Secular argument against gay marriage

[wittgenstein]

Nope. I am sure you are sinless.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope. I am sure you are sinless.

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, wittgenstein.

Could you please answer josh’s question without being coy or sarcastic? I, too, am curious about exactly what comment you are directing your posts to, as you did not use the “quote” feature in your response.

 

[wittgenstein]

I am saying that we are all sinners (including me). I am also saying that one should concentrate on one’s own sins rather then others.
You give me more credit then I deserve. Tho,I confess to the sin of pride. I’m actually not that clever or smart. I say what I feel!

 

[PRmerger]

I am saying that we are all sinners (including me).

Were you under the misapprehension that any Catholic here thought otherwise?

I am also saying that one should concentrate on one’s own sins rather then others.

What do you mean by “concentrate”? Surely you’re not proposing that we cannot discuss how homosexuality is disordered, right?

You give me more credit then I deserve. Tho,I confess to the sin of pride. I’m actually not that clever or smart. I say what I feel!

That can get you into trouble sometimes.

 

[wittgenstein]

I welcome troubles! They make me ponder and make me realize that I am no better then anyone else,tho my ego tells me otherwise.

 

[PRmerger]

I welcome troubles!

 

[wittgenstein]

LOVE that last post! Honesty is very rare on the internet. This is not a cop out! It is 10:45 PM and my wife is demanding that I join her in bed.
I’ll be back!

 

[PRmerger]

LOVE that last post! Honesty is very rare on the internet.

I have not found this particular forum to be, for the most part, lacking in honesty.

 

[wittgenstein]

Either have I! I was talking about the internet,not this forum.

 

[PRmerger]

Either have I! I was talking about the internet,not this forum.

Hey. I see that you have still not learned how to use the “quote” feature when responding.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10319709&postcount=156

It would make it so much easier to be in a dialogue if you could learn this, otherwise it appears as if your responses are random.

And then you won’t have to clarify, as you often have to, with statements like, “Oh, I was responding to post #33, not to you.”

 

[josh987654321]

Nope. I am sure you are sinless.

Im not sinless, nor would I ever think/claim that, what gave you that idea?

I am saying that we are all sinners (including me).

Okay.

I am also saying that one should concentrate on one’s own sins rather then others.

You know, I took that passage to heart as well, I should take the log out of my own eye before trying to take the speck out my friends eye.

However let me ask you something, seeing as how we are all sinners, who evangalizes? who preaches? must we deny our neighbours the truth in fear that others may point out our own failings?

I would also like to ask, what Judgement did I pass to incite your response?

You give me more credit then I deserve. Tho,I confess to the sin of pride. I’m actually not that clever or smart. I say what I feel!

That passage was directed towards those who claim one thing yet do the opposite, in other words hypocites. It gets used and abused by alot of people, especially those who wish to justify what they do, because once we acknowledge the truth, we can no longer live a lie, living with the status quo of such lie becomes much harder and thus people use that passage alot in order to reject truth.

Lest we forget, that passage also says “don’t give to dogs what belongs to God as they will only turn and attack you” and “don’t throw pearls down infront of pigs as they will trample all over them.” Yet nobody quotes that part when this passage is brought up.

At the start of that passage it also says “God will be as hard on you as you are on others, he will treat you exactly as you treat them.”

Many Christians get the fallacy that if they judge everyone and everything to be good than God will in turn judge them to be good, but that idea is wrong.

Instead it’s saying that you shouldn’t judge anyone, you don’t judge people to be good or bad, you gather information about a person and make an informed decision, this is how you don’t hold back what belongs to God and how you don’t give to dogs what belongs to God. Many people missinterpret “Judging” they use it instead to be “naive.”

If you claim that Murder is immoral, could I not use the same passage in reply?

“First take the log out of your own eye before you attempt to take the speck out of my eye.” You see how I can use the same passage to my own whim and fancy in order to justify such actions?

My apologies for the off-topic nature of this post.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Peter_Plato]

By that logic you now need to demonstrate that God did not inspire secular moves to legalize gay marriage AND at the same time prove He inspired the origin of secular moral beliefs.



btw, what do you mean by “secular moral belief”? Natural law arguments? Morality you disagree with?

What I said was that God could have, and very likely did, inspire secular minded individuals to have moral beliefs in line with Christian principles, an example being the Golden rule formulation from secular cultures that is in line with Christian morality. God could not inspire secular moves towards gay “marriage” because gay marriage contradicts natural moral law, inspired Scripture and Church teaching. Three strikes means you’d better head back to the dugout.

