if religion is out, then why is it so common to be married by a priest, in a church.

Because you live in a christian country! Surley you shouldnt even need to ask that.

$cientology center

And Lo... I lolled, and It was a good lol.

were still talking about america right?

This is a worldwide forum. Although I know the majority are american.

nevetsthereaper: When you start respect evidence from credible sources? It's only your problem you don't know evidence which is there. Why are you lying and discriminating when you HAVE NOTHING? NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT GAYS AND LESBIANS CHOOSE SEXUAL ORIENTATION WHERE THERE IS THE BUNCH OF EVIDENCE ON THE CONTRARY? ARE YOU ASHAMED OF YOURSELF?

Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality.

http://www.healthyminds.org/More-Info-For/GayLesbianBisexuals.aspx

The current literature and most scholars in the field state that one's sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;113/6/1827

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf

The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change. All theological, philosophical, and moral debates about how lesbian and gay people should lead their lives and follow their religious beliefs need to take account of these premises.
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=60752

The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.
http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000262525&typ=pdf

I, as the king of an undisclosed planet, hereby grant wolf1991 the power over all definitions by the power granted in my by the Giant Spaghetti Monster and the state, making him the official master of definitions. He also gets a ride in the interplanetary tea pot, if he wishes.

I, wolf1991, hereby accept all respsonsibilities and charges that come with this office.

But back on topic. I didn't change the definition I just used the one that is applicable. You see since religion is nothing but a load of "Kill the gays" I decided to use something from an unbiased source. I suggest you check the dictionary. Also, can you start providing evidence and taking what people say into account?

@ptomes
Links Fixed, some good sources btw.

http://www.healthyminds.org/More-Info-F … xuals.aspx

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg … 113/6/1827

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission … ngland.pdf

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=60752

http://content.karger.com/produktedb/pr … 25&typ=pdf

But back on topic. I didn't change the definition I just used the one that is applicable. You see since religion is nothing but a load of "Kill the gays" I decided to use something from an unbiased source.

To be fair not all religions or even religious denomination within Christianity take issue with homosexuality or their desire to marry. For instance the Quakers are perfectly fine with it.

A fair number of Methodists seem to be OK with it too. Of course, you'll always get fundamentalists of any major religion that take exception to Homosexuality and feel the need to proclaim that it's sinful'n'squicky.

How can anyone in their right mind think that gay marriage and heterosexual marrige is the same thing???

ptomes- I will not argue for or against a biological source for homosexuality, but I will say if indeed it is biological then natural selection is playing a cruel joke on those folks, don't you think. From a strictly darwinian standpoint, same sex coupling = the end of the species in exactly one generation. In a world governed by the principals of "the fittest survive" how can a solid argument be made for homosexuality being a biological benefit. If anything it seems like a "weeding out" process.

You know that many animal species have well-documented cases of homosexual couples? Also, you forget that no species on this Earth would ever be 100% Homosexual - because it wouldn't last very long. Sexual orientation shouldn't really matter at all. As for benefits, it can help keep population down a bit (meaning less competition for resources) plus the homosexual animals are able to bring up kids if any of the other animals are killed or unable to look after it. Seems quite useful.

so you are agreeing atleast thet it would weed them out of the gene pool quite effectively? again, im not saying they cant love each other, and all that good stuff. just saying, there should be a difference between a heterosexual marriage, and a gay marriage.

I'm just saying that you don't get many Homosexual partnerships that end up with children.

Anyway, why should there be a distinction? For hundreds of years a marriage simply required the groom giving the father of the bride a couple of pigs and a sheep and promising the daughter a good dowry. The modern idea of a wedding and marriage has only been put together within the last few hundred years and slowly at that.

Why distinguish between couple A and couple B just because couple A happens to be 2 dudes or two women?

If you want to throw the Bible into this then I'd like to mention that the Bible considers thousands of things to be sins and yet people still do them - like eating pork.

The thing is - I can call you a bigot, close-minded and a myriad of other insults and the worst you can say about me is I'm open-minded.