Hahahhaa, nice.

I mean things that naturally occur that don't harm other people.  But even if something's unnatural or supernatural, if it doesn't harm other people without their consent, I don't see why anybody else should care.  Like if I wanted to have sex with an intelligent alien, who's gonna stop me?

Nice stereotyping.

I'm gay and in a monogamous relationship and I've probably had a lot fewer sexual partners than many of the straight people here. I don't know if you've noticed, but there is a huge movement for gay marriage... Do you really think the gay community would put so much effort into something we didn't want? Remember Prop 8 in California? Do you remember any organized resistance against it? Or do you think all gay people were fisting each other in bath houses?

If all the bath houses were closed today, I'd be incredibly happy. Those places are disgusting and spread diseases.

Heh, OK, that satisfies me for a position (not that I agree with, but it's clear).

Really? Your exact same argument has been met with the same rebuttal at least once here before.

I don't think you can name 99 churches (i.e. denominations or religions) that disapprove of gay marriage for every one I can name that doesn't disaprove.  In fact, I challenge you to try. 

I'll go first:  United Church of Christ. 

And actually, marriage has been a political/economic/generally social arrangement at least as much as it has been a religious one. 

And I question how allowing gay marriages would "tread on" churches that disapprove.  How can gay marriage possibly abridge their rights?  Do you think that those churches will be forced to recognize said marriages?  If so, I agree that that's wrong, but I deny that that is what is being proposed. 

Banning gay marriage because some religions don't like it is like Muslim countries banning alcohol and pork even among Christians because it's against the Muslim religion.  Are we a theocracy now? 

If your problem is that you think that marriage is a term with inherently religious implications to the point that the state shouldn't even be "marrying" people in the first place, and would rather we strip that nomenclature from heterosexual unions and give them and gay unions equal standing in the law, I can respect that and would vote for it (because although I disagree with the first part it would be a solution nonetheless).  Is this the case?  (I think I might have already said something like this to you and if you've already answered in that earlier discussion I apologize for the repetition.)

I haven't made an argument yet.

Ok. I'll start naming denominations against same-sex marriage:

• Seventh Day Adventist
• Baptist (about 20 different Baptist denominations are against it)
• Church of Christ
• Mormons (Latter Day Saints)
• Church of the Nazerine
• Eastern Orthodox
• Jehovas Witness
• Roman Catholocism
• Church of God in Christ
• Church of God (Cleveland, TN)
• Assemblies of God
• Canadian & American Reformed Churches
• United Methodist (although some rogue churches disagree, the conference is against it)

I can keep naming them. Sufficive to say, the ones that do support it are in that 1% percentile both in membership and in # of denominations.

Now, as for how it affects the church, I would cite:

• Ake Green. A pastor that spoke out against homosexuality, and was charged with hate speech in Sweden. 
• Stephen Boission. A pastor in simiar circumstances as Ake Green, now charged with hate speech, and demanded to recant his position against homosexuality, in Alberta, Canada.
  

Just a few points to think about.

I don't believe it's something gene relateed... but some sort of abnormality that takes place when a woman is pregnant with the would be child.

Studies have found all sorts of weird situations.

Gayness runs in familys... however it's also more likely to manifest in later children. Like a mothers 3rd kid 4th kid etc. (I believe.)

Kasz,

r u x-ian or scientologist?