of your argument is worthless.