Topic: An complete argument for same-sex marriages. You can't prove it wrong (Read 2706 times)

You want to go on a first date and have to pay alimony if you don't call them again?

This is an important point though. I think all of the legal benefits (and drawbacks) of marriage should be separate from any religious component. There should be a legal marriage available to anyone (straights, gays, atheists etc.) and then religious institutions can decide which marriages they want to bless and allow into their church/mosque/temple to do the marriage ritual.

For a lot of couples the religious component is important, but only the legal marriage should provide tax benefits or spousal privilege or all of that stuff. Religions can decide who gets to do their type of marriage, but under the law everyone should be equal.

I didnt state this in religion I stated that from television shows and other media sources and hearing gay couple just want to have the same benefits or share benefits from a job that they have like health care.

Well.... that is what we call the freedom of expression. And our ancestors fought hard to win that right. Well... some of the moonbats would like to take that away from us, but they are not going to succeed.

This forum  is too open Everything can be discussed.  amazing!!!1

i think we should ban everything that i don't like, and everything that i DO like should be legal.

that's basically how dummies who are against same-sex marriage think. and they are stupid.

OK.. so homosexuals want their marriages recognized, just to get hold of the benefits. In that case, why can't we extend the benefits to unmarried homosexual couples? There will be no need to go through a sham marriage.

Says your religion but not all religions.  Why do you keep asking the government to meet your needs but not others?

you know marriage is suppose to be a union of blessing from god, but the homosexuals wanted marriage cause they wanted to reap the benefits and union.  Thats why they fought so hard for.

It's All About Choices Anyone can have a romantic and/or sexual relationship with anyone they choose. No one is forced to be with anyone. In order to get married, you need to be with someone of the opposite gender. If that's not something you want to do, then realize you aren't going to get married either instead of demanding the government needs to change to fit your choices.

Did you read the whole bible to make that claim?  It will take someone more then 1 read to understand the bible, Alot of people ask me this question, "Why did god stopped talking with us?", I tell them to read at least half of the book and you will find the answer.  You guys wont understand the bible cause you never read it in the first place.

Yes, it does. (:

Sounds pretty gay to me  . Seriously though, does loving your neighbour extend to your gay athiest ones too?

People who are anti-gay spend an awful lot of time thinking about gay sex, which seems kinda gay. Just sayin. 

No, it doesn't.
But there's no dictionary that says a wife can be a male either.

That question is invalid.

I don't follow Old Testament law,
The Old Testament is primarily a record of God’s interaction with the Israelites. The laws given to Moses (the Ten Commandments) were given specifically for them in the context of God’s covenant with them. The Mosaic Law never applied to anyone else.

It doesn't apply to Christians today.

In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39)

Here's a few other biblical references

• So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. (Galatians 3:24-25)
• The ‘Righteousness of God’ is now manifested apart from the Law. (Romans 3:21)
• The Law is a law of sin and death…not of life. (Romans 8:2)
• The Law was temporary, until the Messiah came. (Galatians 3:19)

The thing is even the persecuted believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Can any Native American bitcoin lovers dispute my claim?

So the entire Old Testament is bullshit and you don't listen to that part of the bible?

Good idea! I nominate the USA.   Enjoy your new life in Saudi Arabia.
This country was founded by radicals who were religiously persecuted and wanted true freedom. That is where you don't make rules for me and I don't make them for you.

Could you find me those verses in the new testament please?

The bible says a lot of things but I doubt I'd see you calling for people to be put to death for adultery, pre-marital sex, working on Sundays, kids disrespecting their parents etc etc. And like the user above said, it wasn't founded on Christian values, but even if it was that wouldn't mean anything.

No matter how many times that talking point is said....

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

Unless you mean another country other then the USA, the USA was born from religious persecution and the constitution (as tortured and shit on as it has been as of late) was designed to keep religion out of government so.....

ALL RELIGIOUS and NON RELIGIOUS PEOPLE COULD BE FREE FROM TYRANNY. 

