> Ahh yes the no historical precedent of gay people existing, forming life long partnerships, and raising children (sometimes their own, sometimes not). That de

> Ahh yes the no historical precedent of gay people existing, forming life long partnerships, and raising children (sometimes their own, sometimes not). That definitely hasn't existed as long as there have been people. In Socrates' day, Greek culture was accepting of same-sex relationships (at least within certain boundaries, the contours of which varied from city-state to city-state) – but the idea of same-sex marriage never appeared to have occurred to them. Same-sex marriage only makes sense if you view opposite-sex and same-sex relationships as equivalent, interchangeable – historically, many societies have accepted same-sex relationships, but put them in a completely different category from opposite-sex ones. The idea that they are equivalent and interchangeable appears to have been rare in history, prior to the 20th century. > Unless you want religiously homogeneous societies you have to decouple the secular and the religious institution of marriage because what do ya do when you have immigrants from other cultures and faiths? Why do we even need a "secular institution of marriage"? Here in Australia, all state and federal laws have been changed to give unmarried couples (whether opposite-sex or same-sex) identical legal rights to married ones. In fact, we did that before we legalised same-sex marriage – which made same-sex marriage's legalisation in Australia an essentially symbolic measure. I know the US hasn't made that reform – but there doesn't seem to be any good reason for that, only a lack of political will. Once you give unmarried couples identical rights to legally married couples – does the legal institution of marriage still serve any purpose? Wouldn't the most religiously neutral thing be to abolish marriage as a legal category entirely? Any secular legal definition of marriage is going to be closer to some religious definitions than others, and hence can be accused of showing undue favouritism towards those religions which it is closer to. If marriage were abolished as a legal category, people would still be free to get married, but it would be a purely private cultural and/or religious institution, without any public legal significance.