Once upon a time marriage was ...

Yes, gays and lesbians only want to get married to destroy society. Not to have equal rights or anything like that right? They are going to get the right to marry, then they'll force to to marry gay people, and they'll make your kids gay (because the constant fear of persecution is just so much fun!).
Do you remember when a black person couldn't marry a white person. The conservatives used the same arguement you use against gay marriage. Now, a black person can marry a white person. Did it destroy society? Yes, allowing interracial marriage, opened up the idea of gay marriage. Well, you're obviously rebuplican, so you're probably a closet racist, but I'm sure you understand the point.
The google ad on the top of your page, is ad for a website that allows you to search for mental health providers. I suggest you click it. You're crazy.

Your argument against Biblical marriage is misguided and, for the most part, irrelevant. The article above takes aim at "conservative" views of marriage that lead to unbiblical traditions, such as racial discrimination, which in turn fall flat and demean the institution.

Nowhere do I connect the Biblical or conservative concept of marriage with racial discrimination, in fact, I've done the opposite. However, your imagined construct and false analogy does provide a convenient, yet irrelevant, straw man for you to argue against.

You also beg the question, asserting that homosexuals have the right to marry and that such an arrangement falls within the definition of marriage. Please show within the Biblical definition of marriage that homosexuals have the "right" to marry.

The point you're missing in your post is that government cannot legislate purity, morality or holiness. Legislated definitions of human institutions cannot and do not guarantee that those institutions are only used by the morally perfect. They simply index how many people have chosen to be legally recognized as a married couple. They don't make those who choose to be recognized any more pure, moral or better than people who have truly formed a union of souls without benefit of a Government sponsored rubber stamp.

Who Would Jesus Marry?

[ed note: I removed a link to an offensive picture that embedded in this nonsensical comment]

What I consider odd is that marriage is no longer a religious institution. That went out the window when the government started requiring people to get a marriage license, from the government, for a fee. Churches can only seal the deal, you need the government to approve it.

Which, given the church and state seperation we were guaranteed under the constitution, means that churches are merely the middle-men. You don't need the church to get married, but you do need a piece of paper from Uncle Sam saying everything is paid up.

So, why is the church opposed to something they are merely allowed to participate in?

If Christian churches don't like gay marriage, then there is nothing saying they have to perform the ceremonies. Let the gays go to a Justice of the Peace, or dog forbid, a progressive church that realizes how antiquated and archaic the ban on gay marriage really is.

Serra - I agree with you that the government, through legislation cannot make someone morally pure. In fact, that was the point behind my statement,

The necessary inoculation against the diseases presently afflicting marriage is one that transforms hearts and minds by bringing individuals into a relationship with the Author of marriage and Creator of Mankind.

However, we probably do disagree regarding the legislation of morality. The only thing that government legislates is that which governs human behavior. It does this on the basis of what is determined to be right and wrong. Consequently, the government does, by definition legislate morality. In fact, this is the only thing the government acts upon. Consequently, although marriage was simply recognized by the state, civil penalties have always been applied to certain improper behavior.

Joshua, license or not, the government has always recognized the marriage pronouncement and sanctioned violations of it, attaching various civil penalties to bigamy, adultery, etc., which are probably now at their all time low. You need to understand that the definition of moral conduct within marriage was provided by Christians and the state acted upon it. This is not unique to marriage but is (or at least was) the case in many other areas of life. Certainly the intrinsic worth of the individual, leading to the right life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, originated outside of the government but were recognized and protected by it.

The progressive church you mention is one that has denied the very foundations that make it relevant. Jesus brings hope, grace and mercy, not by ignoring the immorality of individuals but by forgiving their sin and enabling them to turn from it. To deny the reality of sin is to preach of a message of hopelessness.

Only in a postmodern age of moral relativism and profound despair would someone suggest that the church not engage those pursuing immoral state-sanctioned relationships.