77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Natural/Organic One Woman-One Man Marriage...

Funk*Sonic*7 · 06-01-2013

77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Natural/Organic One Woman-One Man Marriage...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...ZNc-EmdK9VY_-g

psychoDiablo · 06-01-2013

lol i love it. welcome back sir

Comrade Marx · 06-01-2013

Here are two very good reasons to support same sex marriage from both a non-religious and religious stand point:

1. Personal Freedom
2. Human Rights

And before you think I am pulling stuff out of the air, isn't large portion of the old testament the story of how the Jews under an oppressive regime in Egypt rebelled and left the county, and isn't one of the whole main points about Jesus's life to promote free will and human rights.

But here are some flaws/responses that can be picked out of this list:

1-5. We have had adoption for hundreds of years, many people have know clue who their biological parents are and they grew up in orphanages with no parents or in foster homes without their biological parents and they came out fine. And how may single parents are out there today? Around the world we usually have many single parents of all ages and genders had to take care of children all by themselves. and what about couples that have children and a family life, but are not married? Essentially, As long as children are with someone who loves them and takes care of them, it does not matter if they are gay, straight, single, divorced, married, or whatever circumstances. One man and one woman does not mean that a child will grow up happy and in a stable environment. I consider the men and women of my regiment a family, do you find something wrong with that, because that not a conventional family either.

8. A lot of kid grew up or are growing up without their father, but children can develop normally and they can find a male stand in. Why in the hell do you think we have big brothers and big sisters and other organizations that have men and women that volunteer to fill that missing part of their life.

9. This dipping into religion

11-13. Every child should be entitled to parents and to know who they are. But in the real world that does not happen, so many parents are die or leave. We hear those stories from Africa of where one parent is killed in a war and the other dies from disease. and we have international organizations that try and help get orphans in terrible conditions home with families, but its an up hill battle for them. Its tragic, but that's nature and human nature for you.

14. Well sometimes the parents don't want to be affiliated with the child, they'll send them somewhere else to be someone else's problem

15. We have NGOs and government agencies that do that too, Do you have a problem with them?

16. A gay or lesbian couple can do just as a good of job or better at protecting children then heterosexual couples. This argument has to be looked at as a "case-by-case" situation because we have a lot of straight that are lousy parents that need to go to jail.

17. Not really, homosexuals want children too so they can be parents and have the satisfaction of raising a child, gay families want the same things as straight families.

18. We have laws that protect children in general, its not specific to heterosexual people. The law applies to all people in any family conditions

19. Of course they do, all of them want to know who their real parents are. Do really think gay people are kidnapping children?

21. Again, may children grow up without a father, maybe sometime in the future a male will be present to fulfill the father role in a child's life. We also have many single women that get artificially inseminated, Where's the problem with that?

22. Of course not, love is important. But children also need discipline, structure, and guidance. And with stepparents, not all of them get along with their stepchildren either. The children and stepparent need time to get insync, this shit doesn't happen like osmosis.

23. Of course they are, their parents are getting a divorce and someone else is in the picture, this really does not support one man and one women. This is an argument to keep families together

24. Have you ever watched the show Beyond Scared Straight? Those kids are all messed up and all of them are living in various family conditions

25. Yeah, because some want attention and others are evil little bastards. Again this is argument to keep a marriage together or not to re-marry when divorced

26. Okay, what's the point? and this is not the case for all stepfamily households

27. Fucking duh, Of course the stepfather want s to spend more time with the wife and the mother wants to keep this marriage tighter so it doe not happen again. Also their are many cases of the opposite happening where the stepfather is more into the child's life then the biological father.

28. The exact same thing happens in heterosexual families. Besides we have children in families with their biological families that have no love, ask Paul Bernardo

29. Sex is irrelevant to parenting. Some heterosexual parents abuse their children, we condemn them as parents based on there poor abilities. And I can for see that morons will hear about a story of a homosexual couple abusing a child and use it as proof that same-sex couples are unfit to be parents. NO them as individuals are unfit for parenthood not the sexuality as a whole.

