1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.
Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."
10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.
Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).
Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

I'm willing to bet my left nut that these are variations of the reason given by the church in opposition to Inter-racial marriages.



OP,
the ecumenical, enlightened believers, having realized that Homosexuality has indeed come to say; have modified their stance against it.
Rather than castigate; they remind one of "God's unending love" and move past it.


Dude, Homosexuality IS. Accept it.

nobody is imposing anything on anybody

SirWere:
I'm willing to bet my left nut that these are variations of the reason given by the church in opposition to Inter-racial marriages.



OP,
the ecumenical, enlightened believers, having realized that Homosexuality has indeed come to say; have modified their stance against it.
Rather than castigate; they remind one of "God's unending love" and move past it.


Dude, Homosexuality IS. Accept it.

Oreoo:
[s]1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.
Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."
10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.
Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).
Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

[/s]
Bullshit
How are they disturbing you
Why are you people so bothered about the sexual activities of others. Aren't there infertile heterosexual couples too??
Why aren't you bothering them
Why do you want to impose your religious beliefs on others
Must you make everybody's life miserable
I'm not a homosexual but I don't have anything against them because they aren't a terror to society neither are they promoting a "everyone should be gay agenda"
Im happy the rest of humanity isn't like you
Your religion has made you a bigot
Preach against adultery
Preach against divorce
Preach against marriage after divorce
Christians do all this
Clean up your house before you clean others

'And the devil that DECEIVED them was cast into the Lake of fire.'

Revelation 20.

THE END OF DAYS.

1. "It is not marriage"

The purpose of marriage is NOT to produce children, that is the purpose of reproduction. Last I checked you do not need to be married to reproduce and not every married couple desires to have children. Furthermore people dont get married to "complement their biological, physiological and psychological differences" you marry someone because you love them. And this idea that love only exists between same sex is also inaccurate evidenced by the fact that same-sex couples do infact love each other....

2. It Violates Natural Law

The definition of natural means it occurs in nature. There are 1500 animal species that exhibit homosexual behaviour, therefore how can you say homosexuality is infact unnatural. Even if you said unnatural means rarely occurs in nature, a lot of traits and behaviours are also rare, it doesnt mean they are inherently wrong. Furthermore nature rarely follows "laws", nature is radom and unpredictable.

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

There are many single parents who do a great job of raising their children and there are many who do a bad job. The same can be said of children with two parents in their lives. The absence of a father/mother or the presence of two male/female parental figures does not affect how a child turns out as much as the parenting style(s) of the parents in question.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

"Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality." Why would it weaken public morality and basic moral values. So far you havent reeally given a concrete reason why homosexuality is immoral.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Again no good reason why its morally wrong. "Nature" has no "requirements" for marriage. I've already pointed out how some species exhibit homosexuality behaviour and I will also mention that not all animals mate with with one partner (opposite or same sex partner. What is this biological impossibility? Sex isnt just to procreate; it's also for pleasure and a way to show your partner you care for them. Homosexual couples might not have sex the way heterosexual couples do but sex is sex?. It is a civil right for two consenting adults to be able to have a legally recognised union.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Again the purpose of marriage is not the purpose of reproduction and not every marriage is aimed at having children and not every couple is capable too. The last 2 produce what is a "sterile union" but why is it wrong?, should such couples have their marriage invalidated?.Even if same-sex couples us medical technology to have children why is that wrong? as i've said many same-sex couples do the same. If same-sex couples adopt wouldnt that be a good thing? there are many children produce who have been abandoned and have no homes, if a same-sex union provides them with a good life nothing wrong there.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

"Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage." it's like you keep repeating the same points over and over again. I'm sure everyone gets married primarily for their own happiness. If the main purpose of states recognising marriages was to provide an atmosphere for the upbringing of children then every married couple would be mandated to have children and single parenting would be illegal; I am unaware of anywhere in the world where this is the case.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

No is forcing you to approve, you are being asked to recognise the human rights of same-sex couples.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution.

