The historical answer is A, a church ceremony recognized by the state.

I think I agree that there is a historical basis of a "church ceremony recognized by the state" so long as the history in question is Judeo-Christian/European.

I ask in completely sincere ignorance: Is this universal? How does it work in other societies? Is it primarily
religious, civil, or neither? Does an overarching religious or civil framework exist in (non-colonized) Asia? The Brazilian rain forest? Which takes precedence? Do defacto gay marriages exist in societies that have less extensive or radically different religious or civil infrastructures?

In many cases simply creating a different name with the same legal protections would minimalize the outcry against the homosexual community. Don't believe me? Ask a coworker if homosexuals should be able to live together, share bills, take care of each other when they're sick, and any number of other things that married heterosexuals do for their spouses and most will answer "sure its a free country". Then ask if homosexuals should be allowed to be married. The answer is usually no.

I understand what you are saying and agree that many people would react as you describe. I don't think it would resolve the debate in any way, but I personally see "creating a different name with the same legal protections" as already having been accomplished. It's a civil union in front of the Justice of the Peace down at the town hall (no attempt to invade a church to get married!!). Seriously, though, I guess i do see it this way -- separate the civil from the religious aspects -- but I'm going to guess that is the kind of thing that is being struggled over and that resolution is far, far away.

Homosexual marriage is an attack on the accepted definiton of a marriage, whether you want it to be or not. Redefinition of marriage is what most homosexuals seek, not realizing that politically redefining marriage is a religious war by its nature, since the church doesn't think its any of the states business.

Now *there's* a fly in the ointment. I'm guessing that civil authorities will continue to assert that it is their business, that the existence or non-existence of a marriage will increasingly be determined on a civil, not religious, basis (like if you get an annullment from the Catholic Church, you'll still have to obtain a civil divorce to be considered legally unmarried, right?) This leaves religious authorities in sort of a secondary position, I'd say, with authority deriving pretty much from the loyalty of their own adherents and with enforcement capabilities limited to membership penalties (like excommunication, say).

Anyhow, I was going to say that "attack" seemed like a pretty strong term, but then my attempts to come up with a better one didn't seem to work...."challenge", no...OK, "attack".

Definintion of a new relationship would allow for more understanding. Read this understanding that I think homosexuality is a sin, along with heterosexual promiscuity by the way, and you'll see that I desire to be civil and understanding but I refuse to simply write off my convictions.

Well, done. In my own, overcompensating way, I might do more to earn a "thumper" moniker.