What are your opinions on Gay Marriage?

And there's where I disagree with you, Frozzy.

Getting married is something that is done before a deity. The two being able to be treated as one pair is done legally. You can still get married today before God and never file marriage papers. You will be married before God and not men. Likewise, you can get a civil union and be together legally but not in the eyes of God (or whatever deity you believe). It is possible that these two things can become separate. But it takes a whole hell of a lot of political wrangling for it to happen. This is what conservatives mean when it "destroys the sanctity of marriage" because it really does change the definition of what a marriage means in America (married before both God and man).

So getting married is wholly different from a civil union. A civil union is not marriage in the slightest.

But since we're only arguing over definitions and not actually each other's arguments, I suppose my definitions are rather pointless.

I actually agree with everything you said, and only used "marriage" as the term to describe a legally binding civil union with the same equivalent legal status as marriage in the United States, as there's currently no strong enough term. My sentiment about "two definitions of marriage" is, as I said, a personal one, and I mean it completely so - that's why I also included the statement that I understand and respect the preachings that such a split in definition "destroys the sanctity of marriage," because, yes, in the eyes of religion, it does. It's not like you see me out crusading to use the term "marriage" for the aforementioned union consecrated at city hall.

The reason I'm so hesitant to use the term "civil union" is because the actual union has not always historically been as strong, legally, as that of a religious marriage in which the heterosexual couple files marriage papers with the government. Ultimately my entire contention rests on true equality between the definitions, and of course the nomenclature of the definitions themselves. So long as civil unions conducted by local government 100% = marriages conducted by religious institutions, with all regards to legality (each bestow all of the same rights and responsibilities), I have no issues. The only contention then is to ensure the government recognizes it's committment to honoring all peoples under their laws, and thus allows relationships of varying sexual orientation to also be consecrated in a civil union.