This argument about homosexuality leading to acceptance of incest, pedophilia and bestiality is old. One could argue that incest is wrong because it can produce offspring with harmful mutations, even if no children comes from incestuous relationships it could also be argued that it perverts the bond that exists between siblings and parents. Pedophilia is wrong because the sexual activity occurs between an adult who takes advantage of a child who isnt mentally/emotianally/physically mature, and pedophiles who purchase materials depicting pedophilia fund individuals who exploit children for money, essentially sexual slavery of children. As for bestiality, are you comparing the quality of relationships between two humans to the relationship between a human and an animal? :/ this one is generally just weak.

10. It Offends God

Finally not everyone believes in a god and the wonderful rules of your book. The bible also says

If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10). Hope you dont have any muslims in your family.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29. I guess we must also make women who have been raped marry their rapists, its what God wants innit.

LightandDarkness:
1. "It is not marriage"

The purpose of marriage is NOT to produce children, that is the purpose of reproduction. Last I checked you do not need to be married to reproduce and not every married couple desires to have children. Furthermore people dont get married to "complement their biological, physiological and psychological differences" you marry someone because you love them. And this idea that love only exists between same sex is also inaccurate evidenced by the fact that same-sex couples do infact love each other....

2. It Violates Natural Law

The definition of natural means it occurs in nature. There are 1500 animal species that exhibit homosexual behaviour, therefore how can you say homosexuality is infact unnatural. Even if you said unnatural means rarely occurs in nature, a lot of traits and behaviours are also rare, it doesnt mean they are inherently wrong. Furthermore nature rarely follows "laws", nature is radom and unpredictable.

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

There are many single parents who do a great job of raising their children and there are many who do a bad job. The same can be said of children with two parents in their lives. The absence of a father/mother or the presence of two male/female parental figures does not affect how a child turns out as much as the parenting style(s) of the parents in question.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

"Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality." Why would it weaken public morality and basic moral values. So far you havent reeally given a concrete reason why homosexuality is immoral.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Again no good reason why its morally wrong. "Nature" has no "requirements" for marriage. I've already pointed out how some species exhibit homosexuality behaviour and I will also mention that not all animals mate with with one partner (opposite or same sex partner. What is this biological impossibility? Sex isnt just to procreate; it's also for pleasure and a way to show your partner you care for them. Homosexual couples might not have sex the way heterosexual couples do but sex is sex?. It is a civil right for two consenting adults to be able to have a legally recognised union.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Again the purpose of marriage is not the purpose of reproduction and not every marriage is aimed at having children and not every couple is capable too. The last 2 produce what is a "sterile union" but why is it wrong?, should such couples have their marriage invalidated?.Even if same-sex couples us medical technology to have children why is that wrong? as i've said many same-sex couples do the same. If same-sex couples adopt wouldnt that be a good thing? there are many children produce who have been abandoned and have no homes, if a same-sex union provides them with a good life nothing wrong there.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

"Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage." it's like you keep repeating the same points over and over again. I'm sure everyone gets married primarily for their own happiness. If the main purpose of states recognising marriages was to provide an atmosphere for the upbringing of children then every married couple would be mandated to have children and single parenting would be illegal; I am unaware of anywhere in the world where this is the case.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

No is forcing you to approve, you are being asked to recognise the human rights of same-sex couples.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution.

This argument about homosexuality leading to acceptance of incest, pedophilia and bestiality is old. One could argue that incest is wrong because it can produce offspring with harmful mutations, even if no children comes from incestuous relationships it could also be argued that it perverts the bond that exists between siblings and parents. Pedophilia is wrong because the sexual activity occurs between an adult who takes advantage of a child who isnt mentally/emotianally/physically mature, and pedophiles who purchase materials depicting pedophilia fund individuals who exploit children for money, essentially sexual slavery of children. As for bestiality, are you comparing the quality of relationships between two humans to the relationship between a human and an animal? :/ this one is generally just weak.

10. It Offends God

Finally not everyone believes in a god and the wonderful rules of your book. The bible also says

If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10). Hope you dont have any muslims in your family.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29. I guess we must also make women who have been raped marry their rapists, its what God wants innit.

they'll tell you "that was the old testament" They are very happy to follow some old testament rules (shunning gay men) but not others (selling their daughters into slavery, stoning disobedient children, eschewing shellfish) — even though the Bible, which they claim can be the only source of their moral decision making, is quite silent on what parts of it you can happily ignore.
But don't bother it was the old testament

Lightanddarkness you get time to dey reply that deluded fellow...I hail! Tuale! Chop Knuckle!


