Same-Sex Marriage: Point of View

[New Chalcedon]

I'll just add my half-baked ramblings to the discussion.

The Church often says that two people of the same sex cannot be married. For many religious people this is a hot topic. But, I can't find much opposition to the idea of two people of different sexes getting married while both are atheist. The bible is against both gays and atheists. If someone says that gays should not get married because Christianity/Judaism/Islam is against homosexuality, then they should also say that they are against atheists getting married. They may also be against pagans and divorced people getting married also. If you're Hindu then you can add 'two people from different castes and gay people cannot get married'.

Its the same with the argument that 'marriage is meant for the production of children'. If so, then the argument is against any man or woman getting married who physically cannot have children due to illness or birth defect.

God does not condone atheist marriages. Atheists are unnatural, they are against God. Atheists should get civil partnerships. Why do atheists want the piece of paper and all the legal recognition and benefits of a real marriage?

I wait in vain for this to be argued by our leaders.

Perhaps you wait in vain because describing your fundamentalist rant as "half-baked" is extremely generous, and there's a limit of the wingnuttery that even right-wing politicians are prepared to embrace. Except in the US, but that's the Republican Party for you.....

...Specifically, you fail to realise that this isn't the 17th century. The laws of the land - whilst mostly still being based off Christian principles such as charity, (most of) the Ten Commandments, etc. - are not a reprint of the Bible, or of any other holy text. And unless you're prepared to come to terms with that, you can look forward to a lifetime of irrelevant, impotent fury.

And on a rather personal note, I find your holier-than-thou sanctimony sickening. You are the kind of "Christian" Mohandas Gandhi had in mind when he told Winston Churchill, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Perhaps these atheists - horrible, unnatural people you consider them to be - are actually capable of feeling love for another person, and are also capable of deciding to spend their lives with that person, and wish this to be recognised as with any religious person acting on the same impulse? Not to mention that it might, maybe, be possible that such sickening and unnatural creatures as atheists may still be desirous of exercising the biological imperative toward parenthood, and similarly desire the various advantages legal recognition of their partnership provides in this endeavour?

Perhaps that might be why atheists wish the legal recognition of their partnerships?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'll just add my half-baked ramblings to the discussion.

The Church often says that two people of the same sex cannot be married. For many religious people this is a hot topic. But, I can't find much opposition to the idea of two people of different sexes getting married while both are atheist. The bible is against both gays and atheists. If someone says that gays should not get married because Christianity/Judaism/Islam is against homosexuality, then they should also say that they are against atheists getting married. They may also be against pagans and divorced people getting married also. If you're Hindu then you can add 'two people from different castes and gay people cannot get married'.

Its the same with the argument that 'marriage is meant for the production of children'. If so, then the argument is against any man or woman getting married who physically cannot have children due to illness or birth defect.

God does not condone atheist marriages. Atheists are unnatural, they are against God. Atheists should get civil partnerships. Why do atheists want the piece of paper and all the legal recognition and benefits of a real marriage?

I wait in vain for this to be argued by our leaders.

If you want half baked ramblings, you should have heard me talking to my father a few minutes ago.

Other than that, bollocks to what you think. marriage is a secular institution.

Either you didn't get the point of that post, or I completely misinterpreted it.

[Samuraikoku]

The hand thing Spock does... is part of the priestly blessing.

The Vulcan salute.

Live long and prosper, Menassa.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The hand thing Spock does... is part of the priestly blessing.

The Vulcan salute.

Live long and prosper, Menassa.

The Cohen blessing! My wife gave me that bit of info.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

you would not be born in gay marriage ..

(assuming your implied claim is true for the sake of the argument)
And...?

[Imperiatom]

I'll just add my half-baked ramblings to the discussion.