30. Single mothers feel the same way. Should we take their children away?

31. Okay, we'll just let the orphanages overflow with unwanted children. Seriously not all people in the 21st century feel entitled

32. OF COURSE, THE FATHER IS GONE. It does not matter if they are straight or gay

33. Really? Teenage girls will sleep around because their hormone are active and they are discovering boys. It does not matter if the father is present or not it is a failure of the school system for not teaching proper sex ed

34. Boys are fucking dumb, especially in this generation. Regardless if they are straight, gay or single parents, boys will get into trouble and some will get into gangs. Sometimes parents cannot stop their really dumb kid from doing dumb thing. Case in point [I]Jackass[I]

35. No their developing early, and seriously? During puberty all children are at risk of have development problems (testicular cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, etc.). And body images disorders? that's from society and cold hearted bitches that think skinny=beauty. You cannot blame the family unit on eating disorders.

36. Its called sexual education, I got more sexual advise from health nurses and teachers then from my heterosexual parents. You want to know why? BECUASE ITS FUCKING CREEPY AND ACKWARD TO TALK TO YOUR PARENTS ABOUT SEX

37. Anyone who advocates that is a sociopath. And I fail to see the relevance to the main argument

38. Of course children and mother have a special bond, they were living rent free inside of their uterus for 9 months. But here's another thing, many children are attached to their father then their mother. this has nothing to do with gay or straight.

39. Yeah, because not all heterosexual mothers have the father around for many reasons. My guess that the father is optional in the birth certificate is because its only women who are going to be present for the birth of the child. Again this is a guess I may be wrong, men might carry a child for 9 months, who knows!

40. So they dropped it completely, that mean single mothers can have children. See not same-sex marriage does help out heterosexual people.

41. That's the personal choice of all women, NO ONE has the right to tell a women how she can raise her family (well with in a reasonable and legal context. I mean mothers don't have the right to play mind fuck games on there kids or tell them its okay to smoke crack in the house)

42. That's individual choice. Besides what sounds weirder, a married lesbian couple that has children versus two straight girls that are not married and are straight but do not want to have a male figure in their life to raise the children they have? Personally I do not care which is which, as long as the children are happy and taken care of.

43. So what is that what many people want? Gender equality, and who cares if this county in Maryland got rid of father's day. I highly doubt it will stop people and families from celebrating on May 16. I highly doubt the Maryland police are going to bust someone for giving their old man a card. Seriously, Hitler's birthday day is on April 20, no nation celebrates it, but it doesn't stop the skinheads.

44-51. We have had AI since 1884 for heterosexual couple, Why should same-sex couple be denied. But overall women do it so they can have a legacy to pass on. Not all men can have erections. This entire section is against AI as a whole. This goes against ANYONE, gay or straight from using this method. This is wrong to deny people the OPPERTUNITY to have children. I agree Children are not an entitlement, But denying the opportunity for parents is a major violations for their rights as human. NO ONE has the right to tell others how to have children. This section of argument has moved way beyond same-sex versus conventional marriage argument.

52. Yes, government had to change the definition of marriage so ALL PERSONS have the right to marry. This violates people's freedom and rights to live their life.

53. What's wrong with gender neutral? Isn't that what most people want is a gender equal society? Wouldn't this help erase sexism from society? Or are you okay with women "Barefoot in the kitchen and pregnant"?

54. And who's definition of "Superficial" and "General" are you using? when we move into legal notions of what words mean we can turn them into whatever we want.

55. The judge is right, it is a stereotype based in fantasy. If children can grow up happy in a single parent environment, then why can't TWO people of the same gender have that opportunity?

56. Again words and statements can be picked apart in a legal context. This happens in legal cases, all it this really is lawyers Bullshitting their hearts out to win the case.

57. Judges change laws all the time on various issues such as the environment, guns, and the penal system, Do you really think the world will descend into chaos and anarchy because marriage has changed? I highly doubt that. And besides ALL people break the law ALL the time: speeding, downloading copy righted material, drug use, etc. WHAT THE HEFFEL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?

