Riz

Loving your top ten, mate - best list I've seen for a while.

Cornflower, Dotto - one day these nut-jobs like PT and Diver Dan will actually read your common sense words, just like PT bothered to read the links to VERIFIABLE science studies others (like yours truly) have posted. Instead of racist gibberish like "white europeans are endangered", Phillip Tang- member of the KKK are ya?

And no day would be complete without the lovely Celivia - missed you darling, wonderful to know you have been keeping on with lines like these:

"They (gays) are not producing children when they are not married either, so nothing changes in that respect."

LOL

Phillip Tang

Your reference to an article from the Yale Daily News pointing out some obvious demographic pressures from immigration affecting Europe at the moment is interesting.
Obviously you have drawn your own conclusion to the correlation between low birth rates and gay marriage from the article. What the author concluded was low birth rate in Europe were due more to advances in education and the mobility of the affluent native population and the preponderance of them to guard their financial gains and life style with the same low birth rates.
This article would more suit research on xenophobia and effects of immigration on a local population, I would think. However, having said all this, the whole context of the article could be extended to include increasing pressure from acceptance of gay marriage to be another contributing factor to low birth rates. If there is any need in the debate outside of the moral argument on gay marriage, then this could be added as a contribution to the opposing argument to legalising of gay marriage

Continued to Phillip Tang

This article would more suit research on xenophobia and effects of immigration on a local population, I would think. However, having said all this, the whole context of the article could be extended to include increasing pressure from acceptance of gay marriage to be another contributing factor to low birth rates. If there is any need in the debate outside of the moral argument on gay marriage, then this could be added as a contribution to the opposing argument to legalising of gay marriage.
It is difficult though to argue here on any technical level with the obvious “fairy set” and their spurious arguments aimed at pulling down the pillars of social moral fortitude which, by its traditions, advances society in the direction of sustainability and acceptability, opposing the implantation of social acceptance of the unnatural and undesirable act of homosexuality and its socially negative consequences

Dan,
That's Riz, without the 't'. Crikey Dan, I wouldn't misspell your name - don't forget the Golden Rule.

* As one of the normal heterosexual majority in society, I don't find the act of homosexuality any more abhorrent than fat, elderly heterosexuals having sex. It's not my cup of tea, but so long as they keep it in their own houses with curtains drawn, what I don't know can't hurt me.

* Conventional logic has no more to say on the topic of gay marriage than mathematics. Who taught you philosophy? History doesn't support your bigotry either. Do some research; the ancient Greeks were gagging for hot man [censored]. They also kept slaves, along with a lot of other past and present civilisations - tradition is no defence for irrationality or immorality.

* No, sorry, homosexuality does occur in nature (not just among mankind; rams are also gagging for hot ram [censored], and they aren't the only animals), and is thus necessarily not unnatural. Whether it is debased or deviant depends on your own moral code. By my own moral code, your bigotry is debased and deviant. But I also stand by the wisdom of Voltaire; whilst I may abhor what you have to say, I shall defend to the death your right to say it.

* Where I come from, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Any activism which strives for equality, Liberty and Happiness for homosexuals gets a big thumbs up from me.

"Same-Sex Marriage Debate Has Roots Going Back Centuries"
http://tinyurl.com/38kbo8g

And my pick of the day from this article is this quote:
"It was actually Christianity that first took the position that the validity of marriage did not depend on the ability to reproduce."

Dan,
why are you so afraid of social change?
Societies, at least Western societies, have always been naturally dynamic; if that was not true, we would still be stuck in the dark ages.

When you say, >>...unnatural and undesirable act of homosexuality and its socially negative consequences...<<
Let me know when you come up with evidence to back up this claim. Look at any of the 12 or so countries where same-sex marriage has been legal, starting from 2001 in the Netherlands, till the most recent one this month in Argentina, tell us where exactly those socially negative consequences are happening, just because a minority of same-sex coulples are married?

Hi JR, glad you are back from Germany for a while!

Riz:
I’ll try to be kind with the demolition of your platitudinous argument. Let us start with the trailing remark; “All men are created equal”; well, some are more equal than others obviously, and under the rule of nature which says “The fittest shall survive” then it is to war we go, whatever the cause.
And so Riz, you sit on the fence of sexual normality and then like humpty dumpty, fall into the circle of the kings men and their horses. It is difficult to reconstruct an argument around unrelated facts as you presented here; and like humpty dumpty, the facts relating to you argument will leave you in shards at the bottom of the wall.
Sorry, but conventional logic has everything to say about gay marriage. Gay marriage is simply unconventional.

Riz, nowhere do I ever argue against the existence of homosexuality. Such people are to be pitied. That hackneyed word “bigot” was very appropriately used by the French to describe the Normans, but it now rests in the “long-yard” of overused expressions very ineffectively proffered by the homosexual lobby describing the approaching war party.
Finally, as for the Romans as an example of anything original, your argument is reduced to a yellow watery substance by appealing to their history of (possible) acceptance of homosexuality as a reason for the acceptance of Gay marriage in our own community. Maybe its you that should re-visit the study of philosophy; and may I suggest you extend the study into sociology as well. Try “Spencer”.