The Church often says that two people of the same sex cannot be married. For many religious people this is a hot topic. But, I can't find much opposition to the idea of two people of different sexes getting married while both are atheist. The bible is against both gays and atheists. If someone says that gays should not get married because Christianity/Judaism/Islam is against homosexuality, then they should also say that they are against atheists getting married. They may also be against pagans and divorced people getting married also. If you're Hindu then you can add 'two people from different castes and gay people cannot get married'.

Its the same with the argument that 'marriage is meant for the production of children'. If so, then the argument is against any man or woman getting married who physically cannot have children due to illness or birth defect.

God does not condone atheist marriages. Atheists are unnatural, they are against God. Atheists should get civil partnerships. Why do atheists want the piece of paper and all the legal recognition and benefits of a real marriage?

I wait in vain for this to be argued by our leaders.

So how to you explain away that many societies long before the invention of Christianity couples were married according to there culture? the same question to you?

[Manahakatouki]

I'll just add my half-baked ramblings to the discussion.

The Church often says that two people of the same sex cannot be married. For many religious people this is a hot topic. But, I can't find much opposition to the idea of two people of different sexes getting married while both are atheist. The bible is against both gays and atheists. If someone says that gays should not get married because Christianity/Judaism/Islam is against homosexuality, then they should also say that they are against atheists getting married. They may also be against pagans and divorced people getting married also. If you're Hindu then you can add 'two people from different castes and gay people cannot get married'.

Its the same with the argument that 'marriage is meant for the production of children'. If so, then the argument is against any man or woman getting married who physically cannot have children due to illness or birth defect.

God does not condone atheist marriages. Atheists are unnatural, they are against God. Atheists should get civil partnerships. Why do atheists want the piece of paper and all the legal recognition and benefits of a real marriage?

I wait in vain for this to be argued by our leaders.

The fuck is this?

It seems to be some form of ancient writing, no doubt bronze age thinking from the content...

[Place of Interest]

More and more countries seem to be legalising gay marriage these days. So many people seem to think that its a sign of a more advanced, enlightened society but really, I think it just shows that marriage doesn't mean the same to a lot of people as it used to. I wouldn't be surprised if marriage laws ended up becoming even more lax in the future.

Now as some of you might know, I'm a Catholic, and you might be thinking that I have no reasons to oppose gay marriage other than “God disapproves of this”. While its true that homosexual relationships are against the laws of God (which cannot be changed), there is also the question of the nature and purpose of marriage.

Marriage as a social and political institution has existed for around 4000 years, and has generally been recognised as the institution which united a man and a woman to each other and any children born from their union. Why has heterosexual marriage exclusively enjoyed such legal and social status? Is it because these ancient societies were primitive and bigoted? Hardly. If anything those societies were even more tolerant of alternative arrangements than today. Examples include hooking up with temple prostitutes, same-sex relationships, cohabiting and being given certain services by slaves. The reason that heterosexual marriage is so important is to do with the benefits it gives that are necessary for society:

1. Marriage unites children to their mother and father. While about 30% of cohabiting couples give up on their children, this is very rare for married couples. Also, only children born in a marriage have a legal right to know who their mother and father are and to be raised by them. Gay marriage undermines this legal right and therefore; damages the dignity of the child.

2. Children born to a married mother and father generally do better on all academic, social, psychological, spiritual, and interpersonal measures. Again, gay marriage undermines this fact and damages the dignity of the child.

3. Married women are more financially and socially secure than women in any other relationship type (including lesbian relationships). This even includes university-educated women. No other relationship-type protects the financial and social security of women like marriage.

4. As well as the fact that married men are far more willing to claim and raise their own children, they are far less likely to commit violent crime than unmarried men. According to the US Department of Justice, 65% of violent crimes against women are committed by unmarried men. In comparison, only 9% of married men have committed a violent crime against a woman.Look at any crime statistics and you will notice similar patterns.

5. Married couples generally have more children than unmarried couples. While some of you might make points about overpopulation, that is hardly an issue here in the west. In fact de-population is a serious issue.In Europe, the average couple has 1.5 children, not even enough to replace the current generation.