58. NO it needs to be restructured. This is why we have a government.

59. Yeah, got nothing for this, funny as hell though

60. THAT IS WHAT MARRIAGE WAS BEFORE SAME-SEX COUPLE HAD THE RIGHT TO MARRY. That's what I hear from married people all the time "I married my best friend"

61. What about the current system that allows straight parents that separate themselves from their children and place them in an institution called an orphanage?

62. We had two things like that in Canada before same-sex marriage that is still around one is called adoption and the other is called divorce

63. You really need to look up this whole "adoption" thing

64. Oh biology does establish rights and responsibilities for parents, doesn't mean their going to do it. Maybe you should watch a few episodes of Maury, You'll get the picture

65. Yeah, the state can assigns parental right. They also take them away if the adults are completely useless and this happens to heterosexual couples and single parents frequently

66. That's what courts do, they dig up dirt on you for a case. This is not really new

67. Heterosexual couple do that to. Its called abandonment, So maybe the child would be better off with the loving homosexual foster parents? I don't know I cant speak for every child in foster care or every same sex couple

68. So I am pretty sure children will coup better knowing that they are the result of AI and not a deadbeat ass hat that left them

69. Adoption agencies need release children to parents that are deserving and want children who will take care of them. And of course adoption agencies are for people who "want" children, why do you think we have them. The biological parents abandoned them, which is the most hurtful thing to do to a child. The kids want to be loved by a family, I am sure they wouldn't care if they have two dads or two moms.

70. And without going into religious arguments, Where does conventional marriage derive from? THE STATE

71. Governments have to protect same-sex marriage because of homophobes such as yourself. And remember, Homosexuals are a minority, that's what governments do, protect the rights of the minority

72. It is, Why is it not?

73. YOU BROUGHT UP RELIGIOUS REASON!

74. Since when was the government good at enforcing anything? besides it will still not stop people from following what they believe

75. Maybe the father was arrested for trespassing and causing a disturbance

76. That's okay, no one likes Quebec and again this is a religious argument

77. No it doesn't its integrating people into our society that we have casted out and persecuted in the past. This is us a s a society moving forward not thinking about what defines a person or a family based on their lifestyle

Zanahoria_Picante · 06-01-2013

You can't stop what society does: Once "the people," or hoi polloi (in case you're interested in a Greek term I just learned), get an idea in their heads, there's no stopping its fruition, or otherwise its carrying-out-ness.

We are--Christians are--not called to judge the people; we're called to love the people. All people. Period. That will make all the difference in pointing people to God. All this judgement and trying to stop the actions and laws of society--a futile pursuit--is not the message of Jesus at all. God has his own laws and his message was to love your enemies, love the world without conditions of any kind, as he had demonstrated.

"Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples."

"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Jesus himself associated with what were considered the "riff raff" of society by the Jews' standards (these "riff raff" were considered "unclean," among other things, by the Jews): Prostitutes, tax collectors, the infirm. It's something any Christian should consider.

foxyphoenix · 06-01-2013

First of all, pretty much all of the children-related arguments apply equally well to families with step-parents, single parent families, and adoptive families. None of those are illegal so those reasons shouldn't be used against same-sex marriage.

And secondably, even though I know Funk will never take the time to think critically about any of those reasons and will just continue to copy and paste anything he agrees with and ignore everything he doesn't, for everyone else:

Rational Wiki's reason-by-reason takedown of this nonsense.

Love is love.

Edit:

I can't let this one slip by: since WHEN is marriage a child-centered institution?? Are married couples required to have children? Non-religious (secular) marriage is a legal agreement between two consenting adults to share their lives, assets, and responsibilities. It is an adult institution that sometimes involves children. Good grief.

Comrade Marx · 06-01-2013

Quote:

Originally Said by foxyphoenix

First of all, pretty much all of the children-related arguments apply equally well to families with step-parents, single parent families, and adoptive families. None of those are illegal so those reasons shouldn't be used against same-sex marriage.

