Of course gays can choose to be married, and the state must view their marriage as the same way as a straight couple. To do less is discrimination on the basis of sexual preference among consenting adults.
However, someone can still be oriented by innate desire, and chose to act against their own innate nature. You might dream of gay sex, but since your religion is against it, you choose to act against your own inner nature.
Every action by every adult is considered a choice. What we desire is not a choice, only our conscious actions represent a conscious choice.
Take a court of law, every action is considered a choice, and rewards or punishment in a court of law for choices happen all the time. Not guilty by reason of temporary insanity mitigates the choice to kill, because the court considers the choice to have been a product of temporary abatement of reason.
The factors that impact choice come into play as well as the intent behind the action, and these factors of course can and do mitigate the manner in which actions are governed by our legal process. The elderly are often stripped of their legal right of choice because the court determined they are no longer competent to make that choice. The Supreme Court of Florida properly ruled in favor of the choice of Terri Schiavo's husband over the choice of her parents...so everything which is an action performed consciously is a choice...or there is no such thing as free will as an absence of free will eliminate the process of choice to act or not act as a product of personal choice.
It all comes down to the essential fabric of our society being based on choice of the individual except when the choices are determined to be harmful to themselves or others in society.
We prohibit certain actions only when we are convinced that such actions are harmful to the individual or the society.
...and yes, as consenting adults, they can do what they want with their bodies.
Adulthood does has it perks and privilege...
Seriously, this is a no brainer for the thinking person.
Legalize gay marriage across the board. Then collect relevant data and study the consequences of gay marriage scientifically for a generation or two.
Then if it can be shown definitively and scientifically that gay marriage causes harm to individuals or society, then outlaw gay marriage.
My guess is that you and your ilk will not be able to show gay marriage is a threat to the already crumbling institution of straight marriage and the dysfunctional family structure of a "Christian" nation...
By the way, you dodged the following question:
Is homosexuality a sin?
Quote from jem:
therefore by your argument sexual orientation is a choice and therefore there is no reason to expand the definition of marriage.
Per your thinking gays can choose to be married to the opposite sex and nothing prevents them from doing what they want with their bodies.