As johnydon22 come share am, I come dey fear if he don dey believe all this jargons.. Now I know better..

fearlesschicken:
Lightanddarkness you get time to dey reply that deluded fellow...I hail! Tuale! Chop Knuckle!


As johnydon22 come share am, I come dey fear if he don dey believe all this jargons.. Now I know better..

Lol na too much free time

LightandDarkness:
The purpose of marriage is NOT to produce children, that is the purpose of reproduction. Last I checked you do not need to be married to reproduce and not every married couple desires to have children. Furthermore people dont get married to "complement their biological, physiological and psychological differences" you marry someone because you love them. And this idea that love only exists between same sex is also inaccurate evidenced by the fact that same-sex couples do infact love each other....

False narrative. Marriage was not instituted to formalise "love", whatever the sex of the couple involved. No one has claimed that two people of the same sex cannot love one another (without objectively defining love, or being overly spiritual), but that love, or, a relationship predicated on that love can never be marriage. Marriage is the formal union between a man and a woman.

LightandDarkness:
The definition of natural means it occurs in nature. There are 1500 animal species that exhibit homosexual behaviour, therefore how can you say homosexuality is infact unnatural. Even if you said unnatural means rarely occurs in nature, a lot of traits and behaviours are also rare, it doesnt mean they are inherently wrong. Furthermore nature rarely follows "laws", nature is radom and unpredictable.

"Homosexual behaviour - as you almost rightly term it - does not exist in brute beasts. Nature is not random, or unpredictable. Animals are driven by instinct. And, these cases evidenced as examples of "homosexual behaviour" in animals do not stand scrutiny. They are usually wrongly interpreted normal bachelor behaviours, or due to extreme circumstances or conditions - almost like men turning "gay" in jail. Please show us this buffalo gay bar you spotted on the veldt

LightandDarkness:
There are many single parents who do a great job of raising their children and there are many who do a bad job. The same can be said of children with two parents in their lives. The absence of a father/mother or the presence of two male/female parental figures does not affect how a child turns out as much as the parenting style(s) of the parents in question.

The data - over thousands of years is in and without gainsaying. A child does best with both biological parents in situ. Men and women bring different and unique value to child-rearing. Individual good luck stories, against the odds examples, or outliers do nothing to change this fact.

LightandDarkness:
"Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality." Why would it weaken public morality and basic moral values. So far you havent reeally given a concrete reason why homosexuality is immoral.

It's dysfunctional and disease inducing at best. It affords society no intrinsic benefits, rather it is deletrious, and should not be normalised as equivalent to opposite sex unions, or of public benefit, or worthy of being formalised.

LightandDarkness:
Again no good reason why its morally wrong. "Nature" has no "requirements" for marriage. I've already pointed out how some species exhibit homosexuality behaviour and I will also mention that not all animals mate with with one partner (opposite or same sex partner. What is this biological impossibility? Sex isnt just to procreate; it's also for pleasure and a way to show your partner you care for them. Homosexual couples might not have sex the way heterosexual couples do but sex is sex?. It is a civil right for two consenting adults to be able to have a legally recognised union.

Sex is not simply sex. And only opposite sex couples can have conjugal, that is, sex of a generative nature. What "gays" do is at best masturbatory.

LightandDarkness:
Again the purpose of marriage is not the purpose of reproduction and not every marriage is aimed at having children and not every couple is capable too. The last 2 produce what is a "sterile union" but why is it wrong?, should such couples have their marriage invalidated?.Even if same-sex couples us medical technology to have children why is that wrong? as i've said many same-sex couples do the same. If same-sex couples adopt wouldnt that be a good thing? there are many children produce who have been abandoned and have no homes, if a same-sex union provides them with a good life nothing wrong there.

Marriage simply put is the union of a man and a woman. It's reason is that children would be born with both biological parents in situ, which gives them the best chance of developing into well-adjusted adults at least cost to society and risk to themselves. Bad examples and outliers apart.