And secondably, even though I know Funk will never take the time to think critically about any of those reasons and will just continue to copy and paste anything he agrees with and ignore everything he doesn't, for everyone else:

Rational Wiki's reason-by-reason takedown of this nonsense.

Love is love.

DAMMIT I wish I found this earlier

psychoDiablo · 06-01-2013

Anyway, shouldn't we be supporting "marriage" itself? Since more than half of marriages end in divorce, why does it matter who is getting married? Two human beings are, we should all be so lucky to even love someone so much that we gave it in another name. Marriage. It's what humans do. Let's support ourselves! Every man and woman. Give our "so-called" kids something to grow up to.

Zanahoria_Picante · 06-02-2013

Quote:

Originally Said by Comrade Marx

Here are two very good reasons to support same sex marriage from both a non-religious and religious stand point:

Kind of missed this before, but it seems relevant and fair to actually accurately represent the Christian view of marriage and homosexuality. So, here's a go.

That argument only follows from a non-religious standpoint, not Christian, despite what some say.

There is no basis in the Old Testament or in Jesus' teachings to support homosexual marriage or homosexual acts at all; in fact, the Bible describes homosexuality as immoral and it is listed among other sexually immoral behavior:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...31&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...11&version=NIV

Marriage is a significant part of Christian beliefs and life as it represents God's relationship with Israel in the OT and Jesus' relationship to the church in the NT; the church, all Christians, are referred to symbolically as "the bride" of Christ:

"The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete." (John 3:29)

Tons more "bride" references here: http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...lewordsonly=no

From one of the (many good) resources linked to that John 3 verse: "Contemplating marriage deepens understanding of God’s love for his people; examining God’s covenant love for his people similarly enriches an understanding of marriage."

This is the basis for Christian marriage (and the symbolism of marriage), a theme seen from Genesis to Revelation:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...24&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-6&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...:7&version=NIV

The book of 1 Corinthians is also quite insightful on this general topic (chapter 6):

12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.[c]

18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

And if you're feeling bold, read chapter 7: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...07&version=NIV

The general public seems to know very little about the significance of marriage to Christians and why it is seen as such a defining thing. Just a little overview.

Quote:

1. Personal Freedom
2. Human Rights

And before you think I am pulling stuff out of the air, isn't large portion of the old testament the story of how the Jews under an oppressive regime in Egypt rebelled and left the county...

Firstly, it's not really a large portion; it's primarily one book, of 39 books:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+1&version=NIV

Secondly (and by that I mean, "firstly"), that summation of the story entirely excludes God.

If anything, the story of the Jews' emancipation represents the exact inverse of the effort to legalize gay marriage, as the former represents God's nation in their journey to follow Him and His laws (in fact that story includes the formation of the 10 commandments http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...20&version=NIV), and the latter represents humanity's pursuit of its own desires and its quest for self-fulfillment with no regard to God whatsoever or hostility toward God--as a rule. So, really, it would be quite difficult for those two quests to differ more.

Quote:

and isn't one of the whole main points about Jesus's life to promote free will and human rights

Far from it. Human beings hardly need the idea of free will promoted to them, anyway; if "free will" means the philosophical and spiritual sense of free will (the freedom to act independently and voluntarily), that would be like promoting being human.

Jesus came to offer His kingdom to humanity, to be, after some ado, rejected by humanity, then to save humanity from its reckless and ubiquitous abuse of free will; he came to fix what was broken: Humanity's relationship to God. To this day, the majority of people continue to choose to reject God, even though he may be freely found at any time.

As for human rights as it is meant in this context, to me it seems Jesus saw past politics; He told the truth but did so in love. Hope that's what this was.

Comrade Marx · 06-02-2013

Quote:

Originally Said by Zanahoria_Picante

Kind of missed this before

Yes you completely missed the point, What I am saying is that everyone in the world has free will and human rights. People use the bible as a weapon to prove that homosexuality is wrong. Well I am using the same bible to show that God and Jesus promoted human rights and free will. And if you think that is false, then I do not know what kind of bible you have been reading. We as a society need to change our thinking.

