Well, God created man. And seeing he was lonely, God created woman and so they shall become one flesh. Also that serves for the institution of marriage by God Himself.
That`s why anything beyond that view is seen as a sin.

A poor argument, as we're speaking about civil marriage. Marriage also predates Christianity. Try again.

Not the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument. God also created gays, and for a gay person homosexuality is normal, natural, and makes them happy.

You can't judge about homosexuality, that's up to God. God is the judge of all, therefore you cannot know if homosexuality is wrong or not. Agreed or not?

People do those specific actions because they're the result of a specific need to find a mate who offers sexual and emotional gratification (in the case of homosexuals this mate will be someone of the same sex). What you're trying to do is to create a psychological pressure that will force those you have deemed "wrong" (or in this case "sinful"), who actually are just different than you, to censure and repress themselves. It's no different than asking someone to cut their hand off.

Yes, mind your own business. It's not hate speech. You have no business trying to pass laws that interfere with other people's personal lives. Honestly, I'm gonna start a movement to ban religious symbols from people's homes. See how "you and your kind" like it.

I guess you're mistaking freedom of speech, with the fact that you are not allowed to restrict other people's personal freedoms.

Your passion is something I admire sometimes, of course in the arguements you are mentioning I agree with all of them, no religion should restrict a person to be happy and have personal freedoms based on their sexuality, race or gender.

A better arguement he could have come up with is that gay relationships might be seen in God's eyes as something that does not help the procreation of the human race. Whether or not people hide this arguement behind religious context based on a completely different time, this is one thing that can be completely ignored due to modern science providing 2 very able and good parents with the children they so deserve, whether it is via adoption or selfless surrogacy. I know some USA politicians have used the 'traditional family' arguement at lot when argueing against marriage.

But that doesn't mean DélioPT's choice and freedom to have beliefs based on a faith with the freedom to read scriptures and worship a higher power should be restricted either. 

I will never know the answer to that. I will have to be gay to answer that. That will be like a trick question. Also why would a guy want to be like a girl and be a he-she. Why would a girl dress like guy or a guy like a girl and be a drag queen. I don't know but I do know that I've given it way to much thought so I will sign off now.

Hehe, my passion causes me trouble lots of times (ask Kasz, he knows it all too well).

The reproduction argument has many flaws:

- Homosexuals are a minority (only 3% of the population, or something of the sort), so humnaity won't go extinct if a small percentage doesn't reproduce (it may actually be a good thing for hygenic reasons, such as overpopulation); the problem is that the homophobe crowd tend to think that being gay is a choice (a belief that proves to be very inconsistent if you ask them to prove it by becoming gays themselves), and not discriminating against homosexuals will encourage more people to "turn" gay;

- There are people who are naturally sterile; Homophibes greatly insult tese people, as they claim that reproduction is the sole purpose of romantic relationships (of course the fact tha tthey're not against sterile people again shows the inconsistency of their beleifs);

- For a religion that elevates chastity to virtue status, and whoss most proeminent figures had no offspring, it's quite funny that they care so much about reproduction in the first place.

I definately agree Delio has the right to everything you said in the bolded part. BUT beliefs (especially those concerning people other than the person who holds those beliefs) aren't exempted from criticism. Just as we'd show contempt for a person who holds racist beliefs (such as the notion that blacks are inferior to whites), we should do the same to peopel who hold homophobic beliefs (and the fact that it's still acceptable to hold homophobic beliefs, while we imediatelly call out people if they manifest racism, just goes to show the double-standards within society). To me homophobic belies, just like racist beliefs, are dangerous, as they imply the existence of people being "superior" and "inferior", "wrong" and "right", "normal" and "deviant", based on innate characteristcs. Allowing such beliefs to dictate law will only lead to a society where all those not part of the "superior", "right", "normal" category of people are persecuted and repressed. I simply can't look at it as if Delio said he thinks the colour purple is prettier than the colour blue.

LOL, this post makes your user name seem quite ironic.

Yeah, I never saw the point in that. The bible is the epitome of truth, however; disregard the old testament... doesn't that kind of take away a big part of the point with the bible in the first place? People pick and choose which parts to adhere to and the utterly disregard the parts that aren't so convenient. And not to mention the zounds of interpretations we have all over the place.