Have you not seen the sticky which says it is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs?

As far as I can tell it applies even unto wannabe psychotherapists from the far end of the internet.

I wasn’t questioning the sincerity of your beliefs. I was questioning the consistency of your beliefs. I am not clear how you can maintain a distinctively secular set of ethical beliefs that are in direct contradiction to Christian morality, Scripture, and the combined Judaic tradition and Church teaching of the last 5000+ years.

This may come as a shock but we belong to Christ…

Who is “we?”

And you would know that, how?

Now notice I am not filling the empty spaces with rolling emoticons to contemptuously ridicule your points. And in the spirit of “take it like a man” I won’t pretend to NOT be judging your competence under the guise of portraying myself as the one being judged by you.

 

[tonyrey]

An impression is not a valid reason - unlike a conclusion based on personal experience.

A label does not alter the superiority of a conclusion based on personal experience to a mere impression.

Non sequitur. Adoption agencies should take into account the health and life-style of **both **

heterosexual and homosexual adopters - bearing in mind that all homosexuals expose children to a greater risk of infection.Yes, that’s what I said.

In that case you admit - are unconcerned - that homosexual marriage exposes children to a greater risk of infection

Adoption agencies take the nature of the prospective adopters’ relationship into account regardless of whether they are married - which is another reason why the demand for gay marriage is absurd.

If adoption agencies ignore married status then by that reasoning all marriage is absurd.

A blatant non sequitur! The moral status of marriage is not determined by adoption agencies.

An observation without foundation!

You said “The issue is not what people regard as abnormal and unacceptable within traditional marriage” while you have argued that what people regard in a homosexual relationship is relevant. It follows that you are inconsistent.

They are essentially different sexual relationships, one of which leads to a greater risk of infection.

Your request for a supporting argument implies that the roles of the father and mother are not complementary:

1. Are the paternal and maternal instincts illusions?

1. Do the father and mother fulfil identical functions in bringing up the children?

1. Can two men understand an adolescent girl as well as a woman?

1. Can two women understand an adolescent boy as well as a man?

1. Has the evolution of the two sexes had nothing to do with the needs, interests and development of children?

1. Is there any reason why being brought up by a gay couple is preferable to being brought up by a heterosexual couple?

The reason I asked for a supporting argument / evidence is I don’t know whether these traits are biological, i.e. exactly the same in all cultures, or if they vary by culture.

If they vary by culture then changing the culture will change the traits. For example, the survey I linked yesterday indicates that homophobic discrimination varies quite widely between different EU states, which is strong evidence that the discrimination is cultural and not natural.

Also, for instance on point 3, what if the two men are the girl’s long-time parents while the woman is a childless stranger? In other words you cannot treat people as if they are machines, you cannot wave your hand and choose one trait while ignoring all other factors.

Two men cannot possibly be a girl’s parents!

Your failure to answer the questions weakens your case considerably. Do you really believe the paternal and maternal instincts are illusions, that the father and mother fulfil identical functions in bringing up the children, that two men can understand an adolescent girl as well as a woman, that two women can understand an adolescent boy as well as a man, that the evolution of the two sexes had nothing to do with the needs, interests and development of children and that bringing up children by a gay couple is preferable to being brought up by a heterosexual couple?

                                             *No response.*

I didn’t respond to that because it repeated the same assumption that there are fundamental behavioral differences which apply to all men and all women across all cultures.

For instance, are you saying that women should remain silent in the churches (1 Cor 14:34-35)? You’ll understand that claiming all men share a fundamentally different nature to all women is in essence saying that men and women are not created equal.

1. Religious considerations are irrelevant to the topic.
2. Children should not be deliberately deprived of a father and a mother by two men or two women because children are persons who also have equal rights.

Historical precedents do not determine moral values.

Which is still irrelevant to gay marriage since in your country and many others unmarried same-sex couples have been able to adopt for many years. /quote]
Historical precedents do **not **determine moral values.

 

[inocente]

I thought I made it clear. No. Marriage is not just about sex nor is it exclusive of it either.

My question was playing on yours to prove my point which was: When did you last here someone say “Jim and Jane are getting married. they’ll be virgins for ever, how nice for them”? Can you give me just one example of any normal person in the real world thinking marriage is completely irrelevant to sexual intimacy, completely irrelevant to sex?

