The point isn’t whether someone believes something or not, folks can believe anything they want. They just can’t demand that anyone else believe it.

HOWEVER, they ARE saying that your disagreement is a personal one and should NOT be allowed as a basis for discrimination against another person.

You can believe anything you want, including the bizarre idea that believing that men can be gay (a certifiable fact. I’ve met some of them.) is a “popular trend”.
No one is saying you can’t believe that.

But you shouldn’t be allowed to force your belief onto other people and you shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate and deny rights because of your personal beliefs. Society shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate simply because you don’t believe in gay people.

If indeed the bible is God’s word, can I take my unruly child to the edge of town and stone her to death? How many slaves am I forced to keep, and will I really go to hell if I eat shellfish?

Inflicting an ancient work which is proven to be largely fiction, is hardly a way forward in modern society. It is the equivalent of following a Santa Claus book. After all, if you honestly think about it there is as much evidence of the existence of Santa Claus, as there is of God. In other words NONE. Have a nice day.

After all, not everyone agrees with a gay way, nor do they have to, nor should they have to.

Folks can think this is bad. That’s their right.

What they SHOULDN’T be allowed to do is demand that, because they think something is against their God, other people should be denied rights and privileges.

I notice there are few gay men/women with faith in God. But there are many who accept a gay lifestyle when they are far from God. Why is that?

Comments made about Harry Potter, Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny are all put higher than God in the minds of some people. So understanding the thinking and mindset of these same people is getting clearer.

One can argue that the vast majority of pronouncements in the bible are totally unprovable. Some quick examples – who witnessed Eve being tempted with forbidden fruit? And who wrote it down? Who saw Jonah being swallowed by a whale, and then being spat out? Who witnessed Noah and his family collecting hundreds of thousands of animals from all corners of the earth (polar bears, kangaroos and Komodo dragons come to mind). Apologies on this one because there was no one left to witness this amazing undertaking except Noah and his immediate family members who must have written down their first-hand account without exaggeration although I might question whether anyone knew how to write back then.

But LOL has come up with a new way of establishing scientific truth. If you can’t find an independent eye witness to say it DID NOT happen, then it must be true. We could teach this philosophy in our schools. The mind boggles!

does anyone have an argument against marriage equality that doesn’t involve someone else following the rules of your religion?

(You’re also asking if anyone has proven a negative.

As always, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the one saying “Um… no. I don’t believe that.”)

You’re not making sense.

How can you ask “what did he say that was hateful?”
Read the whole page.
THAT is what he said that was hateful.

Bringing infertility into the argument is usually in response to people saying that the ability to have kids is an essential part of marriage, when it clearly isn’t. If it were, infertile people would be banned from marriage.

The reference to racial inequality comes up when people use the same arguments that bigots back in the day used.
No one is saying that the struggle is the same, just that the opposition to it is very similar.

Its intention is not to gather support and sympathy (and if it were, so what? What’s wrong with support and sympathy?). It’s a response to the arguments that anti-equality people use.

“it was ordained to be between a man and woman”…

By whom? Remember, we’re talking about rights and the legal side, not the religious side, as the religious side isn’t a prerequisite.
The involvement of the church is an optional choice made by the individuals getting married and is NOT an essential part of a marriage.
Also, churches perform weddings, not marriages.

So… ordained by whom?

To say it can only be recognized as unions is incorrect.

As for “choosing that lifestyle”? No one is asking you to.
No one is even asking you to like it.

All they’re asking for is for equal rights.

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL
up the debate a bit take to the issue not the opinion of someone that has the right to the opinion.

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL just playing devils advocate here. Personally the way I see it is it is impossible to have a gay marrage do to the fact the it was ordained to be between a man and woman. These arrangements really can “only” be recognized as unions. and people choosing to live together playing house for a while nothing more. I do not dislike gay people I just would not choose that life style. It just gives me that wrong feeling personally.

That’s why there is a continuing fight for equal rights. That’s the whole point. This was true for miscegenation and segregation and it’s true now.

If the majority of society does not want it – the majority of society DOES NOT WANT IT. Period.

It’s sad and it’s sickening.

You believe we were designed, it seems (and correct me if I’m wrong).

I don’t.

I also don’t believe sex is solely for reproductive purposes, nor do I think the sexual organs are solely for that.
It seems that you do.

Therefore the tongue and other body parts you listed are ruled out because they are not involved in sexual reproduction. People may misuse these other body organs for pleasure but they are not by design to be used for sexual purposes.

There are some things in your post that I find fundamentally wrong and/or irrelevant, but pointing them out is going to get us nowhere.

I will hit on the important one, right at the end.

“However, because minority of people desire to have same-sex marriage does not mean that they have a “right” to have it, more than the desires of majority who oppose it.”

This is absolutely incorrect. It is the responsibility and the duty of a democracy to protect the minority from the majority.

This was true for miscegenation and it’s true here.

And your question “Do you truly believe that men to men sexual organ fit together and a woman to woman sexual organ fit together?” is irrelevant, but I will answer as best I can (as it’s a leading question).
If you are referring SOLELY to the genitals, specifically, penis and vagina, then, of course not.
However, “sexual organ” is a broad concept.
The skin is a sexual organ. So is the tongue. So are the nipples. The breasts. The neck. The small of the back. The back of the knee. Toes. And a whole lot of other stuff. And some of that fits together pretty darn good!

So, I know what you’re asking and I’ve answered.

I hope that’s the end of this.

And I did point out several. You even admitted that they existed in your first line.

We’re discussing procreation as a prerequisite. My stance is that it is NOT a prerequisite. You said it always is and always has been.

This differs from polygamy, where each of the women are married to the man, but the women are not married to each other.