As I have pointed out, heterosexual marriage benefits society in a number of ways. Homosexual marriage does not give any of these benefits and in fact, undermines them. For example, gay marriage makes it discriminatory to say that a child has a right to a mother and father. While gay couples can have children through adoption or assisted reproduction, they cannot provide both parents. But if homosexual families are recognised as equal to heterosexual families, then it denies a child's right to a mother and father, and even the need for a mother and father, despite all available data saying otherwise. Society would be required to tell children that their natural longing for two opposite sex parents is disordered.

In a number of ways, homosexual marriage also undermines heterosexual marriage. It asks society to give the same benefits it gives to heterosexual marriage, to a type of relationship which does not give the same benefits in return. This makes it harder to justify not giving these benefits to other relationship types e.g. cohabiting couples. This could undermine marriage rates for heterosexuals as marriage requires more effort and commitment than other types of relationships. If these relationships are promoted as equivalent to marriage, then marriage becomes less attractive, especially among the poor and those without higher education - the very people who benefit most from marriage.

[Condunum]

If you want half baked ramblings, you should have heard me talking to my father a few minutes ago.

Other than that, bollocks to what you think. marriage is a secular institution.

Either you didn't get the point of that post, or I completely misinterpreted it.

...
I saw the title of his post, saw "God does not condone atheist marriages" and assumed that was the sum of his post, because I had two lines to support the idea.

[Imperiatom]

The fuck is this?

It seems to be some form of ancient writing, no doubt bronze age thinking from the content...

Thats low! give the people of the bronze age some credit, maybe its stone age?

[Urmanian]

So how to you explain away that many societies long before the invention of Christianity couples were married according to there culture? the same question to you?

I am fully supportive of gay marriage, do not get me wrong. The post I have quoted is excellent satire that people are missing the point of.

[Netherheim]

They may also be against pagans and divorced people getting married also.

Pagan tradition have their own marriage/joining rituals so the church has fuck all to say about them

[Imperiatom]

More and more countries seem to be legalising gay marriage these days. So many people seem to think that its a sign of a more advanced, enlightened society but really, I think it just shows that marriage doesn't mean the same to a lot of people as it used to. I wouldn't be surprised if marriage laws ended up becoming even more lax in the future.

Now as some of you might know, I'm a Catholic, and you might be thinking that I have no reasons to oppose gay marriage other than “God disapproves of this”. While its true that homosexual relationships are against the laws of God (which cannot be changed), there is also the question of the nature and purpose of marriage.

Marriage as a social and political institution has existed for around 4000 years, and has generally been recognised as the institution which united a man and a woman to each other and any children born from their union. Why has heterosexual marriage exclusively enjoyed such legal and social status? Is it because these ancient societies were primitive and bigoted? Hardly. If anything those societies were even more tolerant of alternative arrangements than today. Examples include hooking up with temple prostitutes, same-sex relationships, cohabiting and being given certain services by slaves. The reason that heterosexual marriage is so important is to do with the benefits it gives that are necessary for society:

1. Marriage unites children to their mother and father. While about 30% of cohabiting couples give up on their children, this is very rare for married couples. Also, only children born in a marriage have a legal right to know who their mother and father are and to be raised by them. Gay marriage undermines this legal right and therefore; damages the dignity of the child.

2. Children born to a married mother and father generally do better on all academic, social, psychological, spiritual, and interpersonal measures. Again, gay marriage undermines this fact and damages the dignity of the child.

3. Married women are more financially and socially secure than women in any other relationship type (including lesbian relationships). This even includes university-educated women. No other relationship-type protects the financial and social security of women like marriage.

4. As well as the fact that married men are far more willing to claim and raise their own children, they are far less likely to commit violent crime than unmarried men. According to the US Department of Justice, 65% of violent crimes against women are committed by unmarried men. In comparison, only 9% of married men have committed a violent crime against a woman.Look at any crime statistics and you will notice similar patterns.

