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.

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

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.

Yes it does. But Christianity has a specific view on what marriage is and should be, so how can we look at gay marriage and say it is ok?

Because we are not viewing it in the eyes of Christianity. 

I`m nor really sure i understood your comment so i`ll say this.
If we see the act of homosexuality as a sin, anything that, in this case, consumates it, is algo the object of objection. So naturally, a Christian or the Church in particular, that considers that act as a sin, will naturally object to gay marriage.

I don`t know if that answers your comment.

Very well put! But you just reafirmed my position.
Freedom of speech is the ability/faculty/right to express one`s feelings or opinions even if some will not like it. How can i enforce something when i have no power whatsoever to do anything? They can just ignore me, you know.

Yes it does. But Christianity has a specific view on what marriage is and should be, so how can we look at gay marriage and say it is ok?

Yep, that's the perfect answer. A religious person (as it's against their beliefs) or just say a person what was brought up thinking it was wrong will see it as that. A non-religious person will view it as nothing being wrong at all (unless they are just homophobic or something that's a completely different issue),.

Going back in the conversation, 'Civil Marriage' was mentioned. In the UK we have 2 legal versions of 'marriage', one is marriage which is a term still used and associated with opposite gender unions, the other is the civil partnership, which is commonly associated with same sex unions. While the former is associated with the church, the other is not. Other then the name and religious associations, there is no legal difference. For all intent and purposes, they are married whatever the name.

The point being that while in the eyes of the Church (Christianity) same sex couples cannot be married but in the eyes of the law they can get a civil partnership and have the same legal rights as a 'married couple'. In this case marriage is just a term.

So when Sapphi mentions Civil Marriage, it's in a context where Christianity is not involved... I presume.