The "state" should stay out of as much personal stuff as possible. I don't think being proteced from organized religion is at the top of my list. My answer is No, but thanks for asking.
Darth W. Vader ---yes, the guy who while speaking to troops in Afghanistan said, you men are lucky, "war is so romantic"... and while visiting with amputees at Waler Reid hospital said," I was wounded once, I battled a cedar tree, I got a few scratches, but I won" Nuerotyplicalism Speaks. (Quotes provided by my son John - this ishis first post on here) He saw a comment regarding George W. Bozo and has strong opinions on this. sorry if off topic.He is giggling over my shoulder right now...
I am sure there are non-Abrahamic religions that would be absolutely happy to do gay marriages. The Buddhists. Peace and love to you.
If the Jews, Muslims and Christians can agree on anything, it is an insult to God to claim that His religion can make room for gay marriage, so I do agree with Zach on that one.
One Muslim Web site the guy writes, [women should not go around almost naked...... why not respect a woman with her clothes on for her intelligence heart and so on?] and a Christian like me is thinking, dang it, that is what we ought to say.
I am wary of calling Buddhism a religion. I know a number of Buddhists, and they do not believe in God. It's a complex theology. It was, at its origin, atheistic.
You know? I think that my sensibilities (anti-materialist) correspond to that attitude...Why should women be objectified? I do not think, however, that you should oppose their right to dress as they please.
A religion is "philosophy put into practice, with ritual" essentially. Buddhism is just as much a religion as any other.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I refer to points 1 and 2. 
Hmmm. I would use the term 'ideology'. Religion for me, and many of my colleagues, would imply a theistic dimension. Thanks for the advice though.
The word marriage in the dictionary says, civil or religious. (I think) that France has differnet civil laws where you don't need to be married to have fair treatment, whereas, again, the US, is lacking (in my opinion) because it is legalities that give Unmarried folks trouble. In the US, health insurance is an issue, so are asset/estate issues. I cannot imagine why people car whether or not two other peopel can get married or not. WHy do people think they have any right to interfere?
Does religion threaten heterosexuals too? Atheists? Feminists? Women? I've read Backlash by Susan Faludi for example. The Christian church in general gets some of the blame for perpetuating the cycle of domestic abuse in rural areas by being silent, and for the underlying theme of male domination.
What the churches do not teach (a dangerous half truth, a lie) is that the father-husband has to serve his wife/children not abuse them. You see it in Ephesians: chapters 5 and 6, everybody submit to everybody please.
He has to listen to his wife, love her, help with the chores to lighten her load, give her a break when she is stressed...... he has to listen to the kids, let them know he cares, hug them, but provide firm discipline boundaries with consequences, to teach that God does the same.
If you think Ephesians lets the husband sit on the Lazy Boy, be a lazy boy, beer up, belch, and watch the Bowl, read it a little more carefully.
Very good point there. All too often, the Bible is read very selectively to support the idea that it is just the women who should submit to men.
Isn't that half the point though? Didn't the Romans add those paradoxes so that they could bring people into the fold? It's a process of popularisation.
Firstly, religion can effect all people, it is not just non-heterosexuals that can be "threatened". Any belief or teaching that is against what someone else believes - strongly held, can seem threatening...
Secondly, Mary holds a huge place of respect in Roman catholicism. ( I was brought up as a Byzantine Catholic, so until my church, "joined" the Pope, and then celebrated Easter with the Catholics instead of the ORthodoc Church, MAry, was you said was not such an important figure. That said, read the Bible - that all Christians read (save for a few "books" taken out in the protestant version) Read about the woman in Proverbs - "Her husband puts his confidencce in her and he will never be poor" Read Chapter 31 verses, 10 to 31. The last line is " Give her credit for all she does. She deserves the respect of everyone" (if you don't want to look it up - it tells how she runs a business, does the accounting, makes real estate deals, grows a vineyard etc., ( I sure don't measure up) There are many passages that show how women can be revered adn how smart, strong, and independent the true woman is supposed to be.
Finally, it doesn't have to be "religion" that nurtures a society's male domination attitudes... Right on GuessWHo, the husband in a Christian marriage has a huge promise to make -he basicly has to reaspect and honor his wife as himslef and himself as he would God etc., (paraphrasing)
Wondering1 - Are you saying the Romans wrote Proverbs?
Wondering1 - Are you saying the Romans wrote Proverbs?
I am saying that over the course of history certain things have been added, dropped or lost in translation. That the Romans adopted Christianity because it suited their political purposes. I am saying that Biblical Scholarship has demonstrated that there are enormous differences between, say, the Greek and Latin texts. I am saying that different languages represent completely different ways of thinking. I am saying that the Romans played with the Bible and that it was a part of a wider project to subjugate Europe.
That is why it is certain that it is not the word of God. It is a completely, at least in empirical terms, fallacious assertion. It is man's word, and as fluid as anything written by man.