"Marriage was designed to be between a man and a women. It's wrong period..."

Marriage was designed to exchange women as property between families. Thankfully humans evolve and aren't bound by the barbarism of the past.

What is that supposed to mean?!

@ slyguy - "There is no such thing as gay "marriage". Marriage was designed to be between a man and a women. It's wrong period..." - [citation needed]
(I love doing that)
Let's explain rule one. This is a debate. In a debate you can't just step in and try and impose your viewpoint on everyone just like that. You need to provide reasoned arguments to back up your position so that other people can see what led you to your position so that we can examine it and critique it where necessary. I will try to dismantle your argument (such as it is) anyway, bit by bit.
There is no such thing as gay "marriage". - This is simply factually untrue, an institution called gay marriage does in fact exist nationwide in 10 countries including Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. The institution also exists in the Brazilian state of Alagoas, Mexico City, and in 7 states in the USA. It is also recognized nationwide in Mexico and Brazil. So...yeah. I think that's pretty compelling evidence for the existence of such a thing.
"Marriage was designed to be between a man and a women." - Designed by who? When? Under what circumstances?

Why do you think rings are given? Rings are a down payment on a payment for the bride, the bride being purchased from her father. Women in marriage were nothing but domestic servants/incubators for offspring, exchanged at the whim of men. We've come a long way.

There's nothing "gay" about Hell.

Um, it's flaming?

Who are you calling flaming? = P

Someone here actually thinks there's a giant pit of fire people get sent to, in some alternate dimension?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha oh. Yeah I had maple muted. That's actually quite funny.

oh, haha. I guess it's sort of out of context otherwise.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Get down on your knees, Mafialligator, and pray away the gay.

I personally saw Jesus save 15% or more by switching his car insurance.

lol zesty

jwalters: "I believe in God. I'm just gonna say that up front. I believe that the Bible is the holy, inerrant Word of God, and that Christ died and rose again to take the penalty for sin. Since I believe that the Bible holds absolute truth, I also believe homosexuality is wrong. But even if I didn't believe all that, it still doesn't even make sense. Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' automatically should have every evolutionist saying gay marriage is wrong. If two men or two women could naturally conceive a child without any modern medical help, then I'd say that it's fine and dandy. But they can't. It's against nature. I'm not trying to be a hater or anything, but you have to look at the facts. The hard evidence. There's only one logical answer any reasonable person can come up with who has all the facts. Homosexuality is just completely against nature."

So, even if you think homosexuality is against nature, what is your argument? Burn all gay people?

Even if you think homosexuality is wrong, it is still present and either you want to ignore this fact and let intolerance/violence continue against a pretty small, easily-targeted community or you say that whilst you don't agree with homosexuality, you even more so don't agree with anti-homosexual violence and that protecting their rights is something worth doing.

What side are you on, please?

jwalters: "I can't defend my position with words from the Bible, as it will be swept aside. [...] I firmly believe in the words of the Bible"

No one wants to sweep arguments aside. But and this is a big but - the same Leviticus that Christians quote as calling homosexuality an abomination also condemns eating shrimp and king prawns as an 'abomination'. How is that a valid position? Do you loathe the eating of shrimp and king prawns as much as you loathe homosexuals? If you firmly believe in the words of the Bible, as you say, then denounce shrimp as well please. If you can't, if the Bible got it wrong on shrimp, then your standpoint is fatally flawed.

Vaftrudner: " And homosexuality is just a preference for certain bodies. It's a taste in sex. It's not a lifestyle, it's not a statement, it's just a preference."

I completely disagree with this statement. My sexuality is not a preference, it's an orientation. I do not 'prefer' to be attracted to the same sex, it is something I cannot control. No amount of trying to 'prefer' women will make that work. If it was simply a case of preferring, then as a teenager I would have much preferred to have had an attraction to women equal to my attraction to men. For bisexuals the issue of preference is pertinent but please don't confuse the issue by using the term 'preference' in relation to sexual orientation.

