There's not a coherent creed in there to begin with. It's a book written thousands of years ago for people living thousands of years ago. I think we've come across some better and more complex philosophical creeds to live by than the bloody bible.
And if you'd chose to follow those morals, why do you select them as we please? Timotheus prohibited women teaching men, stoning and outdated regulations regarding food. We chose not to embrace those.

The whole gay marriage discussion is absolutely stupid, backwards and a bit awkward by modern standards. I never understood that your principle of freedom extends to buying and owning dozens of machines designed to kill people by the dozens and founding totally wacko and even borderline dangerous religious cults but to not same sex-marriages. The last one is considered a threat to the society, the others aren't..

I don't buy into this morality argument against marriage. If you wanna be psychologically disordered, it's your life. Be happy. Whatever.

And I don't buy into government being involved in marriage to begin with. If taxes are SO high that married couples need breaks, then taxes are way too high. Getting government involved and making the whole process of taxation more complicated and costly is no solution.

But if you love behemoth government, consider one major difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage: The creation of families, the fundamental building block of civilization. Heterosexual couples are, by form, capable of creating families. Homosexual couples are not.

Heterosexual marriages serve a vitally important function that homosexual unions, by any name, simply do not. Nature's such a bigot! I NO RITE!

And hey, hypocrites supporting gay marriage but not polygamous marriage, what's the basis for this hypocrisy? Polygamous marriage still serves the function of creating children and stable homes for those children--something which homosexual unions do not. Why the hypocrisy? A moral judgement, because polygamists are different from you? Bigots.

What alternative marriage rights?

What's marriage based on? Creating the next generation in the most productive way we know to create functional, balanced, productive human beings? That'd be heterosexual couples having kids. That wouldn't include "alternative" marriage. By this understanding, "alternative" marriage wouldn't be marriage at all. It doesn't serve the same function in society.

As an Atheist, I am dumbfounded that gays want to participate in a meaningless and religiously-based institution. It looks like vanity to me. I think gay marriage is a step in the wrong direction. Marriage ought to be abolished and replaced with contractual domestic partnerships.

it is now about what other people think of homosexuals, and cruelly adhering to bigotry in the face of superior enlightenment

Please explain.

I believe that government should make no judgements as to how you live. I believe that government should dole out no benefits, tax-break or otherwise, based on who you choose to live with, marry, [cluck], or otherwise.

So please explain the basis for your assessment that I am a "dick." You've made the claim. Where's your argument. If everyone believed, like me, that everyone should be able to live their life and seek happiness as they see fit, how would that be an ignorant society filled with people who you describe as being dicks.

"But if you love behemoth government, consider one major difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage: The creation of families, the fundamental building block of civilization. Heterosexual couples are, by form, capable of creating families. Homosexual couples are not."

Invalid. Or we should go back to the renaissance time where a marriage can be disbanded for remaining childless.
The only valid reason for marriage is love. If two people love eachother they should be able to get married. All the rest is bullshit.
Your statement alone places you in one camp already. Your definition of "family" is very narrow. You even forgot about lesbian couples, but they seem to be forgot a lot in these discussions. It's a good ground to claim that you're just against gay men.
A same-sex couple is able to form a firm base for kids though, a position well-proved by modern psychologic research. Lesbian couples can conceive them on their own, so gay men should be able adopt children . Or are you saying society should step in and take those kids away?

When sperm is deposited in a mans rectun results in a life being formed, than the gays will have a leg to stand on. But it dosnt. Even taking the " religious " equation out of it, its unnatural.

Isnt there more important things atm to get riled up about? like the trillions of debt we are in?

Why the name marriage since it causes conflict? Why not take a fully equivalent title and walk away with full rights?

But I also want to call you out on the animals.

There are three clear causes for male/male activities

1) Limiting access for long periods of times from females.

The most famous of these incidents invovled penguins. Unsurprisingly when females were introduced to the group all males mated (for life) with a female penguin.

2) Dominance/Rape
In the more intelligent species an alpha male will seek to assert dominance over lesser males by way of rape, like a Pedophile over a child.

3) Hormonal Imbalances
During the adolescent stage sometimes this happens but in all known cases this has ended with maturity,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16353224

Dominance

Einstein, your "triggers" do not suffice to explain homosexuality among humans. Not even among all other species either, as RD clearly proved.

Anyway, I stressed that homosexuality occurs in nature. The reasons for it are unimportant as I only aimed to discard the argument of it being "unnatural". If we'd go along with your reasoning - wich I find too oversimplifying and narrow to apply rigorously - , one could even say that homosexuality is hardwired into the survival strategy of numberous species. Therefore the "unnatural" argument would be utterly invalid.

I'm sure we can all agree that human (homo)sexuality is far more complex than those three biologicly based triggers could ever explain - and biologic consequences are the only reason for Bacchus to call a homsexual relationship "unnatural". If we accept that, the concept of "(un)natural" doesn't suffice to describe it whatsoever,  and that argument has to be regarded as invalid.

"Why the name marriage since it causes conflict? Why not take a fully equivalent title and walk away with full rights?"

Cause that would be bigotry and an unequal treatment of equal citizens: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" surely rings a bell.