LightandDarkness:
"Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage." it's like you keep repeating the same points over and over again. I'm sure everyone gets married primarily for their own happiness. If the main purpose of states recognising marriages was to provide an atmosphere for the upbringing of children then every married couple would be mandated to have children and single parenting would be illegal; I am unaware of anywhere in the world where this is the case.

As noted, marriage is not to force child-bearing, it's because children are a very possible outcome of a male/female union. Not always, but possible and likely. For same sex couples, it is always an impossibility. These relationships do not meet the definition of, or criteria for marriage.

LightandDarkness:
No is forcing you to approve, you are being asked to recognise the human rights of same-sex couples.

There is no such "right". And it does impose it on all. People are being forced to acknowledge, participate and celebrate such unions regardless of beliefs or conscience. It is being forced into policy, legislation and even into school curricula.

LightandDarkness:
This argument about homosexuality leading to acceptance of incest, pedophilia and bestiality is old. One could argue that incest is wrong because it can produce offspring with harmful mutations, even if no children comes from incestuous relationships it could also be argued that it perverts the bond that exists between siblings and parents. Pedophilia is wrong because the sexual activity occurs between an adult who takes advantage of a child who isnt mentally/emotianally/physically mature, and pedophiles who purchase materials depicting pedophilia fund individuals who exploit children for money, essentially sexual slavery of children. As for bestiality, are you comparing the quality of relationships between two humans to the relationship between a human and an animal? :/ this one is generally just weak.

If love is just love, why is any other type of love wrong. Why can some children not desire sex with adults? Why are perverts pushing for lower ages of consent and claiming benefits of "inter-generational sex". Yes, it's a slippery slope.

Use your free time wisely

TV

It shakes the mind to see creatures justifying such filth.

And then parading about on hind legs calling themselves men.


(Homosexuality has historically occurred mainly between adult males and younger boys. This new 'egalitarian' homosexuality

is mostly a 20th-century creation. Sodomy and paedophilia are brother and sister.)


[Bestiality is already a growing phenomenon. The general social conscience has fallen many degrees with the acceptance of sodomy,

and every calibre of wierdo now takes advantage. Every argument used by sodomists worldwide has been (or will be) piggy-backed by these

perverts. To the delight of many present, (one is sure).]

SirWere:
I'm willing to bet my left nut that these are variations of the reason given by the church in opposition to Inter-racial marriages.



OP,
the ecumenical, enlightened believers, having realized that Homosexuality has indeed come to say; have modified their stance against it.
Rather than castigate; they remind one of "God's unending love" and move past it.


Dude, Homosexuality IS. Accept it.

I'm also willing to bet my left nut that you'll oppose bestiality for a couple of such reasons.

TV01:

False narrative. Marriage was not instituted to formalise "love", whatever the sex of the couple involved. No one has claimed that two people of the same sex cannot love one another (without objectively defining love, or being overly spiritual), but that love, or, a relationship predicated on that love can never be marriage. Marriage is the formal union between a man and a woman.

"Homosexual behaviour - as you almost rightly term it - does not exist in brute beasts. Nature is not random, or unpredictable. Animals are driven by instinct. And, these cases evidenced as examples of "homosexual behaviour" in animals do not stand scrutiny. They are usually wrongly interpreted normal bachelor behaviours, or due to extreme circumstances or conditions - almost like men turning "gay" in jail. Please show us this buffalo gay bar you spotted on the veldt


The data - over thousands of years is in and without gainsaying. A child does best with both biological parents in situ. Men and women bring different and unique value to child-rearing. Individual good luck stories, against the odds examples, or outliers do nothing to change this fact.

It's dysfunctional and disease inducing at best. It affords society no intrinsic benefits, rather it is deletrious, and should not be normalised as equivalent to opposite sex unions, or of public benefit, or worthy of being formalised.

Sex is not simply sex. And only opposite sex couples can have conjugal, that is, sex of a generative nature. What "gays" do is at best masturbatory.

Marriage simply put is the union of a man and a woman. It's reason is that children would be born with both biological parents in situ, which gives them the best chance of developing into well-adjusted adults at least cost to society and risk to themselves. Bad examples and outliers apart.

