did you not realize i was talking about the claim that homosexuality is a choice?
A homosexual is someone who acts on those feelings. Not someone has possesses them, thats where youre argument is flawed. 
No, no no. I didn’t say there wouldn’t be any roots at all, I said roots of some kind are inevitable, and it would grow into a plant that might not be called “marriage” but it would be functionally the same thing.
This is the “it harms me” argument, but it’s paper-thin and has no substance. How does my marrying a same-sex partner cause your holy union to become defiled and lowered into a legal contract?
Some religons allow for polygamy. Does that defile your holy union too? Explain how.
That’s what it looks like to me. There are quite a large number of people in this word who opt for non-religious ceremonies.
Bottom line: Get your god out of my business.
See,thats the root of the problem - some people believe marriage is a Religious union, you beleive its nothing more than a contract of legal status.
Thats why we will NEVER EVER agree,under any circumstance,that gays can legally be married.
“Marriage” is actually three things:
- A commitment between two people (or more, taking polygamous marriages into account) to establish a household and family, usually but not always delimiting sexual relations to between the partners in the marriage.
- The lifestyle licensed by the state which gives legal recognition and usually benefits to the commitment described in (1).
- The relationship commenced by a religious ceremony vowing such a commitment, usually considered as ordained by the deity/-ies of that religion and restricted as they command (e.g., “Thou shalt not marry outside thy faith/ethnic group”), which may or may not fulfill the requirements for creating (2) (in America it does; in France it does not) but which places socio-religious approbation on (1).
It’s vitally important to keep those distinctions in mind in discussing “what a marriage is” or we get into Clintonesque discussions of what constitutes a “real” marriage in which people are basing their arguments on differing definitions without realizing that their premises vary.
Skammer is 100% correct in what he says – by his standards based on (3). It’s his holding – though I’m fairly sure he is not being intentional in this – that his views of what constitute a valid marriage derived from (3) should become the conditions mandated for (2).
Most advocates for gay marriages – I being a rare exception – based their position on arguments as to what should constitute valid public policy based on a rights argument with the presumption that we are debating (2).
I think that it would be entirely within the bounds of reason for a religious person to hold that a “real marriage” – using the (3) definition on what is “real” – is delimited to the traditional definition of unrelated adults of opposite sex, while accepting that the rights and perquisites of a state-sanctioned relationship as in (2) are appropriately rendered to gay couples wishing to make such a commitment – but that this is not a “real marriage” in the sense such a person uses the term. This was Joe Cool’s stance back when, and when not losing his temper he argued it coherently; it also appears to be Gov. Dean’s view.
There is an underlying presumption in some discussions that the prime purpose of marriage is for the procreation and rearing of progeny. Like it or not, this appears to be a major biological and sociobological function of the estate. And it becomes, as Darph pointed out, an argument against gay marriage.
But it is by no means the exclusive purpose of marriage, even sociobiologically. As half of a highly meaningful and socially productive marriage that is sterile in the biological progeny sense, I am adamant that this delimitation not be used – to the point of being quite willing to Pit anyone who insists on it as a necessary criterion for marriage. Further, I can show that it leads to some conclusions that are socially undesirable by most people’s standards – and do so in one word: menopause. If marriage is exclusively for progeny, a menopausal woman has no right to be married – not merely to commence a marriage if presently unmarried, but no right to remain in a marriage relationship.
Skammer’s argument that gays and straights have equal rights to marry is one of those technically true but socially perverse efforts of logic, very much like “separate but equal” of our late and unlamented past. The best riposte is a quote that matt_mcl has brought out several times, to the effect that “The law in its majestic equality grants to millionaires and the destitute the same right to sleep under bridges and beg their food in the streets.”
Now you’re just spreading anti-gay hateful nonsense. Being gay is not a choice. No one with any whit of intelligence or decency would even hint that that is the case.
This argument is pointless almost,because I don’t think its right, and i’ve listed the reasons, you can tell me get my God out of your business, and then i can tell you “No,majority rule,welcome to democracy.”
I never said that atheists don’t get married and try to leave God out of it as much as possible for a religious establishment, because it does happen,it just doesnt happen on the scale you want it to ,because its a religious union - the majority of the world get married by religious establishment and you’ll never change that,no matter how fanatically anti religious you are.
And yes, polygomy is an abomination, and the church of laterday saints have abolished the practice, AND so has the USA,Why? Because we have a christian majority here.
How do you feel about polygomy? Does that alter your point of view on what marriage is? Does it challenge your legalist point of view? People are born polygomists,why cant you accept their polygomy? Why can’t like 1000 men and 1000 women all be married to each other?
Why are you so prejudice against polygomists? peace love and happiness man!
Well, there is the issue of aesthetics.
**
Quite the statement from one of the most indoctrinated folks to cross this board in a long time. You are a disservice to Christians everywhere.