What I brought up about Moses and Egypt was evidence to show that bible says its okay to rebel against oppression. Now are gay people being forced into hard labour because they are gay, No. But we are taking way their rights and freedoms. So activists are "rebelling" against the government and society because of an injustice.

So go a head a quote a bunch of bible gibberish that means nothing to me, because in the end were both quoting from a book that is full of hypocrisy and nonsense. Here is some other nonsense

Exodus 21:20-21
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

So its okay to savagely beat a servant or your slave as long as they don't die from the beating.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24:
If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death."

So in this case if I gag and rape a virgin in the city I live in, She gets killed because she didn't scream loud enough

So in other words according to the bible its okay for us to kill rape victims and beat your slaves. But its wrong to allow people to be gay or allow gay people to marry.

Oh yeah and if Jesus was brought to earth to represent his father, God. Then that means Jesus follows God`s commands. So that mean Jesus did
promote human rights and free will

Genesis 1:27
Because of this, man has a certain dignity and was given dominion over the rest of creation`

"As for human rights as it is meant in this context, to me it seems Jesus saw past politics"

Since when has human rights been exclusively a political matter? Last I checked we have many religious figures that promote human rights today. Human rights is not political, it can be traced to something very basic to when we were all little kids in school

"Treat others how you would liked to be different"

So go ahead and cling to that relic and revolve your life around it but don't push it on others. It holds us back from moving humanity forward. I don't need a book to tell me what's right and what's wrong I can see that pretty damn clear.

Pittielynn · 06-02-2013

Yesterday, the "exmuslim" subreddit was asked why they "quit Islam." One person's response comes to mind when discussing religion in particular:

Quote:

Originally Said by Intelligentile

I was a pretty devout muslim. I used to think islam is the true religion, was absolutely certain and in my mind there was no doubt about it. Then I one day met a person who was a devout Hindu. After having a conversation with him I realized he was as devout, as certain about his religion as I was about mine. I thought to myself, Okay, I know for a certain that his religion is false, and he's certain his religion is true! We can't both be right! Atleast one must be false!

This in turn made me question my own religion. What made me certain that islam is the true religion?...the Deen l-Haqq? I began to search for proofs, evidences, anything that may convince me of Islam being the truth.

The more I searched and researched, the less convinced I became of the religion I held so dearly, so devoutly. This is almost like waking up from a dream only to realise you were dreaming and the unknown real world is out there about which you have very little understanding.

When I realised that Quran is nothing but some letters on a paper written by some dead humans who supposedly heard it from another dead man who supposedly received it from the CREATOR of the WHOLE FUCKING UNIVERSE, a grandiose claim without an iota of evidence, I realized I'm no longer certain about the truth of this religion. Then Islam just became like any other religion on this planet - an ancient mythology packed with medieval moral values.

As for any non-religious motives, there is only one counter argument I care about. We are all people with only one life to live and no real concrete evidence to prove otherwise (Unless someone here can talk to angels without being declared insane). We all deserve the right to live whichever life we want to live as long as that life does not impede on the free will or endanger the lives of another person. Gay marriage does neither of those.

foxyphoenix · 06-02-2013

I think your opinion on marriage is very interesting, Zana.
I feel like, within Corinthians, the Biblical definition of marriage is very consistent. However, when compared with other books of the Bible, marriage is defined (and glorified) in different ways.

Deuteronomy has some interesting passages: Deuteronoy 22:13-21 commands stoning on women who are not virgins on their wedding night. Surely if one is seeking redemption or relief from the temptation of lust by sanctifying it through marriage, the virginity of the participants shouldn't matter. Especially not the virginity of one (the woman) rather than the man. Why does God care so much about the hymen of women and not about the virginity of men?