As noted, marriage is not to force child-bearing, it's because children are a very possible outcome of a male/female union. Not always, but possible and likely. For same sex couples, it is always an impossibility. These relationships do not meet the definition of, or criteria for marriage.

There is no such "right". And it does impose it on all. People are being forced to acknowledge, participate and celebrate such unions regardless of beliefs or conscience. It is being forced into policy, legislation and even into school curricula.

If love is just love, why is any other type of love wrong. Why can some children not desire sex with adults? Why are perverts pushing for lower ages of consent and claiming benefits of "inter-generational sex". Yes, it's a slippery slope.

Use your free time wisely

TV

The notion that marriage is generally a union between a male and female is inaccurate from the legal and social perspective. Socially, the meaning of marriage varies across cultures however "it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged". Historically, unions between people of the same sex have always existed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions. Legally, the definition of what constitutes a marriage differs depending on where you are. In UK and Canada a union between people of the same sex is infact a legally recognized marriage, that is not the case in Nigeria.

Again inaccurate, actual sexual activity between animals of the same gender have been documented so its not "normal bachelor behaviours" being misinterpreted (btw are you saying its normal for bachelors of the same gender to have sex with each other lol). In some species even when given the chance to mate with a female the animal chooses a male so it has nothing to do with extreme conditions. Just do some reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals. And also the "laws of nature" don't always apply in every scenario, if science has shown us anything its that the natural world isn't always predictable.

On average children do better living with two biological married parents however thats an argument against single parenting, even then i still insist that parenting style has a much greater effect on how a child turns out than simply having 2 parents. There is no clear trend suggesting that children raised by homosexual couples do worse than children raised by heterosexual couples.

"It's dysfunctional and disease inducing at best, and should not be normalised as equivalent to opposite sex unions, or of public benefit, or worthy of being formalised." Dysfunctional in what way? to children? (if so see above), disease-inducing in what way?

"Sex is not simply sex. And only opposite sex couples can have conjugal, that is, sex of a generative nature. What "gays" do is at best masturbatory." So unless you're having sex to produce children the sex is at best "masturbatory" and at worst? Note that even with opposite sex couples sex isnt always "generative" or aimed at producing children.

"Marriage simply put is the union of a man and a woman. It's reason is that children would be born with both biological parents in situ, which gives them the best chance of developing into well-adjusted adults at least cost to society and risk to themselves. Bad examples and outliers apart.""As noted, marriage is not to force child-bearing, it's because children are a very possible outcome of a male/female union. Not always, but possible and likely. For same sex couples, it is always an impossibility."

This might be your cultural/religious definition of marriage but as i've pointed out this is not always the case.

Again that is not the primary reason for marriage (see above), many married couples choose not to have kids, many people raise kids with a partner without marrying them and so on. This idea that the social construct of marriage (which is what it is) was created to raise children is very false, there are several reasons for marriage and it isnt a prerequisite for reproduction.

"There is no such "right". And it does impose it on all. People are being forced to acknowledge, participate and celebrate such unions regardless of beliefs or conscience. It is being forced into policy, legislation and even into school curricula."

"Sexual orientation and gender identity rights relate to the expression of sexual orientation and gender identity based on the right to respect for private life and the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of "other status" as defined in various human rights conventions, such as article 17 and 26 in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 8 and article 14 in the European Convention on Human Rights."

You dont have to participate or celebrate or even approve, infact you can publicly express your dislike for homosexuals (those are your rights) BUT you have to respect their rights and freedoms as well. Human rights are human rights because they apply to all humans, not one rule for some and a different rule for others.

"If love is just love, why is any other type of love wrong. Why can some children not desire sex with adults/ Why are perverts pushing for lower ages of consent and claiming benefits of "inter-generational sex". Yes, it's a slippery slope."

It's clearly not a slippery slope, you are regurgitating an argument i've already addressed.

Use your free time to read more

LightandDarkness

LightandDarkness:
The notion that marriage is generally a union between a male and female is inaccurate from the legal and social perspective. Socially, the meaning of marriage varies across cultures however "it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged".

