Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

The problem is that you don't know how much you don't know.

Suppose the happy couple says, "We'll take number three out of the catalogue, with the pink roses. The only thing is, instead of a bride and groom on the top, we want two brides, one with a big handlebar moustache."

He ought to laugh.How do you think he would respond? How would you respond?You gay-haters really need to lighten up.

No He didn't. He didn't say anything about marriage. Marriage is strictly a human invention. I've already said what a normal human being would do - he'd laugh at the idea of a bride with a big moustache. How do you think a Lord! Lord! Christian would respond? How would you respond?

That isn't a "prescription" for marriage. It isn't a commandment. It's, "It shall happen." It isn't, "Thou shalt not." It's just a description of a marriage bond. Same as above. It doesn't preclude other forms of bonding. Illiterate.

And yet you do.

There's no need to punish you for that. We just need to point out that you apply "God's laws" hypocrytically and unequally.

You'll claim you're being punished, like you always do when your ability to persecute is limited.

You might pay attention to context - or even read the words at all. The desire is to grind your religion down, not you yourself. You yourself are welcome to believe in leprechauns or whatever but your religion must be deprived of every vestige of the power it has to persecute whomever you don't like.

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

Marriage isn't about biology in the first place; it's a social construct. But even if it was about biology, you're saying that it's absurd for childless heterosexual couples to be married - and for adoptive parents to be married.

It's your so-called "principle" that's absurd. There is no difference "in principle" between one couple that can't have children and another couple that can't have children.

It makes no difference what somebody is "biologically built for" if they can't actually do it. I'm not making a principle of anything. I'm pointing out that your so-called "principle" is nonsensical.Besides, there isn't necessarily any "defect" involved at all, either accidental or otherwise. By your so-called principle, a couple who didn't want children would also be ineligible for marriage. Gay couples can adopt, which is as effective a cure as any for childlessness.

Then your argument is even more of a failure. If there was no biological "fit" between same-sex couples, there wouldn't be any same-sex couples.

That's true. In the history of the human race, marriage has usually been about property. Never has it ever been about any silly "biological fit" as you claim.