Oh, one point I missed, sorry...

<<No, this doesn’t logically follow – there can be one authentic book written by God and other books that fraudulently pretend to be so.>>

You miss the point. I suspect deliberately too. 

If a God wrote a book, it would be so perfect that no book written by a human could possibly compete, and they'd know how to write it in such a way as to quell any question of it's truth. Its claims could be known by all and not just believed by those willing to suspend their critical faculties.

Instead, what we see is a wide range of holy books; each as flawed and contradictory as the other. 

What I find so difficult to understand is, If all humans are deemed equal in the eyes of God then why the need for hierarchy in the churches ?
It really is no different a hypocrisy than a political party claiming to be there for the working class yet only academics can ascend through the ranks.
No wonder education is designed the way it is.

That's bizarre, individual.

>>In Malaysia a man & a woman can not marry if one is not muslim. If they are married & visit Malaysia then they are not permitted to sleep in the same hotel room.<<

So, let me see if I have this right. My partner and I book into a Kuala Lumpur hotel. When we get there, the first thing they ask is "are you Muslim". And if I say no, they won't give us a room?

I'm sorry, I don't believe you.

And anyway, what's your point?

Pericles,
Is one of you a muslim ?

individual, my old Dad had a saying, 'never assume. It makes an ass out of u and me'. Well, you're certainly making an ass out of yourself.

Firstly, all the words I've used are in a standard dictionary. You should try using one some time: so many words - and some of them even have more than 3 syllables!

As for 'You lot .. Leave us heterosexuals out of it' - are you trying to imply that I'm homosexual? Besides the fact that my wife and sons would laugh in your face, you might want to be careful about making such accusations on a public forum. I'm sure you didn't really mean to impute that I have homosexual affairs outside of my marriage, now did you?

Surely you wouldn't let your bigotry run that far away with you ..?

David, it appears that basic logic just really isn't your strong point.

Let's go through it again.

Trav's argument is as follows:

1) Marriage is for the purpose of bearing and raising children;
2) Homosexual couples cannot ordinarily bear and raise children;
C) Homosexuals couples cannot marry.

Do you dispute this form of his argument?

By simply substituting the subject of premise 2, we have:

1) Marriage is for the purpose of bearing and raising children;
2) Infertile couples cannot ordinarily bear and raise children;
C) Infertile couples cannot marry.

Now, do you dispute that infertile couples cannot bear and raise children? If you do, then you have a very odd definition of 'infertile'.

So the fact remains that, if you accept Trav's argument against same-sex marriage (which it seems you do, when you say '[marriage] is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together'), then you must accept that the same argument holds against infertile and childless heterosexual marrages.