No, they don't have anything to do with it explicitly because my solution can make both sides happy so long as neither side demands a zero sum game. I am not a fundie bigot at all and don't give a crap about what homosexuals do to each other. Fundie bigots don't want gays getting married mainly because they object to the lifestyle AND they don't want some kid to think that two men having sex is the same thing as a man and a woman having sex. Take up your argument about that with someone who shares those views because I don't.
So....I guess Ill ask for the 3rd or 4th time, since you are not a fundie bigot. Given that the state will continue using the term marriage, are you in favor of granting the right for homosexual couples to marry?
No, the struggle for blacks getting out of slavery (which is the most common comparison, not blacks marrying whites) is not comparable at all.
I didn't equate the two at all.
You state that Gays aren't hijacking anything, then call it a state institution. Then in the next paragraph you say marriage is an institution within religion which validates my point. Marriage was around a lot longer than before governments decided to make marriage a state institution and that is another one of my points. Hence, the argument that marriage is a religious institution first, hijacked by the state for it's manipulative purposes to be used as a bargaining tool.
I also said that in my very first post in the thread. We BOTH agree that state marriage and religious marriage are two different things. You brought up how an atheist married couple is not married in the eyes of the church. Again, whatever the origins of the state institution of marriage are, it is a state institution as well. The debate about gay marriage ONLY concerns the STATE institution of marriage, not the religious institution.
So the solution is to separate the two: period. Not force 70% of the population to tell their kids that two men getting married is the same thing as mom and dad being married against their religious views. And that is what this comes down to: an effort to redefine what marriage has historically meant. Hell, even Romans who dabbled in homosexuality when away from home in the bath houses came back to their wives whom they were married to.
They already are separate, as you said. The church doesn't acknowledge atheist marriage although the state does. They are separate. And since they are separate, nobody is forced to tell their kids that two men getting married is the same thing as mom and dad being married. Just like nobody had to sit the kids down and tell them that two married atheists are the same as mommy and daddy against their religious views.
Rationalizing bigotry...riiiiiiight. You are in the practice of rationalizing alienating 70% of the population for the benefit of 5% of the population of which not all gays even are interested in marriage in the first place.
Go ahead, I don't give a fuck ultimately. But I provided an evenhanded solution, ad nauseum, and all you can do is practice bigotry against me when claiming you hold up the flag of anti-bigotry.
The majority doesn't have a moral right to restrict rights just because they are the majority. What a bizarre argument.
And stop saying 70%. You are in the minority. Get over it.
I don't hold the flag of anti bigotry either. I think that the irrational thinking necessitated by most religious ideas is a fucking disease and worthy of ridicule. You might call that bigotry.
What I won't do, however, is try to use the state to restrict your right to it.
You are in the practice of rationalizing alienating 70% of the population for the benefit of 5% of the population of which not all gays even are interested in marriage in the first place. 