Your statements and others above wishing to FORCE THEIR SPECIFIC religious views on people illustrate that point exactly. 

I agree, that we shouldn't judge others and we should coexist without anger towards them. Although I don't support same-sex relations, they're free to do what they want.

On the other hand, our nation was built upon Christian values and the bible says in Genesis 2:24 - "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Jesus Christ. Where do you get this shit from? 99% of people don't think like you or hold the same opinions. Homosexuals causing a nuisance? Wat? Is it them that's out doing all the crimes? I don't think I've ever been botherd by a homosexual in my entire life. They literally have no bearing or impact on my life and probably don't on yours. We can all live and coexist with all sexualities as long as people can get over their fear and pointless disgust and anger with them. Peace.

This suggestion can be considered. Homosexuals are only 1% of the population, but they are creating nuisance to the remaining 99% of the population. It will be better if the homosexual and the heterosexual populations live separately.

Comparing two adults getting married with raping kids is complete bs

Jeeze, that post was laughably ignorant. Why don't we create a country and call it Intolerant Island and all you type of people can go live there in peace? You can always move to a country where homosexuality is illegal if it bothers you that much. Maybe try move to a militantly Muslim country and see how much you enjoy their intolerance.

If we legalize homosexual marriage today, then tomorrow they will ask for homosexual adoption to be made legal. Next they will ask pedophilia to be made legal.This will never stop. I have a suggestion. We can declare some country as a homosexual-only nation and all the homosexuals can move there. They will be free to do whatever they want. And the rest of the population can live with peace.

I literally have no idea how your drew that conclusion. How does what I said prove his point that there's an intelligent designer?

Who am I to say who you can love? It's your body, your family, and your choice.

Try again: "1982: Health authorities soon realized that nearly half of the people identified with the syndrome were not homosexual men. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS)

You've just used your own moral compass to past judgement, proving his point. It does not matter if you agree with each other or not as you are both not acting on pure animal instinct...

I think you missed a 'not' from there, but don't worry cos I fixed it for you  .

The Janesville School District superintendent issued a public apology Tuesday for the showing of a video that she describes as pro-gay marriage and in violation of district policies requiring the presentation of all sides of “controversial” or “political” topics.

In April, Craig High School’s Gay-Straight Alliance showed “Kids React to Gay Marriage,” a 16-minute video of children reacting to marriage proposals between same-sex couples and sharing their thoughts on issues like gay marriage bans or whether they would stay friends with someone who told them they were gay.

Bits of text flashed during the video offering viewers information about the history and status of gay marriage in the United States or about discrimination and hate crimes, among other things.

Superintendent Karen Schulte said in a statement that the GSA’s advisers and principal Alison Bjoin approved students viewing the video during classes. But Schulte said a later review of the video prompted her apology.

“The appropriate thing would be to present both sides of an issue or all sides of an issue, so that’s why I sent the apology, because I felt we did not follow board policy,” Schulte said in an interview.

Schulte said the video was “very biased” and violated the school district’s policies on controversial and political issues because it did not offer a similar look at views in support of keeping marriage between men and women.

The policy requires classroom discussions to include all sides of a political matter.

She said she felt “that the concept of gay marriage would fall under political action and/or legislation” because cases are being argued for and against it in courts across the country.
Day of Silence
The video was played on April 11 to recognize the Day of Silence, a national event to bring “attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools,” according to the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Schulte — who said she was directed by the Janesville School Board to issue the public apology this week — also said in the statement Tuesday that the district includes elimination of bullying and harassment toward all students as part of its Day of Silence activities and the video was not aligned with that purpose.

Jill Marcellus, spokeswoman for the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, said the focus should be on the fact that students were trying to raise awareness about issues facing the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, rather than on the video.

“Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth face so many barriers in school, from harassment by their peers to unfair policies that punish youth because of who they are,” she said. “School staff should encourage, not condemn, the brave efforts of youth in Gay-Straight Alliance clubs to make their schools safer for all students.”