5. Married couples generally have more children than unmarried couples. While some of you might make points about overpopulation, that is hardly an issue here in the west. In fact de-population is a serious issue.In Europe, the average couple has 1.5 children, not even enough to replace the current generation.

As I have pointed out, heterosexual marriage benefits society in a number of ways. Homosexual marriage does not give any of these benefits and in fact, undermines them. For example, gay marriage makes it discriminatory to say that a child has a right to a mother and father. While gay couples can have children through adoption or assisted reproduction, they cannot provide both parents. But if homosexual families are recognised as equal to heterosexual families, then it denies a child's right to a mother and father, and even the need for a mother and father, despite all available data saying otherwise. Society would be required to tell children that their natural longing for two opposite sex parents is disordered.

In a number of ways, homosexual marriage also undermines heterosexual marriage. It asks society to give the same benefits it gives to heterosexual marriage, to a type of relationship which does not give the same benefits in return. This makes it harder to justify not giving these benefits to other relationship types e.g. cohabiting couples. This could undermine marriage rates for heterosexuals as marriage requires more effort and commitment than other types of relationships. If these relationships are promoted as equivalent to marriage, then marriage becomes less attractive, especially among the poor and those without higher education - the very people who benefit most from marriage.

Do you know anything about history?

[Tsuntion]

I'll just add my half-baked ramblings to the discussion.

The Church often says that two people of the same sex cannot be married. For many religious people this is a hot topic. But, I can't find much opposition to the idea of two people of different sexes getting married while both are atheist. The bible is against both gays and atheists. If someone says that gays should not get married because Christianity/Judaism/Islam is against homosexuality, then they should also say that they are against atheists getting married. They may also be against pagans and divorced people getting married also. If you're Hindu then you can add 'two people from different castes and gay people cannot get married'.

Its the same with the argument that 'marriage is meant for the production of children'. If so, then the argument is against any man or woman getting married who physically cannot have children due to illness or birth defect.

God does not condone atheist marriages. Atheists are unnatural, they are against God. Atheists should get civil partnerships. Why do atheists want the piece of paper and all the legal recognition and benefits of a real marriage?

I wait in vain for this to be argued by our leaders.

The fuck is this?

Sarcasm/satire, I think.

[Imperiatom]

So how to you explain away that many societies long before the invention of Christianity couples were married according to there culture? the same question to you?

I am fully supportive of gay marriage, do not get me wrong. The post I have quoted is excellent satire that people are missing the point of.

oh right sorry LOL, i should have noticed, me being a fan of monty python and all that!

[Ovisterra]

1. Marriage unites children to their mother and father. While about 30% of cohabiting couples give up on their children, this is very rare for married couples.

Also, only children born in a marriage have a legal right to know who their mother and father are and to be raised by them. Gay marriage undermines this legal right and therefore; damages the dignity of the child.

You do realise these two are at odds, right? It can't be both good and bad for kids.

2. Children born to a married mother and father generally do better on all academic, social, psychological, spiritual, and interpersonal measures. Again, gay marriage undermines this fact and damages the dignity of the child.

Sooooource that shit.

3. Married women are more financially and socially secure than women in any other relationship type (including lesbian relationships). This even includes university-educated women. No other relationship-type protects the financial and social security of women like marriage.

Right, so it's good we're letting lesbians get married too. This is brilliant, you're arguing against your own position.

4. As well as the fact that married men are far more willing to claim and raise their own children, they are far less likely to commit violent crime than unmarried men. According to the US Department of Justice, 65% of violent crimes against women are committed by unmarried men. In comparison, only 9% of married men have committed a violent crime against a woman.Look at any crime statistics and you will notice similar patterns.

Right, so it's good more men can now get married. Jeez, I don't know why you need me to argue with you at all. You're doing a great job yourself.

