Sorry, dude, but this is incorrect. I'm studying texts from the first century BC and divorces were shockingly common

Alright, I did not know that, but it is still literally ending marriages, but somehow same sex marriage is more of an issue for people 'defending' marriage?

Edit: Aso reading that two Roman emperors were married to men. Same sex marriage wasn't banned in Rome until 342 AD.

Oh, couldn't agree more with you. Just wanted to point out that thing about divorces, since there is a lot of misinformation and overgeneralization, especially about how accepted or not sexual relationships between men were in Rome. For example, having sex with a man as an active was fine. As a passive it was condemned and was supposed to be a slave's job.

I wish people would do proper research or not talk about things they don't know well enough (not referring to you Ckmlb1, but to many others who are either for or against gay rights, but don't use proper facts). I was actually under the same impression about divorces before starting my phd.

Yet the emperors Nero and Eleogabalus were married to men after this point in public ceremonies. Nero was married to two men in two different ceremonies.

If I'm not mistaken you are both wrong. Nutrition back in the middle ages was far from satisfactory and most people did not had puberty until way later their teen years; the child marriages are more or less a false middle-ages cliché. Things only started to change after the renaissance. 

I did mention 'two or more people' exactly because of that; writing 'one men and one or more women' would be too long and I'm lazy haha. Because of course there are some who practice polygyny, that's hardly the norm among mammals, unfortunately, who have to handle all these alpha males and their bravado. Perhaps, but I'm talking out of my ass here, the first marriages were a sort of ritual where one or more women entered a certain men's possession. 

About the divorce thing, the only thing I can think of is that it doesn't destroy the definition of marriage per se - much like temporary rulers can be a leadership as effective as any monarch - actually it happened way more often than it was reported mostly because of female (of female-blamed) infertility and accusations of adultery.

Of course I was not exactly defening the first point as mine per se, but mostly showcasing a possible secular alternative to religious arguments concerning the subject. 

I don't understand why some people automatically assume that if you disagree with somebody's actions or lifestyle, you're automatically a bigot, this makes no sense. I personally think it's wrong to sleep around, but I have close friends who do and I'm not bigoted towards them, it's their choice and not my place to judge them. If they came to me asking for advice, I'd give it to them straight, but that doesn't mean I hate them, judge them, dislike them, am bigoted towards them, or anything else like that. It's very possible to disagree with somebody's personal choices without being a 'bigot', and unfortunately that term gets thrown around way too often to degrade other people's opinions. I even worked with (and was good friends with) an openly gay man for a few years. I never saw it as my duty to judge him or tell him my opinion about his actions, because they are HIS actions and aren't hurting anybody else, so why should I care what he does at home? We even had a couple good discussions about gay marriage and he agreed with me about civil unions.

That's why, while a don't personally believe that homosexual acts are 'ok', the same way I don't think sleeping around is 'ok', or that watching porn is 'ok' (which DOES NOT make me bigoted against people who do those things), I don't think it's right to deny people rights based on that, which is why I believe we should have civil unions with same or similar legal benefits to marriage. Also, if a same-sex couple wants a ceremony, there are plenty of ministers out there who will do that.

Who said the government had to be involved?

You do realise that before homosexuality was accepted in society, some gays married into heterosexual relationships due to the fact that A. Their families push them to get married, or B. Seeking a relationship that is considered legal. A lot of those marriages turned out to be rather loveless. This is why I ask the question each time when people bring up the whole "children would not be treated as well under a gay couple" thing.

You're right, it is your right and your opinion, but think about this for a second. If someone came on here and claimed that whites were genetically superior to blacks, or that women should never leave the kitchen, they are entitled to their opinion too, aren't they. So do you think they're entitled to NOT have their views questioned, or interrogated when they post them on a PUBLIC forum? I've said this on several different replies. It's your opinion, yes, but if you cannot tolerate your opinion being questioned, then I suggest that you keep it to yourself. It's freedom of speech; not freedom from getting your feelings hurt.

The only possible argument would be that gay marriage could lead to bestiality. If a person can prove that an animal is consenting in the two doing it and god know what else, can we allow them to be married? We did it for gays, why not bestiality?

Even so, it's two, somewhat different things but I am pro gay marriage and opening the gateway to bestiality would be the only real argument I can think of.

Technically, bigotry is a mindset towards another group (definition. Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices). However, if you're referring to my posts, you'll see that I only refer to people with intentions to act upon said prejudice (eg. Ensuring their child will not be gay, which would involve at least some degree of going out of your way to achieve it). Bigotry by thought is near impossible to guage, since everyone has such thoughts, whether they're just mere flashing thoughts or ones that remain embedded in their mindset for life.