"Also, however Invictus means it, and no matter what activities he would classify as "unnatural" along side it, he can't really understand what it feels like to hear people tell you that you're "unnatural" as frequently as members of the LGBT community do. And because of that, it's insulting. And it makes me very angry to have this insulting trash thrown at me, and then be told that I shouldn't disagree, because the person insulting me is really on my side. Fuck that."

+1

Not to get into the whole you're an ignorant douche bag argument.

Let's just accept your line of reasoning and get into the wonders of modern medicine. By the graces of god, scientists can now take the splooge that Adam jerks out of Steve and put it into Eve. She can now raise that sweet little baby with with her madam.

@fulhamish: "But marriage, seriously why?"

Because, as Draugnar says, separate but equal is not truly equal. It’s like saying in 1950s America that black people went to school and white people went to school, that they went to different schools is beside the point.

Oops. Sorry Sarg, didn't see that was you just posting a quote. More relevant to whatever bigot you were quoting.

@fulhamish: "Putin do you seriously expect me to answer you when every post you direct at me is accompanied by an insult?"

+1, despite you missing the good points about gay marriage.

Marriage is actually a pre-Christian concept, and pre-religion. Also, if you construe the passage in Leviticus to be condemning homosexuality, do you also follow every other law laid down in Leviticus?

In addition, marriage has become more of a government institution than a religious one. You can get speed married in las vegas, and you're telling me there's a sanctity to marriage between a man and a woman.

While there may not be a provision in the Constitution that provides *for* gay marriage, there's also nothing to provide *against* gay marriage in the Constitution. And seeing as marriage provides many social and economic benefits, marriage should be allowed between two gay people.

Once again Fulham will go 200 posts without addressing a single argument, while spewing forth absurd questions that have already been asked.

Also +1

Sorry for the regurgitation, I'm just reading through the last 4 pages I hadn't been able to catch up with since the beginning of the week.

@Sar, were you referring to Putin failing to address an argument? Or were you simply +1ing fulham while also disagreeing with him?

I was giving a +1 to Putin that time. I think they both made interesting contributions. Putin is right that Fulhamish ignored a lot of valid points and didn't (perhaps because he couldn't) address any of the arguments in answer to his questions. However, Fulhamish is also right that Putin's acerbic (what might some might call snide) contributions often don't help get his often very intelligent contributions across to other members in the debate.

Wait Sargmacher, are you gay?

Wait? Why use that word? I wasn't going anywhere. (You like to pick up on every fine detail, so I'll do the same :) albeit lightheartedly)

Yes, I am gay. Why do you ask, Mafialligator? And for anyone else who misreads my posts on this page, I copied and pasted a number of quotes that I clearly put in quotation marks and then addressed myself with points underneath.

Right, sorry, difficult to follow from a phone sometimes.

In response to Sargmacher, I think must agree with those on this forum who think that gay lifestyles are wrong. The Bible clearly condemns it as a part of the Law and in New Testament books as well.

However, I don't think that I have the right to restrict the behavior of someone else who does not believe in what I believe in. I will fully and completely disagree with your lifestyle, but I don't have authority to deny you certain rights.

If it was simply a question of should gays and lesbians be able to marry, I would say yes. But that question has a lot more attached to it. Specifically, I don't like the idea that gay and lesbian couples would then have the right to adopt young, impressionable children. Since I believe that lifestyle is wrong, I see the ability to adopt children as affecting more than just a guy and his boyfriend; it affects that child who will grow up with a certain perspective without any choice in the matter.

So, I think that extending tax benefits, bedside visitation rights, and all the other basic rights attached to marriage should happen. But I do not think the right to adopt children should be extended as well.

"If it was simply a question of should gays and lesbians be able to marry, I would say yes. But that question has a lot more attached to it. Specifically, I don't like the idea that gay and lesbian couples would then have the right to adopt young, impressionable children."

Gay and lesbian people can already adopt children though.

Oh. Well then, I think that they should be able to marry. I don't have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do.

Though I'm surprised the Religious Right haven't made a bigger deal about adoption by gays and lesbians...