5. Married couples generally have more children than unmarried couples. While some of you might make points about overpopulation, that is hardly an issue here in the west. In fact de-population is a serious issue.In Europe, the average couple has 1.5 children, not even enough to replace the current generation.

Right, because what the planet needs is MORE kids.

Anyway, even if that were true, how does gay marriage make straight people have less kids?

[Cerod]

Your religion is not my problem. My sexuality is not your business.

My faith has been restored in mankind.

[Urmanian]

More and more countries seem to be legalising gay marriage these days. So many people seem to think that its a sign of a more advanced, enlightened society but really, I think it just shows that marriage doesn't mean the same to a lot of people as it used to. I wouldn't be surprised if marriage laws ended up becoming even more lax in the future.

Now as some of you might know, I'm a Catholic, and you might be thinking that I have no reasons to oppose gay marriage other than “God disapproves of this”. While its true that homosexual relationships are against the laws of God (which cannot be changed), there is also the question of the nature and purpose of marriage.

Marriage as a social and political institution has existed for around 4000 years, and has generally been recognised as the institution which united a man and a woman to each other and any children born from their union. Why has heterosexual marriage exclusively enjoyed such legal and social status? Is it because these ancient societies were primitive and bigoted? Hardly. If anything those societies were even more tolerant of alternative arrangements than today. Examples include hooking up with temple prostitutes, same-sex relationships, cohabiting and being given certain services by slaves. The reason that heterosexual marriage is so important is to do with the benefits it gives that are necessary for society:

1. Marriage unites children to their mother and father. While about 30% of cohabiting couples give up on their children, this is very rare for married couples. Also, only children born in a marriage have a legal right to know who their mother and father are and to be raised by them. Gay marriage undermines this legal right and therefore; damages the dignity of the child.

2. Children born to a married mother and father generally do better on all academic, social, psychological, spiritual, and interpersonal measures. Again, gay marriage undermines this fact and damages the dignity of the child.

3. Married women are more financially and socially secure than women in any other relationship type (including lesbian relationships). This even includes university-educated women. No other relationship-type protects the financial and social security of women like marriage.

4. As well as the fact that married men are far more willing to claim and raise their own children, they are far less likely to commit violent crime than unmarried men. According to the US Department of Justice, 65% of violent crimes against women are committed by unmarried men. In comparison, only 9% of married men have committed a violent crime against a woman.Look at any crime statistics and you will notice similar patterns.

5. Married couples generally have more children than unmarried couples. While some of you might make points about overpopulation, that is hardly an issue here in the west. In fact de-population is a serious issue.In Europe, the average couple has 1.5 children, not even enough to replace the current generation.

As I have pointed out, heterosexual marriage benefits society in a number of ways. Homosexual marriage does not give any of these benefits and in fact, undermines them. For example, gay marriage makes it discriminatory to say that a child has a right to a mother and father. While gay couples can have children through adoption or assisted reproduction, they cannot provide both parents. But if homosexual families are recognised as equal to heterosexual families, then it denies a child's right to a mother and father, and even the need for a mother and father, despite all available data saying otherwise. Society would be required to tell children that their natural longing for two opposite sex parents is disordered.

In a number of ways, homosexual marriage also undermines heterosexual marriage. It asks society to give the same benefits it gives to heterosexual marriage, to a type of relationship which does not give the same benefits in return. This makes it harder to justify not giving these benefits to other relationship types e.g. cohabiting couples. This could undermine marriage rates for heterosexuals as marriage requires more effort and commitment than other types of relationships. If these relationships are promoted as equivalent to marriage, then marriage becomes less attractive, especially among the poor and those without higher education - the very people who benefit most from marriage.

Source on every single point, please?

[Imperiatom]

1. Marriage unites children to their mother and father. While about 30% of cohabiting couples give up on their children, this is very rare for married couples.