Deuteronomy 21:11-14 details how you can rape a woman your people have taken captive and if you don't like her you can toss her aside rather than marrying her. 21:15 specifically tells you how to deal if you like one of your wives better than the other. Deut 25:5 details how, if a man dies without a son, his BROTHER must have sex with the man's wife until she has a son. Do these sound like people glorifying God by not giving into lust?

Also in Deuteronomy 22:23-29, a man can obtain a wife by raping her (a virgin, obviously) and then paying her father in silver. Is rape what God meant by "coming together as one flesh"?

Does the Bible really honor marriage as between one man and one woman? Because a lot of characters in it have multiple wives, concubines, and maids who bear them sons. Abraham had sons with concubines (Genesis 25:6), Esau had multiple wives (Genesis 26:34), Jacob had two wives and two concubines (Genesis 32:22), Gideon had "many wives" (Judges 8:30), David has two (1 Samuel 30:18) and then got more (2 Samuel 5:13) and another (2 Samuel 11:2-5) and more (1 Chronicles 14:3). But if a woman has more than one husband she's an abomination (because then her sons could be anybody's sons!).

Exodus 21:7-11 details the duties your daughter has after you sell her as a slave, including marriage to her owner or his son even if they have other wives. Exodus 22:16-17 seems to think premarital sex is okay as long as you pay her father the going rate for virgins if you don't marry her. This passage isn't about lust, it's about ownership.

Leviticus 20:10-12 is all about men having sex with various people and how they shall (all) be put to death, regardless of consent. If a man rapes an engaged virgin, she has to die, too.

In Numbers 25, Phinehas is praised for murdering an interracial couple.

I'm getting depressed, so let's skip to the New Testament:

Matthew 5:32, 19:9 - Divorce is okay if the woman is an adulterer, but not if the man is. (I guess one flesh only applies to her.)
1 Timothy 5:11-14 - Widows under 60 years old should remarry to bear sons even though they are damned by having more than one husband.

Honestly, besides the Corinthians, the rest of the Bible seems to value marriage only in terms of "bearing sons" and is thus obsessed with multiple wives and concubines, beyond obsessed with women's virginity (but not men's), cursing barren wives, forcing women into sex and marriage, buying wives from men or destroying villages and stealing them, and casting them off if they offend or are not virgins.

The Biblical marriage is really all about sex, virginity, ownership, and bearing sons.

It's vulgar.

Pittielynn · 06-02-2013

Quote:

Originally Said by foxyphoenix

The Biblical marriage is really all about sex, virginity, ownership, and bearing sons.

It's vulgar.

Like I said, medieval moral values.

Zanahoria_Picante · 06-02-2013

I can and will calmly and kindly respond to your objections after work, but until then and because everyone seems a bit tense right now, I hope the tension can be mitigated a bit by this cluster of sleepy, fluffy, baby penguins:

And soothing music:

Chopin Nocturne op. 9 no. 2

(I feel about 45% better.)

Pittielynn · 06-02-2013

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepe nguinseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!They'resofluffyI 'mgoingtodieeeeeeeeee!!!!!

psychoDiablo · 06-02-2013

do people in muslim forums discuss shit like this? gay marriage and drugs and abortions and gun control crap. i only know what americans do. so far they are the freest if i had to vote.

Funk*Sonic*7 · 06-03-2013

Not all marriages create children, but every child has parents.

And to your "love is love" meme...two brothers marrying, two sisters, polygamists, polyamory, etc? If it's about "love" and not about biology and love, why not "equality" for all who proclaim it? If everybody already has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and it's about love not sex, then why can't any adult of two or more people who live together get the same benefits?

Your wiki article uses the fraud term "homophobia," so it's difficult to take seriously.

And the fact that some of you are trying to turn this into a Biblical debate when the original post isn't putting forth Scripture reveals a defensive position. If you want to debate what the Bible states about homosexual practice, start another thread.

Finally, I didn't know that having a view and providing links to back is not having a view? Who's the "holier than though" one when one makes such accusations?

foxyphoenix · 06-03-2013

Quote: