Can the government compel you to provide someone a service against your will?

[PanzerJaeger]

Of course it is still a scientific debate as to whether or not sexual orientation can possible be considered a trait you are born with.

Nature versus nurture has yet to be conclusively proven, but I do not believe any credible sources still assert that it is a choice.

[Beskar]

Nature versus nurture has yet to be conclusively proven, but I do not believe any credible sources still assert that it is a choice.

It has come about as more of a preference, such as with food, try getting some one to eat something they dislike even though you might like it and viceversus. There is some thought that naturally, we are just instinctively horny animals which would hump anything (and lots of evidence to show that in practise on google) and it is society which helps moulds us to tame these wild ways. The whole idea of taking simply one 'mate' and performing marriage is unnatural, but that is the custom we have.

tl;dr version: people getting in a huffy about consensual things between adults which doesn't affect them.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It has come about as more of a preference, such as with food, try getting some one to eat something they dislike even though you might like it and viceversus. There is some thought that naturally, we are just instinctively horny animals which would hump anything (and lots of evidence to show that in practise on google) and it is society which helps moulds us to tame these wild ways. The whole idea of taking simply one 'mate' and performing marriage is unnatural, but that is the custom we have.

Might be true. But I personally think that it is good that such "natural" behaviors are suppressed whether they exist or not.

[Montmorency]

To those who say that 'This or that is unnatural for humans': are you grammatical prescriptivists?

Do you maintain that "May I have..." is the only proper English form, and that "Can I have..." is ungrammatical?

Grammar is just what people do, guys! Same with 'the natural'.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is mostly that the Christian church since the early days sought an monopoly on sex. It wasn't the only religion and there were others with conflicting views.

Christian marriage Law just follows Roman Law, or Germanic Law depending on locality.

The only "Christian" part is the resistance to divorce.

On to the topic at hand - society in general has decided that being Gay is OK and disagreeing with being Gay is not OK. Ergo, you either photograph any "wedding" or none. The rational is that we have accepted that "Gay Marriage" is the same as "Marriage" and any discrimination at this point essentially refusing to accept the validity of the marriage.

I personally disagree with that view of technical grounds, but I lost the argument because nobody else on either side was interested in the technical question. So now I'm not allowed to air my views in public, or to act upon them.

[Beskar]

I personally disagree with that view of technical grounds, but I lost the argument because nobody else on either side was interested in the technical question. So now I'm not allowed to air my views in public, or to act upon them.

Mostly due to the technical definition you give in no longer valid in society, it is out of touch with modern reality. Marriage is not seen as something as the sole purpose of reproduction, marriage is seen as a commitment between two people who love each-other. The whole children part is counted separately. In this, whether is it man, women, either, in combination, it is simply two people loving each other. Parenting is separate, it can occur before and after marriage, especially as there are many options such as fostering/adopting which doesn't require the two people involved to put the bun in the oven.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So I take it that you fault whatever is going on in the UK for not going far enough, not because you're particularly concerned for the gays, but because legal kludges weaken the authority and coherence of the legal system.

You want a clear, concrete and widely applicable legal redefinition of marriage.

That's it?

No - I want the legal abolition of marriage, because anything less will sow confusion. With the advent of genetic testing women no longer need a piece of paper to prove who the father of their children is.

All marriage is used for today is to regulate divorce, which just creates more money for lawyers. Much better for people to sign a contract saying how their goods will be divided up. That would protect people who "don't want to get married" for whatever reason by making it clear to them that they need a contract.

Currently, those people are left high and dry because their "Common Law" marriages are not recognised.

The other key point to understand is that, given the historical dynastic role of marriage, I don't consider the "exclusion" of homosexuals to be an injustice. Indeed, the fact that it is now seen as an injustice proves to my mind that "marriage" has now ceased to resemble the institution with which it shares a name.

It's a fact of historical record that the early Church conducted homosexual unions, but they couched those unions in terms of the erotic love between the couple, not in the matrimonial terms of family.

Mostly due to the technical definition you give in no longer valid in society, it is out of touch with modern reality. Marriage is not seen as something as the sole purpose of reproduction, marriage is seen as a commitment between two people who love each-other. The whole children part is counted separately. In this, whether is it man, women, either, in combination, it is simply two people loving each other. Parenting is separate, it can occur before and after marriage, especially as there are many options such as fostering/adopting which doesn't require the two people involved to put the bun in the oven.

Oh don't be sappy - what you've basically said is that the thing people do now in getting "married" is a different thing to what their parents did. Basically, people no longer get married - they just have a big expensive party that looks a bit like a wedding.

See above.