Also, only children born in a marriage have a legal right to know who their mother and father are and to be raised by them. Gay marriage undermines this legal right and therefore; damages the dignity of the child.

You do realise these two are at odds, right? It can't be both good and bad for kids.

2. Children born to a married mother and father generally do better on all academic, social, psychological, spiritual, and interpersonal measures. Again, gay marriage undermines this fact and damages the dignity of the child.

Sooooource that shit.

3. Married women are more financially and socially secure than women in any other relationship type (including lesbian relationships). This even includes university-educated women. No other relationship-type protects the financial and social security of women like marriage.

Right, so it's good we're letting lesbians get married too. This is brilliant, you're arguing against your own position.

4. As well as the fact that married men are far more willing to claim and raise their own children, they are far less likely to commit violent crime than unmarried men. According to the US Department of Justice, 65% of violent crimes against women are committed by unmarried men. In comparison, only 9% of married men have committed a violent crime against a woman.Look at any crime statistics and you will notice similar patterns.

Right, so it's good more men can now get married. Jeez, I don't know why you need me to argue with you at all. You're doing a great job yourself.

5. Married couples generally have more children than unmarried couples. While some of you might make points about overpopulation, that is hardly an issue here in the west. In fact de-population is a serious issue.In Europe, the average couple has 1.5 children, not even enough to replace the current generation.

Right, because what the planet needs is MORE kids.

Anyway, even if that were true, how does gay marriage make straight people have less kids?

Notice how most of them don't stick around to have a debate.

[Urmanian]

Again, am I the only one who finds it incredibly ironic that fundies first claim that homosexual relationships are "hedonistic" and "materially minded" and the next thing they say is that caring, loving, passionate relationships that do not serve the simplest biological purpose of spawning offspring do not hold any value?

[Altruistic Paladins]

I oppose same sex marriage because Gays cannot raise healthy moral kids in their relationship

As this study shows, it is true only because you hold prejudice against them in the first place. It is no wonder gay parents have lower incomes than the national average for straight married couples when you purposefully put economic stressors on them in the first place for being a gay couple, increasing stress in children. This is circular logic at its finest.

Why is it okay to hold prejudice against gay parents? Because they are less capable of caring for children.

Why are gay parents less capable of caring for children? Because we hold prejudice against them.

What is next?

Why do we shoot at helicopters? Because helicopters are significantly more likely to crash.

Why are helicopters significantly more likely to crash? Because we shoot at helicopters.

[Ovisterra]

More and more countries seem to be legalising gay marriage these days. So many people seem to think that its a sign of a more advanced, enlightened society but really, I think it just shows that marriage doesn't mean the same to a lot of people as it used to. I wouldn't be surprised if marriage laws ended up becoming even more lax in the future.

Now as some of you might know, I'm a Catholic, and you might be thinking that I have no reasons to oppose gay marriage other than “God disapproves of this”. While its true that homosexual relationships are against the laws of God (which cannot be changed), there is also the question of the nature and purpose of marriage.

Marriage as a social and political institution has existed for around 4000 years, and has generally been recognised as the institution which united a man and a woman to each other and any children born from their union. Why has heterosexual marriage exclusively enjoyed such legal and social status? Is it because these ancient societies were primitive and bigoted? Hardly. If anything those societies were even more tolerant of alternative arrangements than today. Examples include hooking up with temple prostitutes, same-sex relationships, cohabiting and being given certain services by slaves. The reason that heterosexual marriage is so important is to do with the benefits it gives that are necessary for society:

1. Marriage unites children to their mother and father. While about 30% of cohabiting couples give up on their children, this is very rare for married couples. Also, only children born in a marriage have a legal right to know who their mother and father are and to be raised by them. Gay marriage undermines this legal right and therefore; damages the dignity of the child.

2. Children born to a married mother and father generally do better on all academic, social, psychological, spiritual, and interpersonal measures. Again, gay marriage undermines this fact and damages the dignity of the child.