I laugh,you write as if the formalising of same-sex relationships - by redefining marriage - is not a recent novation. Through time and across cultures, marriage has always been the union of a male and female. And it's bare-faced deceit to claim that marriage is merely to acknowledge interpersonal sexual relationships. 1.Please explain why society needs to formally recognise and accord "sexual relationships benefits/protections?

LightandDarkness:
Historically, unions between people of the same sex have always existed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions. Legally, the definition of what constitutes a marriage differs depending on where you are. In UK and Canada a union between people of the same sex is infact a legally recognized marriage, that is not the case in Nigeria.

Stop using nebulous and/or misleading statements. No one claimed same-sex relationships have not been extant for ages. Just that they have never been recognised as marriage - even where they have existed alongside marriage. There have been the odd anomalies or attempts, but it has never been instituted by societal demand or sustained over time. Only re-inforcing the real definition, nature and purpose of marriage - a male and female union.

LightandDarkness:
Again inaccurate, actual sexual activity between animals of the same gender have been documented so its not "normal bachelor behaviours" being misinterpreted (btw are you saying its normal for bachelors of the same gender to have sex with each other lol). In some species even when given the chance to mate with a female the animal chooses a male so it has nothing to do with extreme conditions. Just do some reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals. And also the "laws of nature" don't always apply in every scenario, if science has shown us anything its that the natural world isn't always predictable.

Animals have many behaviours inter-alia killing partners after mating, infanticide, cannibalism. Are these all pointers for humans ? If a dysfuntion occurs across species, does that make it any less a dysfuntion? Or something to be normalised since it is commonly present?

Did you actually read the link you posted?

Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.

The term homosexual was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1868 to describe same-sex sexual attraction and sexual behavior in humans. Its use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and remain poorly understood, and the term has strong cultural implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans. Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. When describing animals, the term homosexual is preferred over gay, lesbian, and other terms currently in use, as these are seen as even more bound to human homosexuality.

Categorising people - or animals - as "homosexual" is at best an error and typically a contrived narrative to legitimise what is nothing more than dysfuntional behaviour. Trying to apply it to animals is even more deceitful, as your link shows, the motivations and impluses are barely unsderstood. Again, point me to the gay buffalo sweathouse, or the same-sex hyena practice of hoofing. No one and nothing is "homosexual".

LightandDarkness:
On average children do better living with two biological married parents however thats an argument against single parenting, even then i still insist that parenting style has a much greater effect on how a child turns out than simply having 2 parents. There is no clear trend suggesting that children raised by homosexual couples do worse than children raised by heterosexual couples.

Yes, it is an argument against single-parenting, but it is even more of an argument for opposite sex parenting - which you try to disguise by referring to "2 parents". So tell us, would 3 parents not be better? And what of 4...ad-infinitum?

Males and females bring unique input by way of strengths, skills, stimuli, response, instincts and a host of other things to raising children. And not least their asymmetric complimentartty

LightandDarkness:
"It's dysfunctional and disease inducing at best, and should not be normalised as equivalent to opposite sex unions, or of public benefit, or worthy of being formalised." Dysfunctional in what way? to children? (if so see above), disease-inducing in what way?

You really need me to spell out the anatomical and psychological pathologies of "homosexual" activity? From the gay bowel syndrome, to heightened domestic violence, to the inability to commit long-term, to increased use of drugs and alcohol, to suicidal ideation etc. etc.

LightandDarkness:
"Sex is not simply sex. And only opposite sex couples can have conjugal, that is, sex of a generative nature. What "gays" do is at best masturbatory." So unless you're having sex to produce children the sex is at best "masturbatory" and at worst? Note that even with opposite sex couples sex isnt always "generative" or aimed at producing children.

You can term whatever activity you wish as "sex". Conjugal sex, coital sex, generative sex is the preserve of opposite sex couples. "Homosexual" masturbation - which is all it can ever be - does not lead to the same outcomes, and demands no warrant for formalisation.

LightandDarkness:
"Marriage simply put is the union of a man and a woman. It's reason is that children would be born with both biological parents in situ, which gives them the best chance of developing into well-adjusted adults at least cost to society and risk to themselves. Bad examples and outliers apart.""As noted, marriage is not to force child-bearing, it's because children are a very possible outcome of a male/female union. Not always, but possible and likely. For same sex couples, it is always an impossibility."

