What are your views on gay marriage? Support? Against? Why?

I think this is more about the marriage aspect. Many people think it's fine for two people of the same gender to like each other, but not for them to marry.

Meh... I agree with ndm that this is a different topic from the morality of homosexuality. There is a thread called "Same Sex Marriage Debates" but it's on page 6, and necroposting is discouraged. So I guess this thread should stay.

I support gay marriage, both in the legal and sacred institutions of marriage.

Gay marriage should be allowed in all states, because otherwise they cannot receive the benefits of couples married "normally".

I don't care what you call it, so long as they receive all of the same rights.

Or we could just take that right away from everyone and make marriage a religious thing only. Then there'd be absolutely no bitching about separation of church and state in the matter.

I'd be totally cool with that too. You get something signed at a judge's office and then you can go get it formally recognised by whatever religious institution.

I believe there already are countries that use that same model.

I was thinking leaving it entirely up to the religious institutions and just have the judge say "You want to get married? Lol, there's a church down the street."

Then I'm a bit confused as to what you mean. Religious institutions can't really give anyone any rights. So if there was no legal process behind it, how would certain things, such as sharing of income or visiting someone in the hospital (which is oftentimes limited specifically to family), work? I'm probably missing something.

As in making marriage have no legal bearing at all. Completely removed from the law entirely. Sorry, I should have made that more clear. In cases like that, people could choose to share their income with whoever they want, but have no legal proceeding for it, and as for visiting people in the hospital, make it up to whoever is in the hospital to decide who can and can't visit them.

But what about identity fraud then? Someone under your name could share your income with a total stranger. Or themselves.

So what if I was in a car crash and, all of a sudden, I have 300 people who want to visit me all at the same time? I have no problems with all those people checking up on me. The hospital, however, does. It's more for the benefit of the hospital than the patients, so I don't particularly see this as a work around.

I figured that the hospital would have some discretion too. Allow whoever the patient wants to visit, but with the hospital imposing a limit on the number of people.

To me it seems cleaner to have the rights handled through the state and have the religious aspect handled through the religious institutions. That way, there are no grey lines (or at least fewer) about what's okay and what's not. Who can visit and who can't. Etcetera etcetera.

What's unclean of having a visitor limit of something like 10 or 6, each visitor approved by the patient, letting people share their income with whoever agrees to allow them to do so, and letting religious institutions decide whose partnership is endorsed by the church?

Regarding the hospital, turns out I was wrong. The sharing income bit gets a bit more complicated, as it can be used for fraud and tax evasion and other purposes. The religious institution issue would be addressed by either system, so that's not really an issue addressed specifically by your ideal scenario.

Additionally, to abolish the concept of marriage as a state recognised institution while at the same time adjusting the entire financial system to account for it while at the same time closing new loopholes seems a lot more difficult than taking the religious aspect out of the system.

Wow, that is a lot easier. Yeah, I'd agree to that then.

This. If Civil Union was a legal joining of two parties conveying all the rights currently given to marriage, and marriage was a religious ceremony reserved for people who believed in God. That way churches couldn't bitch and moan about its sanctity and shit because give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's.

If people voted for it I'd support it.

I would be fine with the removal of marriage from law and having it be handled as a non-rights union in accordance to religious rituals, with lawful civil unions replacing legal marriages.

I would be fine with allowing all couples at the age of consent, regardless of gender, to be married, and allowing separate religious marriages be granted under whatever requirements desired by those organizations.

What I am not okay with is religious marriage having a bearing on the legal opportunities for all unions.

I don't want it to be religious. I'm not.

Yea, it strikes me as odd that the USA recognises Hindu marriage, but not gay marriage, Idolatry and paganism are kinda the territory of Hinduism, and yet there is no religious objection to that.

The country as a whole pretty much accepts the idea of different religions--especially when it comes to marriage, since the main religion supports it. (It is a sin in Christianity to have heterosexual sex outside of wedlock. It's often seen as a sin by Christians to have gay sex, period. This means being married would be righting a sin.) The country as a whole does not completely accept the idea of different sexualities.

It is incredibly stupid and backwards and further proof as to why there needs to be a firm separation of church and state, both to protect religion AND government.

Hinduism is a religion whose marriages are heterosexual. Unless there's a plethora of gay Hindu marriages I don't see the contradiction.