Video creators Benny and Rafi Fine said in an email that they do not consider the video to be biased, and consider “raw opinions of children to be incredibly valuable insight on our current society.”

They also said they were surprised to see any need for a public apology over the video.

“We feel it is a great resource to discuss both sides of the issue by seeing not just how these particular children answered the questions, but to answer and discuss the questions and information we presented as a starting off point to discuss what each individual viewer of the episode’s opinions are on the subject themselves,” they said.

Parents complained

Schulte’s apology came after a School Board member contacted the district office about two parents and a grandparent who had contacted the principal upset about the video.

After receiving complaints, Bjoin told students in the Gay-Straight Alliance that some students may have been offended and talked about guidelines for the future, Schulte said.

A grandparent contacted the School Board because she felt a public apology for what happened in April was warranted also, board member Bill Sodemann said.

“I found the video to be inappropriate and propaganda laden in addition to the left-wing political view,” grandparent Jo Yungerman wrote to the principal in a letter dated April 17 provided to the State Journal.

Bjoin declined to comment. Teacher Diana Mishleau-Daluge, who is listed on the high school’s website as the GSA’s adviser, did not return phone calls.

Second conflict

This is the second time in six years that there was conflict in the school district over the Day of Silence.

In 2008, GSA students in both Janesville high schools hung informational posters leading up to the Day of Silence, which drew ire from some community members — including Sodemann, who was a board member at the time, according to Janesville Gazette archives.

“If you’re going to deal with those (controversial issues), then you’re going to deal with them in an even-handed and balanced way and this was neither,” he said Tuesday.

Sodemann also said he considered the video to be bullying people who did not support same-sex marriage on a day highlighting the wrongs of bullying.

He said he also would object to showing a video about keeping marriage between men and women — or about any issue — that didn’t offer a balanced presentation.



http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/local_schools/janesville-superintendent-issues-apology-for-kids-react-to-gay-marriage/article_02e5f70a-1c73-53ea-97ff-f634675f2831.html

Lol, you are funny!

Morality is an invention of higher intelligence.... just a thought for you.

but see you are not clearly seeing that intelligence has nothing to do with right and wrong is morals and having a conscious. Hitler was in fact intelligent of then he wouldn't not be able to manipulate many into war where he was morally wrong.   He didn't have a conscious, that's why he was the monster that he was or maybe he had a mental disease that cause him to be a soulless and not to have a conscious

Couldn't have said it any better.

If you lead a good life, all is fine!
And God does NOT exist,.....except for Satoshi Nakamoto... 

Hitler obviously didn't have the intelligence to know right from wrong, but he himself thought he was a god, or certainly modelled himself after one as most tyrants do (because there's no bigger tyrant than the god of the bible). And I didn't say you hate gays, but seem to dislike them, but if god judges us on morals then I have nothing to worry about.

level of Intelligence doesn't measure the ability of right and wrong. People will say Hitler was intelligent and others will say hes insane.  Its has to do with morals and having a conscious.  Also book written by man yes, but book was inspired by god and pass down to many generations.  Let go of that pride you have and open your heart to god.
also to add I get my right and wrong from my conscious and to know in my heart that something is wrong, I admit I am a sinner and I do wrong and so do homosexuals but nor do I hate them.  So dont say I hate when I don't have a care in the world in what choice they make, the one who will judge is god not me.  All Im saying everything is from my point of view.

Whereas you base your morality on what just one (imaginary) person has taught you.

No it doesn't. And I bet you'll be just as scared to die as everyone else is, but not everyone is scared into believing in nonsense. Have you also actually thought about what's gonna happen if you're worshipping the wrong god? Maybe the god and the bible you believe in are the works of Satan? I also doubt you're that moral of a person as you seem to have quite the dislike of homosexuals, so maybe I'll see you in hell?



You get your morality from a book written by people and a non-existent entity who happens to not be very moral at all, in fact, he's the exact opposite. I get my morals from having the intelligence to know the difference between right and wrong.

