Well you're welcome to go live in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Tell us how you like it. 

Nothing more natural than a women covered head to toe in burqa. Boy us guys in the West sure do have it rough, lol. 

What's unnatural about adoption? 

And if the "aid of technology" is so inherently evil, why are you using a computer, a thoroughly unnatural device? Besides which, you do realize the aid of technology is also crucial in helping many straight couple have kids, right?

I don't take exception with his position as much as the manner in which he stated it and for that, I do judge him.

Even excluding same sex families, 'that family model' is only one model that can result in the upbringing of perfectly happy, well adjusted children. Single mothers, single fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, foster parents, adoptive parents, there are many flavours.

Denying same sex couples, the right to marry and have family is anti-family (my initial point) because it's denying this right to approximately 1/20 people in the world, due to an innate attribute. There are many in the world who have the capacity to and are automatically afforded the right to family when they are neither capable of nor suitable for fulfilling the role.

When religion has to adjust to what people want rather than what God wants. Then you know you are not in the right one.

Then on what grounds are you dismissing the aid of technology in helping same sex couples have kids? What's wrong with that?

"In the case of homosexual couples, without external aid (the aid of technology or some form of adoption or surrogate parent), there is no potential for that family model father, father, children or mother, mother, children."

Why rule out external aid? Same sex couples can adopt, or use a surrogate, so there is potential for a family. 

Ok, so you were speaking biologically, but Frank didn't make that distinction, he just said gay couples "can't have children", which incorrectly assumes that the only way to have kids is for a heterosexual couple to breed.

I'm curious about which bit you believe was not perfectly correct because I suspect you may still be slightly missing my point, although this disconnect may simply be down to semantics and use of the word natural. I'm afraid I still have to disagree and say that Frank didn't have a point.

"How could gay couples form a family when they can’t have children?" - fostering, adoption and surrogacy, obviously

"Being gay is against human nature and this is reality." - No it's not against human nature, it simply isn't the majority state, unless you are going to suggest it's a choice....we would have to agree to disagree on that

"Men and women together is the natural instinct of human beings,"- Unless you are gay....(see above point)

"while Gay marriage is an atrocious and obscene act which belongs to unsound nature."- Objection your honour, inflammatory

"Marriage does not mean sexual enjoyment only but also the establishment of a family on hygienic and safe foundations." - Hygiene does not belong in this conversation, safety less so.  This comment is ignorant at best and grossly discriminatory at worst

"Human rights should not be extended to include human destruction"- What, how, where, who, why?

"and diverting from the human nature and the principles on which this universe was created." - Fine, just fundamental difference in beliefs.

Bottom line, the common position does not make the alternative unnatural or against nature, that's not what those words mean. His use of the words nature/natural is completely different from what you described, which was to say that natural conception (unassisted) is only possible with a heterosexual couple, which is a completely fair statement. I think you were giving him too much credit.

Ah, those are the same 'Prop 8' people we had in California.  They are really terrible people that spend millions of dollars trying to destroy the legal recogtion of families.  They are bitter miserable people that would rather harasse gay people than help feed starving children.  

Glad they keep losing.

So, you think it is terrible that people ended Slaverly? because it is so well supported and documented in the Bible.  That humans should own other human beings a property.  To do what they wish, feed or not, starve, clothe, rape, force them to breed and sell their children.  But God says it's ok.

If you think that slaverly is a good thing because it's in the Bible, than we are just fundamentally different people and will never agree on a number of things.