This might be your cultural/religious definition of marriage but as i've pointed out this is not always the case.
Again that is not the primary reason for marriage (see above), many married couples choose not to have kids, many people raise kids with a partner without marrying them and so on. This idea that the social construct of marriage (which is what it is) was created to raise children is very false, there are several reasons for marriage and it isnt a prerequisite for reproduction.

I never said the primary reason for marriage is procreation. The primary reason for marriage - as I noted - is for the optimal circumstances to be in situ should a child appear. Hence, marriage is the union of a male and female - by definition.

Child-bearing is neither forced, nor mandated. Neither does childlessness - by choice or circumstance - change anything. The definition does not include that requirement, but that's what the purpose is. And that is what has served so well for millenia.

"There is no such "right". And it does impose it on all. People are being forced to acknowledge, participate and celebrate such unions regardless of beliefs or conscience. It is being forced into policy, legislation and even into school curricula."

LightandDarkness:
"Sexual orientation and gender identity rights relate to the expression of sexual orientation and gender identity based on the right to respect for private life and the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of "other status" as defined in various human rights conventions, such as article 17 and 26 in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 8 and article 14 in the European Convention on Human Rights."

There is no such thing as a "sexual orientation". It is a practice. Even if it is a preference, it does not demand that other people see it as morsl, healthy, or participate in it's expression. Neither does it have rights to demand we re-engineer society to accommodate it.

Sexuality is a function and some people express theirs dysfunctionally. Wrap whatever narrative you like around that, and formulate as many scientific sounding labels and expressions as you can muster. it doesn't change a thing. 2.Why did you not explain or define the terms orientation or gender? Rather taking them as read?

LightandDarkness:
You dont have to participate or celebrate or even approve, infact you can publicly express your dislike for homosexuals (those are your rights) BUT you have to respect their rights and freedoms as well. Human rights are human rights because they apply to all humans, not one rule for some and a different rule for others.

3. What rights have we ever had for humans that have not applied to those who identify as "homosexuals"?
4. What is it that distinguishes those that identify as "homosexuals" from other humans?

LightandDarkness:
"If love is just love, why is any other type of love wrong. Why can some children not desire sex with adults/ Why are perverts pushing for lower ages of consent and claiming benefits of "inter-generational sex". Yes, it's a slippery slope."

It's clearly not a slippery slope, you are regurgitating an argument i've already addressed.

It's a slippery slope and a discriminatory narrarive. If same sex love is the same and to be treated as opposite sex love, why are other kinds of love not afforded their own set of rights. Why not bestiality, why not paedophilia, why not polyamoury

LightandDarkness:

Use your free time to read more

LightandDarkness

Use yours to understand instead of merely stockpiling ideological narratives - mostly darkness thus far

Respond as you choose, if you choose too, but precisely answering the 4 questions in bold may help cut to the chase.


TV

MrPRevailer:
'And the devil that DECEIVED them was cast into the Lake of fire.'

Revelation 20.

THE END OF DAYS.

Another apocalyptic, rapturous devil. You're better off living in Jerusalem; the capital of hell.

...... AND Oreoo, did you go to the trouble of composing this vapid epistle all to malign homosexuals as disgusting, contemptible sinners? Well, in that case you're a LUNATIC. Even if homosexuality is immoral (heh, indeed), I don't want to hear it from an Abrahamist who prioritizes obedience over breathing (an insane slave, in other words) and will go out of his way to give his damn male friend a Mouth Gig if the very same God who declared homosexuality anathema and stoked the demonization of homosexuals in the first place gives the order. You have no moral compass; your duty is to OBEY Yahweh.

You want to speak about right and wrong? Sorry, you're not qualified. Leave that to humans; they can handle it. The dogs have an Almighty Leviathian's ego to massage. Know your place, you beast of the field.

Never you try to pontificate on either moral or legal issues again, you deranged cultist that will rip off his mother's head if Yahweh commands it.

Or, can someone help me slap some sense into this disgusting, hypocritical idioti'c cvnt?