No. For most part of the 1980s, HIV remained 100% confined to the homosexual community. The incidence among the IDUs started to increase only during the beginning of the 1990s. Almost 100% of the first thousand or so people who contracted HIV in the US were either homosexual or bi-sexual. The Patient Zero is believed to be Robert Rayford (d. 1969) of St. Louis, Missouri, who was homosexual.

Jesus, like everyone, was a product of his time. While he may have been far ahead of his time, no-one is perfect, including him.

I'm curious though, who do you think Jesus was bigoted against?

Its funny how non believers lack god in there life, but when they are in they death bed, they want a priest and cross is near there bed and cry out to be forgiven.   You all later in life will seek god when your life is nearing to its end.  Always happens.

He does alright https://twitter.com/jesus 600k followers! lol

In brief:

• Your god doesn't exist and if he did, he would be immoral, not us.
• True morality is based on causing happiness and alleviating suffering.
• If a sexual act between two consenting adults causes happiness and no suffering, it is not immoral.

Try reading less Leviticus, and more Jesus. Jesus was a good man and a wise philosopher, and spent his life counselling acceptance, forgiveness and love.

you just prove the point that I was saying before, you lack god in your life, cause quote "I don't believe in any god's".  How can you know about morality without a spiritual guidance, your just going on what others have taught you and your taking it as your own, which you really do believe is your own.

I'm fully educated in morality and know there is nothing morally wrong with consensual sex or sex acts. I don't believe in any gods, but if he or they exist they will know where to find me and present themselves. I choose not to forgo the intelligence you believe he gave me.  

... And yet Jesus would be attacked as a bigot for his religious views on twitter right now, if he was walking among us right now....

Hilarious.  History shows us that IV drug users (motivated by money) gave the infected blood.   

This stuff is killer . Let me guess, they poisoned the wells too? And they're working together with the 13 Terrorist European Bloodlines to try to reprogram bitcoin to spy on you?

they must be stopped!

Its ok for you cause you were brought into that kind of society and accept it, instead of educating yourself in moral behavior, you do the monkey see and monkey do behavior.  Its ok just because most of your society says its now ok.  I know its not ok and you lack God cause you need to find him.  Its not Gods job to look for you.  Jesus had to pray hard for 40 days to reach his father, what make you so special?

Please tell me exactly how it's not ok? If it feels good and it's not harming anybody else then it's ok in my eyes. I don't see how there's anything morally wrong with it at all. And I'm not lacking god, he's lacking me. I really don't need silly things like god or ancient and outdated books to tell me how to live my life.

When the HIV was first discovered among the gays in San Francisco and Los Angeles, the disease was treated by the medical authorities as something confined to the homosexual community. The homosexuals protested that because of this, the research was not given enough funds. Do you know what happened after that? The gay community encouraged the HIV positive members to donate their blood, so that the disease might creep in to the general population. The first recorded HIV epidemic in the US resulted from this grand thinking.

So just cause it feels good your justying it to be ok, another sample of how low we became to behave like animals.  I think you lack god in your life my freind, I cant judge you and call you an idiot like you did unto the other person, but Im stating these are sins that we created from man and became accepted onto society.  Also monkeys have performed sexual gay acts and contracted a similar HIV and they are animals, do men have to behave like animals?  This is god gift to us all free choice.  But remember when you go into the ground you will be the one to be judged and so will I. 

As usual the maths behind these 'studies' is a load of shit, are you honestly going to tell me that 270 over an 11 year period is representative of all homosexuals in America never mind the whole world? Feel free to come back to me when you have a sampling of more than 10,000 across several states and not just Illinois, this isn't research, this is just half-assed finger pointing and thinly veiled insults which is the most religious people can muster the majority of the time anyway.

That is correct.  He has been debunked because he did exactly that.  He took the sexual abuse from the heterosexual foster parents and ADDED IT into the homosexual side if the abuse was male on male.  

He also only included a mostly select group of lower income gays and everyone from the straight side.  If you only include lower income straight people you also have MUCH more abuse.  

It's only unethical according to the bible, but god/the bible aren’t exactly ethical are they? We also don't know conclusively how AIDS came about, so I hope you're not trying to blame that on homosexuals and buttsex though?

And you should live a little. Blowjobs are great (as long as they're consensual and not performed on kids - just thought I'd put that disclaimer there since I need to keep stating the obvious).

I read those links, but couldn't find any actual mention of the abusers' sexual orientation. Without that data, there's no way to determine whether they abused children of the same sex because they were homosexual, or whether they abuse children of the same sex despite not being homosexual due to children of the "appropriate" sex not being readily available. The study is fatally flawed on that point alone.

Yes it unethical to have anal sex from both sexes.  I never have committed anal sex, sure some of us get tempted to because society brought it up because is ok, but in reality the asshole wasnt made for sex.  Dont you wonder how HIV came to existence because of the dirty behavior of mans sins?

oh yea I never had a blow job, nor did animals get blowjobs it was created by temptations of sick men.

Clearly you are when you make such silly statements as that. What good exactly comes from intolerance and hetero marriages?

Yes i am idiot because nothing good will come from allowing and tolerance same-sex marriages!

OK. Please have the patience to read all these links before you comment further on them.


STUDY FINDS DISPROPORTIONATE ABUSE BY 'GAYS'
http://www.wnd.com/2005/03/29180/




Child molestations by homosexual foster parents: Illinois, 1997--2002.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825933


Gay Foster Parents More Apt to Molest (Journal of the Family Research Institute)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1439170/posts

Do you actually read what I'm saying? Raping kids isn’t consensual is it? Keyword consensual. Stop being an idiot.

What if that "anyone" sticks its dick into a 5 years old boy/girl?And later that boy decides to be gay ?Or the girl decides to like other girl just because a maniac sexually abused her when she was young?What if that child was you or what if that child is yours?

I would also like to know about the sample they used and the amount of people behind it including what group was involved in this 'study'.

He probably just saw it on some bigot's blog or perhaps just made the figures up to suit his opinion like he has done before.


I don't think god intended peoples' mouths to give blowjobs but I doubt you'd turn one down because of this. I also doubt you'd be concerned about bacteria if a woman you met wanted some bumfun. And there are lots of things in the bible. Do you agree with killing people for adultery, working on sundays, disrespecting your parents, having pre-marital sex? etc etc.

Do you want to outlaw straight people from having anal sex too?   

Let me tell you something, its in the bible, I am not judging anyone but I am saying the wrong and right from the bible stand point,  I say when people are gay is because is a mistake in nature.  So I dont blame them for it, the ones I do blame is the one who molested and became gay even thought its not entirely there faught. Now we have societies that take young woman for mairriage and not just 1 many wives they take, they are many societies with these beleifs, and now in this western society is considered staturtory rape if you make any sexual contact with a youner female.  Now guy and a guy.  Penuis that goes into an asshole which is filled with alot more bacteria then a vagina.  The ass made for sexual behavior or to get rid of waste?  This was something man had created from sin and now the sin we are accepting in society to pass and pass.  

Link please.  You are probably NOT referring to a 'study but the testimony of one debunked man. 

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/foster-children-adopted-by-gay-239748

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/10/25/foster-kids-adopted-by-same-sex-parents-make-big-gains-study-says

Are you actually saying being gay is because of 'deep seated psychological issues' and trying to compare consensual homosexuality with justifying someone beating another person up? Raping kids isn’t consensual. And regarding drugs, it shouldn't be any of the states business what an adult puts into their body, nor should it be where anyone wants to stick their dick.

Lol. Isn't that something you should ask yourself when you arguing with gods law? Don't tell me you have heard it directly from him  

Also you are probably ignoring so many of gods laws. Why is exactly this one a problem? And which one is it exactly?