3. Married women are more financially and socially secure than women in any other relationship type (including lesbian relationships). This even includes university-educated women. No other relationship-type protects the financial and social security of women like marriage.

4. As well as the fact that married men are far more willing to claim and raise their own children, they are far less likely to commit violent crime than unmarried men. According to the US Department of Justice, 65% of violent crimes against women are committed by unmarried men. In comparison, only 9% of married men have committed a violent crime against a woman.Look at any crime statistics and you will notice similar patterns.

5. Married couples generally have more children than unmarried couples. While some of you might make points about overpopulation, that is hardly an issue here in the west. In fact de-population is a serious issue.In Europe, the average couple has 1.5 children, not even enough to replace the current generation.

As I have pointed out, heterosexual marriage benefits society in a number of ways. Homosexual marriage does not give any of these benefits and in fact, undermines them. For example, gay marriage makes it discriminatory to say that a child has a right to a mother and father. While gay couples can have children through adoption or assisted reproduction, they cannot provide both parents. But if homosexual families are recognised as equal to heterosexual families, then it denies a child's right to a mother and father, and even the need for a mother and father, despite all available data saying otherwise. Society would be required to tell children that their natural longing for two opposite sex parents is disordered.

In a number of ways, homosexual marriage also undermines heterosexual marriage. It asks society to give the same benefits it gives to heterosexual marriage, to a type of relationship which does not give the same benefits in return. This makes it harder to justify not giving these benefits to other relationship types e.g. cohabiting couples. This could undermine marriage rates for heterosexuals as marriage requires more effort and commitment than other types of relationships. If these relationships are promoted as equivalent to marriage, then marriage becomes less attractive, especially among the poor and those without higher education - the very people who benefit most from marriage.

Source on every single point, please?

Even if he manages to prove that homosexual marriages are worse for kids, I really don't see why it matters. I mean, I'm sure you could find another group that doesn't raise kids well. Convicted felons, perhaps. Does that mean convicted felons should be prevented from marrying?

Also, since when are marriages exclusively about kids?

Notice how most of them don't stick around to have a debate.

It's probably because all of their arguments boil down to fallacies, personal grudges, illogical ramblings or religious bias.

[Ostroeuropa]

Your religion is not my problem. My sexuality is not your business.

Exactly. So then why should the Church have to marry you? If it's outside the Church, then we don't have to condone it.

You don't have to marry them.
Your church can continue to be bigoted and homophobic. There are other churches willing to marry gay people, and you shouldnt force them not to.

[Kvatchdom]

Source on every single point, please?

Even if he manages to prove that homosexual marriages are worse for kids, I really don't see why it matters. I mean, I'm sure you could find another group that doesn't raise kids well. Convicted felons, perhaps. Does that mean convicted felons should be prevented from marrying?

Also, since when are marriages exclusively about kids?

Notice how most of them don't stick around to have a debate.

It's probably because all of their arguments boil down to fallacies, personal grudges, illogical ramblings or religious bias.

Or too much arguing and pressure. Happened for me a few times

[Ostroeuropa]

Source on every single point, please?

Even if he manages to prove that homosexual marriages are worse for kids, I really don't see why it matters. I mean, I'm sure you could find another group that doesn't raise kids well. Convicted felons, perhaps. Does that mean convicted felons should be prevented from marrying?

Also, since when are marriages exclusively about kids?

Notice how most of them don't stick around to have a debate.

It's probably because all of their arguments boil down to fallacies, personal grudges, illogical ramblings or religious bias.

Exactly this.
It would only form a minor argument in favor of weighting adoptions against homosexual couples.

"Hm, seems they really are worse at raising kids. Ok, so deduct 5 points if they are gay. problem solved."

And even that, i'd probably oppose.
(I'm assuming adoptions work on a point system here. Couple - x points, both working, x points, etc.)