Why gay marriage is wrong

Marriage is a religious ceremony/idea. Therefore, if it is up to that religion to decide whether or not to allow gay marriage. An alternative, such as a civil partnerships, whereby they have exactly the same rights, should be available, but the government should not be allowed to force a religion to accept something it does not feel is right.
If a government were to do this to any other ideas that a religion had, then people would be up in arms about that government being like a dictatorship, so they should not be able to do this.
Rant over...

The origin of marriage has little relation to its present day use; it was originally about the exchange of capital, had previously allowed for a man to rape his wife and be her 'owner' with monogamy allowed, and often encouraged, and many other things which are, evidently, alien to its continuation today. Institutions do, and must, evolve in order to ensure their survival - they change within the context of society which has, whether or not you like to see it that way, fundamentally changed. Using historical ownership as a reason, let alone the prevailing reason as you're presenting it, to justify its continuity is plain wrong on both moral and practical grounds.

But, in actual fact, your whole premise is wrong. In European nations, marriage was traditionally considered a civil institution. Around 5AD great Christian theologians such as Augustine wrote about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in the ceremony.

Rant over.

Any reason why you've opted for anonymity? Scared to admit that this is your view?

Except that your premise id dependent upon when traditions began. I would suggest that it was when modern day culture started to be introduced, which was mainly done by by the Romans, which, funnily, coincides with the christian interest in marriage.

Would you argue that gay people don't deserve to have the same pensions as heterosexual married couples? Or that they don't deserve to reap the same benefits?

Except that your premise id dependent upon when traditions began. I would suggest that it was when modern day culture started to be introduced, which was mainly done by by the Romans, which, funnily, coincides with the christian interest in marriage.

Well actually, in ancient Rome, in the early Imperial period, male couples were celebrating traditional marriage rites. Both Martial and Juvenal refer to marriage between men as something that occurred not infrequently, although they disapproved of it. It's only as the empire was becoming christianised in the 4th century that legal prohibitions against gay marriages began to appear. In fact, in ancient Greece bisexuality was even expected and completely normal with pre marital gestures taking place between same sex couples.

This all, however, doesn't justify stoping same-sex couples in the 21st century marry. We shouldn't be basing policy like this on historical arguments sprung from a religion which doesn't represent most of the country today.

No, I quite clearly said in my OP that my problem with gay marriage is that it is a religious ceremony, not that it means that they get the same rights. I am not against gays in general, just the idea that religions have to accept something to which they are ideologically opposed.

I'm not saying that they should not be able to ne together. Lets be honest, why does it really matter that we give them the same name, they are different, and we should treat them so.

Any reason why you've opted for anonymity? Scared to admit that this is your view?