@iThink I think I can understand why you didn't pick up on the defense of my position that was contained in the article I linked. I titled the post here as "A Biblical Response to Gay Marriage," but what I was linking to was really a response to another pastor who was criticizing the typical conservative, Christian response to gay marriage. Thus there wasn't really a complete biblical defense of our position, since it was not necessary in that context. But there certainly was a partial biblical defense of it, and it was enough to make the point. For example, I cited at least three clear passages regarding this matter (two at some length, and one via a link that allowed the reading of the text when hovering over it). These three passages alone, taken in the larger context of the post -- not to mention the larger context of the Bible -- were sufficient to demonstrate that a proper understanding of the Bible would lead to the prohibition of gay marriage. Here I will give you all three passages again for your convenience. I will do so in biblical order rather than the order they appeared in the article, but that shouldn't make a difference.

First, when answering a question about divorce and reminding His detractors of what they all would have accepted as the foundational text on marriage, Jesus assumed what they all would have assumed, namely that God created mankind male and female with the intention that a man and a woman would marry:

NKJ Matthew 19:3-6 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" 4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' [Gen. 1:27] ] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'"? [Gen. 2:24] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Now, the reference to a man and a woman becoming "one flesh" may include more than simply their physical union through intercourse, but it certainly doesn't include any less, and this is intended by the Creator as one important aspect of marital union. In the context of Genesis, of course, it also went along with the idea that this was how the earth would be populated. This is the persistent view of marriage throughout the Bible. Nowhere does it even contemplate the possibility that two men or two women would marry, an idea which runs against God's purpose in creating mankind male and female in the first place. Thus the apostle Paul had the purpose of God in creating mankind male and female in mind when he openly condemned homosexual lust and practice, which brings me to the second passage I cited:

NKJ Romans 1:16-27 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man– and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Italics mine.)

Paul's meaning in the first century context would not have been missed. He saw homosexual lust and practice as one of the results of the idolatrous refusal to accept God's created order. But he also clearly identified homosexuality as wicked behavior elsewhere, which brings me to the third passage I cited (via link):

NKJ 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites ....

Now, just so you know, Paul wasn't simply being redundant when he specified both "homosexuals" and "sodomites" in this instance. There were actually two different Greek words that referred to what we would call homosexual behavior, but from two different standpoints. This is why the New King James Version I've cited renders (perhaps a bit clumsily) these Greek words by these two English words. The first Greek word, rendered as "homosexual," is malakós, which was used in such contexts to refer to the passive partner in the homosexual act (here thinking of men, although we have seen that Paul saw female homosexual behavior as wicked also). The second word, rendered as "sodomite," is arsenokoítēs, which in this context would refer to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse. The reason for both words would have been to counter the possible excuse that only one or the other would be seen by him as guilty of wrongdoing.

At any rate, the Bible teaches that God has designed marriage to be between a man and a woman, in which sexual intercourse was properly to take place, and it clearly sees any attempt at the same kind of relationship between two men or two women as wicked. This is also why, by the way, those who try to argue for gay marriage can find no clear acceptance of it anywhere in the Bible.

As for other points you've made, I don't have time to respond right now. I would, however, make one important point in closing. Sometimes people think that the Bible should not be seen as being against something unless one can find a an explicit statement to that effect (as if the Bible should speak of things in precisely the same way and in precisely the same terms as we do thousands of years later). Thus they demand we cite a verse that expressly says something like, "Marriage between two men or two women is forbidden." But such a statement was unnecessary in a context where no one would have dreamed of the possibility of such a thing because they knew the kinds of things I have already pointed out. But this also misses an important point that Christians have long stressed, namely that we accept as authoritative not only what is expressly stated in Scripture but also what may be derived therefrom by means of good and necessary inference.

Anyway, I hope I've made my view more clear for you, and I hope you can see why I felt that the passages I had cited should be sufficient to know why I hold my position, keeping in mind also that the purpose of the article I linked was not to give a complete biblical defense. I see now, though, that I should have titled the opening of the post I made here differently. I'm sorry if it seemed misleading. That was not my intent.

Thats a lot of reading to do in order to get to your point about same sex marriage. Still didn't find that info. Why don't you just come right out and tell us why you are not in favor of same sex marriage and then back it up with "Christian Scripture".
I don't believe there is any language in the Bible or other texts where Jesus the Christ nor his apostles say anything at all about same sex marriage. But I am not a scholar of religious scripture - or of anything else really...ha!

Here's my two cents: I don't like it - gay marriage - seems like a perversion of the ceremonious reverence we hold for marriage itself. But that is a religious (Christian as well as other religious belief systems seem to have the same or similar feelings about marriage as a "blessed" or sacred thing) application to the institution of marriage.
This does NOT allow for nor even address the matter of Civil law with regard to marriage. I submit that: A) Civil law is decidedly and necessarily non-religious
and that: B) In Christian teachings there is a clear delineation between that which is "civil law" (That which is Caesars) and that which is Religious Cannon (That which is Gods).
No doubt those two things overlap because of the human need for ceremonious acts in order to "consecrate" a marriage.
On one had the marriage is "blessed" (given the okee dokee) by Gods little workers here on earth and on the other hand a marriage is no so much "blessed" but is permitted and recognized (given the okee dokee) by Civil statute. (That which is Caesars).

IMHO "We the People" (Western Civilization) must accept the fact that there are and always will be a percent of the general population who do NOT or will not enjoin any - ANY religious tradition as a matter of personal autonomy and choice. I believe that personal autonomy and choice is the most important stone in the foundation of the "free world".

Without that nothing but slavery is possible. And as slaves we would either be forbade the practice of religious rituals or we would be forced to participate in a State dictated religious tradition such as Islam itself.

If we are free men then we also MUST be tolerant men else we will not be free for very long.
If we are not tolerant (does not mean we have to like something) of things that do not conform to our own personal beliefs (religion for example) then religious minded men also will NOT be free.
Gay marriage - the idea of it is repulsive to you and to me to a large degree. But Civil Law and Religious Cannon must co-exist for better of for worse (pun intended) and they should overlap as minimally as possible. IMHO.