Well if that is the case some people are naturally prone towards violent behavior. Should we allow violence? Others are naturally attracted towards children. Should we allow that? And yet others are easily addicted to things like drugs and alchohol yet we still take steps to shun such behavior. Are you saying because these are deep seated psychological issues we should allow them?

decent?  so because of this type of thinking we move away from god, Im talking in a bibbilical stand piont not what nature has thrown at us, how you know the devil didnt put those thing in beast so he can say, oh they do it, why cant humans, did you forget when humans were having sex with animals too, so that should be fine too right?

Have you seen this up close or your just going about what you read? 

Yes. Let's ban all sorts of sex except missionary position because anything else is just perverse  . Being gay is not perverse. Your opinions are. Comparing homosexuality to paedophilia is a ridiculous comparison. Laws were just fucked up back in the day because they were based on ignorance, intolerance and biblical crap but we've moved past that now (or at least most decent people have).

This is bullshit. Source?

Unfortunately that argument is not true always. Recently there was a study on sexual abuse by foster parents. For heterosexual foster parents, the rate was around 2%, while for the homosexual foster parents, the rate was between 40% and 45%. Unfortunately, less than 1% of these pedophiles were prosecuted for their crimes, party because the cops were afraid of being labelled as homophobic. I don't have anything against homosexuality as such, but I have serious problem when pedophiles use it as an excuse to molest small children.

And this is the only 'real' reason people have a problem with gay marriage. There is no valid argument against it.


Do you agree with all god's laws? Like the ones where we should stone to death certain people? Is that a breath of fresh air and better than our current laws? Thank god not everybody truly takes the bible or the Koran as gospel on these sort of things.

The big government conservatives are ok with government handing out welfare for their causes.

It's ironic you complain about somebody wanting something so simple and then proceed to cry about how marriage should be done 'your' way.

Using the government to get special privileges is great fun for men and women. It should not be limited to just two people. Groups of people should have the same benefits of marriage rights, shared health care, tax breaks, etc...

Why stop at just special privileges for just two?

If you really believe in these kind of arguments then you're a moron, homosexual relations with consenting partners and rape ( Nonconsensual Sex )  have nothing to do with each other, I'd really like to know what goes on in a religious persons' head because they keep coming up with more and more nonsensical bullshit and expect me to go along with it.

Next you'll be telling me a dick and a vagina are the same thing.

Don't people see farther down the road? 50-100 years ago, homosexuality was viewed on nearly the same level as pedophilia, and there were very little to no rights for gays. Now gays are accepted in the public eye. How long before pedophiles start marching for rights, and the "progressives" (read liberals) side with them. The argument for why gayness was persecuted in the past is that we were not ready for it or something along those lines. I don't want to see the day when all kinds of perversions are accepted. It needs to stop somewhere.

Can you back that up?  Or are you using some new definition of the word 'rare'.  Scientists that work with animals say that and have many documented examples.  It is FAR from rare.  It is common. 

In places all over the world where it has been legalized for long periods of time this has not happened.

"Tolerance is always exploited."  - Wow. 

That is also a valid point, Hazir. I am afraid that if we legalize homosexual marriage now, then some people will start campaign to get incest and pedophilia legalized. Tolerance is always exploited.

Homosexuality is a Life Choice Due to the fact that homosexuality has been proven to sometimes be a life choice (not always genetic), it would be hypocritical to allow gay marriage, but then not allow incest-marriage, or polygamy, since these are obviously both life choices also. A lot of people simply support something because it sounds nice and seems humanitarian, this can lead to ignorance, hypocrisy, and a detrimental/self destructive policy.

Interesting revision history of this wiki page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&action=history

I don't have any problem with gays marrying each other. It is their choice. If they want to get married, then let them do that. Still I am against gay couples adopting children.

And it is wrong to say that homosexual activity is common in the animal kingdom. It is extremely rare, and found only in less than 0.001% of the animal population.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

"Homosexual behavior in animals is sexual behavior among non-human species that may be interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs. Research indicates that various forms of this are found throughout the animal kingdom.[1][2] As of 1999, nearly 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors; this is well documented in about 500 species. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

How did you know what God's law is?  I see in nature plenty of examples of homosexuality.   

