Is Gay Marriage Immoral?

I agree, but in a realistic sense societies must agree on a moral basis for lawmaking. The key is agreeing on these "morals" based on rational secular thought and not catering to unreasoning fears born of religious belief that have no evidential basis. As already mentioned societal morals must revolve around that which is best for society as a whole not a faction of it, even if that faction is the majority, and these moral imperatives ideally have to be minimal.So we have things I think we'd all agree on:
killing: obvious issue to societal stability
stealing: ditto
assault in a physical or sexual way: obvious issue
reckless endangerments (drunk driving, discharging guns in your backyard, etc.): no goodWe also have things that revolve around a societies agreement of when adulthood begins. Basically eighteen in the US. Any society needs to set a limit on this for its own protection, and the protection of its youth as well.Then you get the class of things some people may find immoral but that you can't (and shouldn't) make punishable by law in an enlightened society. Things that revolve around personal responsibility and autonomy that the government has no business interfering with (neo-cons want as little gov interference as possible right ) such as adultery, divorce, gay marriage, children out of wedlock, sex before marriage, all manner of sexual acts, pornography, anything that involves consenting adults.In a rational society the basis of making anything illegal must be that there is vast evidence that letting the act happen is so extremely detrimental to society that it warrants restricting freedom and with few exceptions this must revolve around loss of life or (almost impossible to prove) crippling emotional damage to large segments of society. None of the above will ever fit that criteria.If we want to continue to live in a free society that offers the most individual autonomy as possible we have to really worry about the implications of anything we restrict. The majority cannot always rule if it means the enactment of irrational laws. Laws should be open enough to allow us all to live up to our "personal morals" so long as they fall within a few bounds set by law. Then one's morals can be as stringent as one sees fit and defined by any cultural or religious influences one likes. Gay marriage won't interfere with a Christian being a Christian, but banning gay marriage is one step closer to Christians forcing non-Christians to live in a Christian "moral" based society. Its one step closer to losing the autonomy of true religious freedom the US espouses. That type of morality is irrational because its not based on evidence or outright facts, it's based on dogma and dogma can't be the basis of law.

Actually, I've seen this done (too many late nights in Manhattan) and it takes two girls actually (and lots of booze)... one for support... to kinda balance the other... anyway, you get the picture. Lines for the ladies room can get real long.

I highly disagree with that statement. Morality without application of logic is non-existant. What matters is what information set the logic is being derived from, evidenced by the history of atrocities perpetuated in cultural settings that didn't at their time define them as immoral (though other cultures not directly involved but existant at the time may have). What's important is deriving this logic from the largest set of information available. I would argue that the Bible is not sufficiently rich in factual information to derive morals that could suit a large multi-cultural society such as the US in our information age.

They're are many cohesive and functional societies whose laws arise from agreed upon moral underpinnings that in no way afford individual rights to large segments of its population. In fact, individual rights need not exist in a functioning society per se. The right to kill somebody, specifically a woman who has offended you, is completely accepted in some current muslim societies. This lack of individual rights stems directly from concieving laws based upon a morality born of a religion. I don't see how this, or its opposite: a society based on indiviual rights, doesn't arise from agreed upon group moral standards ("God given rights"?). Perhaps ethics is a better term? The whole area is murky. Realistically, there is no difference betweens morals and personal law. The impetus of those involved in the above mentioned debate on establishing group law would not be able to remove their morals from the discussion. The actual issue I was addressing is that societal morals (the basis that governing laws are established upon) must have a logical basis and taken to thier most logical end you, I believe, would arrive at the most rights for the individual by maintaning only the minimum of societal laws. A result I think we'd agree is ideal. I agree wholeheartedly, all I'm putting forth is that individual rights can only be maintained in a society whose governing is based on the minimum of logical moral imperitaves thus leaving the most room for individual morals which are very likely to be more stringent and contradictory to other factions of said society. Again, I think we view "morals" differently. I see them as the logical basis from which a person would make choices and act if not under the restriction of group (or sometimes called societal) morals. Under this definition institued law comprises group morals for a society. In most cases inserting the word law where I used group morals would probably yield a stance you'd find more agreeable. Being that the OP revolved around morality AND law I deemed the use of group morals versus individual morals appropriate (both of which are accepted philisophical ideas). A society NEEDS such concepts most definitely to protect itself but most certainly to protect its youth as well. By setting such a limit this stops unscrupulous adults from taking advantage of youth via unfair labor practices, unfair marriage practices that take advantage impressionable minds, unfair military practices and much more thus preserving its youth as best as it can for education, which should be the foundation of any society.I said:
In a rational society the basis of making anything illegal must be that there is vast evidence that letting the act happen is so extremely detrimental to society that it warrants restricting freedom I would have thought my point was obvious here , that yes, one killing would not have a detrimental effect on society, but if killing was legal in any and all instances it would be the abject lawlessness that would cripple the society in question. If people in government could not hold enlightened moral positions while the general populous couldn't then the US would have started as a theocracy and still be one today. I see nothing circular about my argument. In the end I'm a proponent of a minimal of moral standards based solely on logical precepts derived from the most information possible. Following this criteria you arrive at the most individual rights and you would certainly arrive at the conclusion that gay marriage is not immoral except in the most limited of moral standards ordained by religion. Certainly, individual morality, but philosophically (and realistically) law is group morality, it's an agreed up set of social rules that the vast majority of a social group will abide by even in deference to their individual morality.Sorry for the long post, but your response was well written and deemed a good response. Thanks for taking the time. We both agree that individual rights are key, by the way, I just think we differ philosophically as to how a society realistically arrives there.