"Christians have no basis for objecting to gay people having access to the institution of marriage." Weeeell I think that says it all. don't you think?

1. Would gay marriage lead to greater social stability? I think it would and I"ll tell you why. Gay people have none of that heterosexual norms that when looking at its track record.....fighting, in-equality, gender high so-called moral grounds which by the way has more disturbing factors which all can see in every day-to-day life....and have I got some irony for you..........Ready!

Its funny that from these hetero households that are so balanced...lol...sorry Iam LMAO here........this is where the majority of gays comes from, and Ive lost count on how many religious homosexuals there are now-days........not to mention all the priests that are choking each others chickens........come on! The world is changing and its time to change with it.

WOW! Anyone would think it was hard to live in the 21 century.

Time to come clean with truth. ( Human evolution......you cant stop it people.....its the driving force that got us here in the first place,) We are all in our chosen groups now..........so horses for courses.

And again...........if your not gay............why does it bother you so much?

BLUE

A simple argument which gives a reasoned Christian perspective on gay marriage. At least the author's argument aligns with common sense and equality of human rights.

The responses in the comments, however, are neither reasoned nor commonsensical, and demonstrate a lack of respect for human rights for gay people or people who wish to be free from religion and do not expect laws to be subject to interpretation of any particular religious text.

Your disputes over interpretation of your religious texts should be irrelevant to discussion of laws in this greats democratic secular nation, but at least have the guts to state the truth - you (commenters) are uncomfortable with homosexuality and expect that homosexual people should not have a right granted to heterosexual people. That's fine, you're welcome to your opinion, but I hope you'll consider this when it is your right being removed or denied, although it's a safe bet you won't considering the stink kicked up by christians when it was suggested they be required to show what public good they did before receiving charitable gift status.

Now, back to your "my bible quote contradicts your bible quote" contest. May one day you'll wake up to the fact that all those contradictions might give some insight into the truth of its claims, and maybe you'll consider your arguments on facts, common sense, and legal precedence rather than childish adherence to incoherent goat-herder philosophies.

Where the argument of the G&L lobby fails dismally is the avoidance to acknowledge the “chasmic” difference in the practice of the sexual act itself. Compared to the vast and overwhelming majority of heterosexual humanity, whose view of the sexual act between male and female conforms to normal standards of nature necessary for the procreation of the species, the homosexual act fails to meet the same standard of nature, is outside the natural and social “norm” and is correctly applied to the term “Queer” .

Homosexuality is aberrational and undeserving of concessions which might invite the practice into the fold where privileges are reserved for normal and natural behaviour available to heterosexuals; marriage, being the example argued here.

To argue as they do that Christianity is a major impediment to achievement of the goals of the homosexual lobby is fallacious. The subjective nature of Christianity renders it vulnerable to attack on moral grounds by being a philosophy emanating from spiritual attachments and applications to the physical world of man through identifying the rules of nature and applying them through a belief system aimed at his personal and spiritual welfare and the welfare of the tribe by holding to traditions based on the necessity of which is paramount to his survival.

It is not paramount for survival to have homosexual acts acknowledged and relegated as normal when clearly such acts are not normal or desirable and fall outside the acceptable Christian net. What is acceptable to Christianity is the homosexual persona not the act. The best and most clear example is the story of the crucifixion, as Christ forgave the sin of the robbers who died one on each side of him on their own cross. Christianity accepts differences but will not conform to those differences, so it is wrong for homosexuals to ask of the Christian religion to accept their behaviour as well as themselves!

I have a couple of questions to those that advocate gay marriage.

The argument seems to be that everyone has a right to marry whom they wish, providing they are consenting adults. That being so, should gay incest be allowed, like two brothers or two sisters marrying? What about and uncle and his nephew?

Why not normal incestous marriages, couples no longer have to produce children.

What about polygamy? Why should we deny consenting adults the right to marry more than one spouse.

Or should we deem marriage to be exclusivly a union between one male and one female, not related, and find new terms for other types of unions?

Hey, Diver Dan, denying people the legal and emotional support that come with marriage is not accepting. You agree with the author that you should accept homosexuality, but your religious hubris presumes the legal act of marriage should be restricted according to your interpretation of a book full of myth, fantasy, genocide and religious intollerance. My country doesn't observe Sharia law, nor Christian dogma, so feel free to "tolerate" homosexuals and I'll "tolerate" Christians, but keep your religious values out of my secular laws.

Same sex couples who wish to be married are members of various religions and have a diverse belief system. As a global community same sex marriages do not hurt or harm anyone. This does not open up the door for polygamous relationships or anything that is untoward. People who identify as homosexuals contribute to our society just as much or even as little as anyone else. I do not see the distinction. It is a ridiculous argument and statement to say that children are worse of in a same sex marriage over a traditional marriage of husband and wife. As this would mean all women who have lost their husbands to war or cancer and have left them with a young family are going to be disadvantaged this is the furthest thing from the truth and pure propaganda. Same sex couples do not threaten a traditional marriage. I look forward to the day that a majority of people who disagree with same sex marriages are no longer part of our government system. The generations that are up and coming are more accepting and will allow same sex marriages to be part of society.