I think people are interesting beings. If I was too look for some natural or wild influence I would look at my most basic source, nature. You don’t see males having doing it with males in the animal kingdom.
Thus taking the most basic knowledge. Provided to me. Since we too are animals. Leaves me with one conclusion. That same sex is only a perverted and twisted form of sexual desire and intercourse. Not intended for people that want to assume responsibility in life for their actions.
Now. As being human. If homosexuality is tolerated more likely it will be a norm. When nature provides no evidence of any normality in such desires.

peanutcoins, all the points that  you given are man's arguments. And the arguments of man kind often go against the commandments of God. Nothing new there.

On more of a legal level, man may make any kind of law he wants. But in this case of homosexual 'marriage', I like God's law better. It's like a breath of fresh air that just makes sense, just the opposite of man's law on this issue.

1. Men and Women have equal rights.
2. If you are a man, you have the right to marry a woman. And if you are a woman, you have the right to marry a man.
3. If you are a woman, you have the right to do what men do. And if you are a man, you have the right to do what women do. (This by 1) (provided that the action is possible).
4. Therefore, Men have the right to marry men, and women have a right to marry women. (This by 2 and 3).    Some would say that (2) is wrong and that it should read that men and women only have the right to marry the opposite sex. So...

    1. If you were to say that a person could only marry a person of the opposite sex, the reason would have to be: a) sexual reproduction must be possible for married couples, b) since it is a better type of sex, c) Only men should marry women and only women should marry men, d)"the parts don't fit", or e) If the popular opinion opposes gay marriage, it should be illegal.

    1a. Suppose, “Since sexual reproduction is not possible in same-sex relationships, same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed.”
    2a. You effectively eliminate all marriages in which sexual reproduction is impossible (since the condition of not being able to sexually reproduce is defined as a reason that a marriage should not be able to take place).
    3a. Heterosexual couples who can not sexual reproduce can be married
    4a. Therefore, no matter the relationship, being able to sexually reproduce shouldn't be the issue that determines whether or not two can be united (By 3a‘s contradiction of 2a).
    5a. So, we've ruled that not being able to sexually reproduce should not be a factor used to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

    1b. Suppose that heterosexual sex is the best sex. (between 2 people)
    2b. There exist people who think homosexual sex is better that heterosexual sex. (between 2 people)
    3b. Something “being the best,” unless as it were to be determined by a comparative analysis, is simply "one opinion among many".
    4b. Thus heterosexual sex "being the best sex" is an opinion that carries the same weight as the opinion of homosexual sex "being the best sex".
    5b. Hence, by difference in opinion, 1b is wrong (correctly stated, it would read: Some people believe heterosexual sex is better than homosexual sex).

    1c. You can’t support a position by using the position as the reason for why it should be true.
    2c. The overlying question is: For what reason would you be able to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples?
    3c. 1(c) says “Only heterosexual couples should be able to marry” is the reason answering the question in 2c, which asks why only heterosexual couples should be married.
    4c. Hence, this reason does not support the viewpoint that only heterosexual couples should be able to marry (by 2c and 3c over the rule 1c).

    1d. Suppose "the parts don't fit" in homosexual sexual activity is the reason that homosexual marriage cannot exist..
    2d. Sex is putting body parts together (Yes, it has degrees - physical contact)
    3d. Homosexuals can't have sex.
    4d. Some homosexuals have homosexual sex.
    5d. "The parts fit" making this reason wrong as well.

    1e. When there is no viable reason that exists to support a certain opinion, that opinion is nullified.
    2e. All possible reasons supporting heterosexual-only marriages (that I can think of) have been disproved, making them not viable
    3e. Therefore all opinions against same-sex marriage are nullified.

    2. None of the reasons in (1) hold true.
    3. If we were to say, “Marriage is to only be a union between a man and a woman,” there would be a contradiction.


    4. Therefore, since all points in the argument have been fully supported, proving all opposing notions to be false, it can be said with no room for interpretation otherwise that same-sex marriage is an undeniable right for the people living under the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America!