Illinois to become 15th state to recognize marriage equality

[Violet]

I wasn't even taking away anyone's rights away. That is outside of my jurisdiction.

Yeah, I just don't 'get' people, sometimes

Marriage is not an institution that can be defended, or attacked by the use of such examples. Marriage has an innate purpose, something that is bound by tradition, and something that is bound by the natural mechanics of procreation. Since homosexuals are unable to fit into any of the said categories, they are in truth, quite irrelevant.
Its not as though as the "heterosexual nobles" oppressing the "homosexual peasants".

The goal of marriage is not for procreation... but for increasing the chance that progeny will survive (in a natural, completely non-law applicable setting). In a similar manner are many religious and legal constructs devised... at the root of it all is not 'marriage according to procreation': it is marriage for the protection of prior procreation.

In enacting protection of procreation, homosexuality and heterosexuality are utterly irrelevant.

[quote\Also as for your second point, it isn't about attaching a religious significance to your union. In my country, all marriages are secular unions, and they are done by civil servants, not by clergymen.
It isn't about attaching a religious undertone, its about giving your union a social acceptance, a social significance, something that binds people other than the personal bonds they share with another.
Besides, the marriage is not validated by the church, the church actually uses the power given to it by the state, not otherwise.
In todays world, the marital services provided by churches serve a strictly traditional role. Here, the traditional role has been stripped off of its power by the state, it is only done if someone really wants it to have a religious undertone, but is otherwise valid when done without it(also from a religious sense).[/quote]

I'm speaking of it from the common american perspective (which is that marriage is, infact, a holy union). Different countries do things differently... you certainly have the option of a 'secular marriage' in the united states. However, even these unions remain quite affected by the religious shenanigans behind them... and the places most against homosexual marriage's legality also happen to be the most religious states (of this particular Union).

From this, (and many other examples I'm willing to highlight, should you press me for them) it can be inferred that the people most against homosexual marriage are against it for a religious reason

This nation was 'founded' by rather nonsecular protestants eager to avoid persecution in the practice of their religion. We're indeed quite lucky that the 'freedom of speech' and religious practice is among the foremost laws enacted by those who formed 'the constitution' of the United States... else this likely would long have been a theocratic state.

Could be done, though these are all things that are related to matters of law and property. They ought to be discussed under a different context.

Probably. All the more reason to remove any and all religious aspects from it

No no, its alright. One must be ready to take insults. As a Turkish saying goes, "He who goes to the hamam, sweats."

True... but one should also naturally expect that the insults they take be *worthy* of their response.

Well, this isn't something that is going to change unless people find a way to make people reproduce asexually. Because therein lies the meaning and purpose of marriage my friend. I think that marriage is the way that the union of two people is connected to social progress. By creating the basis of the family, the family that we know, the family that is created from the mechanics of natural procreation.

I certainly don't claim to know the creative methods by which impossible tasks today could be made possible tomorrow. I rather subscribe to a more psychological approach to 'family', where blood really only affects who you should or should not breed with. Ultimately, we probably all come from similar lineage, and humanity is a 'couple of really big families'... I find that friends can be so close as to become a part of your family (an easily notable example would be 'marriage', but such ceremony is but ceremony, and the reality is with or without the ceremony).

I'm but marginally different in my approach: I just expand that closeness to include any man who I would call brother, and any woman who I would call sister.

I say this because 100 years before, marriage wasn't any different in its purpose, and it won't be different in its purpose 100 years later on, as it is in fact an institution that is strongly tied to tradition. You cannot seperate tradition from marriage. You cannot create a seperate form of marriage that is disattached from tradition.
But what goes on here is that people try to do this, not with the consent or on the request of the relevant people, but on the request of marginals.

The denial of marriage (itself) to serf classes in the middle ages stands out like a sore thumb, I'd say. Sure, often peasants might perform similar ritualistic behavior... but plenty of them just slept together and called it good

Again, the 'tradition' of marriage is for the protection of offspring... and nothing else. I happen to find a 'marriage' between three people (or more) to be a far superior construct... but one that would require at least 3 offspring brought to success (harder to do than 2, back in the day when the average age of human mortality was... 5).

Processes have to adapt with the times. Today, it wouldn't be a poor idea to have a *negative* reproduction rate over the course of a population. A thousand years ago, and that same rate would leave a population extinct.

As I said before, stopping people is out of my jurisdiction, I alone account for no man but myself, and I certainly cannot account for anyone in the states, but what we're discussing here are concepts and ideas.

Not you I just have to laugh at people repeatedly doing retarded things. Why respond at all if your only response is to spam 'your mom!' comments, or 'X person is HITLER!'