David interesting that you complimented a poster who was hatefully derogatory towards Gay people. Sorry mate that shows you up also as a religious bigot!!

The greatest bigots in this debate is the homosexual lobby. Being such a selfish self centred activity it is no surprise.

Well, individual, it seems you not only cherry pick the Bible, you also cherry pick the dictionary! Out of all the various nuances of the word 'prejudice' provided, you actually ignore them all, and produce one of your own! Good to see you keeping form, there.

Also, good work on showcasing your frank bigotry.

David, you keep asserting that marriage is 'about bearing and raising children', without actually providing any evidence that this is so, or why it is so, and merrily continue to ignore the glaring example of married couples who are childless either by circumstance or by choice.

I ask again, if a couple marry, but choose not to have children, have they not failed to meet your definition of marriage? Is their marriage thus annulled?

Regarding Matthew 19:4,5, Jesus does not actually say that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. He provides an explanation, somewhat appropriate for the primitive society he lived in, of why men and women marry (the magic sky fairy did it, of course).

But, thank you for at least admitting that Jesus never said a word about not allowing same-sex marriage. Presumably if it was so important, he would have got around to saying so in at least one of the Gospels?

David Palmer,

Considering you and your God still have it all to prove, this is a pretty bald assertion...

<<It is true that my “Sky Daddy” … said these things consistently over a period of 1500 yrs of recorded history…>>

Really? To whom and in what way? Are these things, that have been said, recorded in history as well? If so, where?

Remember, when we speak to God, it’s called “prayer”; when he speaks back, it’s called “schizophrenia”.

<<...nowhere in my article did I argue my case on the basis of Christian teaching but rather on the basis of what we all, religious or otherwise, can’t not know, Clownfish, Jon J or myself.>>

Actually, you did:

“At its deepest level, marriage is the union of difference, the combining of a man and a woman to make one flesh, a union that is physical, emotional and as well, mystical.”

“One flesh” is a term used only by theists (originally appearing in the book of Genesis to describe the unity of marriage) as a way of adding an air of mysticism and a “spiritual” dimension to marriage and sexual intercourse. Even worse, though, you actually use the word "mysticism" - a word I'm unaware of a secular or reality-based use for.

You clearly wanted to present a rational argument against same-sex marriage in your article and presumably realised that you couldn’t do it by mentioning God, so you slip him in under the radar with thinly veiled Biblical references.

But Christians did not invent marriage; marriage was around long before Christianity. In fact, Christians were actually late-comers to the party there. One man and one woman is not, exclusively, how marriage has always been understood and even if it was, so what? That’s not a reason to leave it that way. A voter was always understood to be a white, land-owning male, but that changed.

Uniformity amongst different religions and consistency in the Bible doesn’t prove anything either - not until you can at least demonstrate some truth behind religious claims - so why bother mentioning them?

A voter was always understood to be a white, land-owning male, but that changed.
AJ Philips,
That's not quite correct. There were hierarchies all over the planet before anyone even knew about white men. The Incas, as in fact have ALL civilisations, committed heinous atrocities throughout evolution. The whitey is actually a late comer who in comparison was rather tame. When you try to evoke guilt in men then you are a hypocrite if you fail to mention the unpleasant parts of the past of other cultures.
Look at all countries now & see how their people are faring. Then come back & tell us how bad we are.

AJ: Coming in with a massive red herring! Nice.

Everyone else FYI: AJ has proven himself to be totally uninterested in informed discussion on these forums before, so leave him to ponder his own irrelevencies.