If its not a choice,then why do people stop being gay and get married and lead reproductive lives?
I know many gay converts who are now born again christians,some are even missionaries. 
How do YOU explain that?
**
Holy f-ing Jesus on a stick, so now you’re claiming that all non-religious marriages are “nothing”? You are a real arrogant SOB.
Since marriage is present in cultures that long pre-date that nonsense you’re spewing from the Jewish scriptures (Zoroastrians, Hindus, Aborigines), I think you need to provide a cite to prove your contention.
Ok so you just listed Hindus - A RELIGION that FORCES people into marriage, and Aboriginies - the term for a native person depending on where you live? (American Aboriginies are Native americans…ect.)
Nope in fact i beleive i said earlier,that if two athiests love each other enough to get married, then they are experiancing Gods love that was given to them,and tasting a little bit of God himself,
Its not a sin for a man and woman to get married - Even if they are God hating Militiant anti christians like yourself.
Marriage is a beautiful thing,between anyone. (marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman mind you.)
To be in love is to experiance God, Hows that for getting God out of your business?
So obviously either you can’t understand whats being said here,perhaps you should sit this one out. 
I simply cannot understand the anti-gay-marriage arguments.
Can Buddhists get married? Can people who have no intention of having children get married?
I’m sure someone has a reason that these groups don’t defile marriage (which was obviously intended only for a loving man and woman to join with God and go forth and multiply :rolleyes: ). You contort to make your definition of marriage fit everyone except homosexuals, but claim that you’re not anti-gay.
In answer to the OP, no, I don’t think it’s possible to be opposed to gay marriage and think of homosexuals as fully human.
It looks like SEVERAL people posted while I was writing this, so I hope I didn’t repeat too much or contradict anyone unintendedly
Homosexuality is a state of being, not an action. I was gay the day I was born, was gay before I ever had sex, was gay even when I once had sex with a female, will be gay the day I die. I never chose to be gay, I just chose to accept myself.
If that’s a sin to your God, then I spit in his face and reject him as the monster he truly is.
I think Darph is about ripe for a pitting. Any takers?
So my must I be oppressed and forced to live under the thumb of your hateful worldview? What harm does it do your marriage if I marry my boyfriend, because we love each other just as much and just as validly as you love your spouse.
What can be bad about helping people to love each other?
Nothing, in the eyes of any good person.
They don’t stop being gay. They climb back into the closet, the self hate, the religious trap. They get married and lead lives which are nothing but lies. Many of them give up and go back to being their true selves (or get caught doing that when they still swear they changed).
Sure, a gay person can have sex with a member of the opposite sex. I have. It sucked. It was a lie. But I tried to be straight because I bought into this same line of religious bullshit you’re hollow mind is peddling here. I grew up, came to accept myself for who I am, and became honest with the world.
If there is a God, he’s proud of me. And he’s very sad for all the poor souls your hate cult has forced back into a life of lies.
You mean we can’t agree that gays can legally be married in the Netherlands? . I guess I disagree on agreeing to disagree.
**
The Hindu religion no more forces people into marriages than the Islamic religion forces women to wear burkas. Those are cultural mores that are separate from their established religions.
I notice you don’t know who the Zoroastrians are. Nor did you dispute my point.
And since I’m much smarter than you, I would thank you not to try to lecture me on the term Aborigine. I know what the term means. You still didn’t parry the point.
God tastes like wine and bread.
And they’re only tasting God’s love in your opinion. Religion is just your opinion. It’s not a provable fact. It’s opinion. I prefer the world of verifiable fact.
I am not anti-Christian, nor God-hating. I attend, rather sporadically, a liberal Episcopalian church on occasion. However, given how scarring my encounters with the hateful beast God of fundamentalism have been, I can’t say I have much faith left. When a “God of love” inspires nothing but hate in most of his followers, you begin to doubt the message. You, for instance, are a great example of Christian Hate.
Oh, because love is only real between men and women? Somehow my love for my boyfriend is not real, not beautiful? F-ck you.
Your opinion, nothing more.
Now you’re saying I’m incapable of love? God you’re an arrogant piece of crap. People like you are why my parents hardly speak to me anymore.
I hope and “pray” that all your children are gay.
I’m sorry, everyone, for getting upset. But this sort of thing rightfully, I think, enrages me. I don’t particularly care for having my equality and humanity sublimated to the will of an impish, hateful notion of a God who probably doesn’t exist in the first place.
So, unless your name is Darph, if I’ve offended anyone, I’m sorry.
it’s called repression, and it is a terribly awful thing. and people like you are the reason it happens.
what does that repression lead to? just ask the catholic church about what happens when people who have “deviant” sexual desires join the church in an attempt to cure those desires. or ask alan turing, or tchaikovsky, or any other great person who ended up committing suicide because they couldn’t deal with the world telling them gay is wrong.
please stop peddling your offal.
not your god.