Again you are evading. For the third time:

1. When did you last hear someone say “Jim and Jane are getting married, they’ll be able to have lots of sex, how nice for them”?
2. Can you give me just one example of any normal person in the real world thinking marriage is about sex?

If you redefine marriage to be irrelevant of sex, than you don’t have a case to deny incestuous and polygamous marriages.

Already answered many times.

Rape is a criminal offense because it is against the victims will.

Fornication and promisuity is immoral, but not a criminal offense because it is of consent.

By that logic buying drugs should not be a criminal offense because it is of consent.

*Of course they are both harmful. Rape is obviously gravely immoral, because it’s taking advantage of another person in such a personal and sacred way. It’s the physical abuse of a person.

Fornication/promisuity is immoral, because it is two coming together with consent to mutually appease their sexual desires.*

By that logic eating chocolate together is immoral because it mutually appeases desire.

Before criticizing others you may like to spend a bit of time working out why you think things are moral and immoral.

Like I said before, “Love of eros” is not Christian love and anyone who confuses such love with Christian love is gravely mistaken.

Agreed.

I know it doesn’t, the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral regardless of the circumstances. The last thing we would accuse them of is fornication, it’s all to do with the immorality of the sexual acts of homosexuality that makes such actions immoral under any circumstances, whether they are labelled as married or not it really doesn’t make any difference to the morality of such acts.

You’ve been on about fornication for several days and now you say that’s nothing to do with the topic.

*Not personal opinion at all.

Like I mentioned earlier, marriage is not just about sex but it is not exclusive of it either. So marriage certainly includes sexual intimacy.

And when it comes to “what bits fit.”

It is clear that God created humankind, male and female and that the two complement one another in marriage in a way that only the two opposite genders can do.*

So are you a young earth creationist, old earth creationist, gap creationist, day-age creationist, progressive creationist or intelligent design creationist?

Why do you think your brand of creationism alone speaks for Christ and that Christians like me who don’t subscribe to your brand of creationism are mistaken or liars?

I think you need to think about it also, superficially same sex marriage looks like the christian thing to advocate, but fundamentally it is the work of the father of all lies to decieve the children of good will and breed sexual immorality amongst us like never before.

That’s what’s known as a subjective opinion.

*You are saying you want to publicly announce they are in a long-term relationship, the question is, what kind of long-term relationship? Isn’t it one that shares a sexual intimacy, in which would follow, what kind of sexual intimacy does it share and the morality of it? *

As repeatedly said before, that is not a condition of heterosexual marriage so it is blatantly discriminatory to pretend it must be a condition of homosexual marriage.

Excellent, so if sex is irrelevant to marriage as you say, why would you deny siblings a long-term relationship with marriage as you say?

Go back over my posts, I’ve said it often enough.

*Did Christ normalise adultery when he did not stone the adulterer? *

The statistics here seem fairly representative, 30 to 60% are adulterers, so you tell me.

It is thoroughly ahistorical to imagine that Jesus approved of homosexuality (and yet that revolutionary statement never made it into the NT, even though the radical-enough discussion of Gentile circumcision did). It conflicts with the history, anthropology, and cuture of the time. Anyone who manipulates the text to arrive at the “conclusion” that Christ would see nothing wrong with the sexual acts of homosexuality is being disingenuous, or eisegetical for personal or political reasons.

Yes, it’s correct that in that culture at that time the law was “if a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Lev 20:13)

So are you saying that (a) Jesus agreed with that law, or (b) Jesus disagreed with that law?

*You can even google it - “would jesus support gay marriage”

See how many you find that claim yes compared to those that say no.*

I did, and somewhat ironically most of the hits on the first page said He would.

I take it you understand that your argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, that the truth doesn’t depend on how many google hits there are either way?

 

[inocente]

True, but given the legislation of same sex marriage, on what grounds could they refuse incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage? how do you think they could accept same sex marriage for one reason and when the exact same reasoning is applied to these other unions, discriminate against them?

I tried to explain that it can’t happen in the legislative process without explicit support from elected politicians. Do you not understand?

*And really it comes down to whether you support same sex marriage or not. You have not given me a reason why you support same sex marriage yet not incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage, given that according to you the sexual nature of such unions are irrelevant when it comes to marriage. *

I’ve given my reasons, and had to repeat them several times for you.

So in your answer, you cannot use the sexual nature of such relationships, because if you do than you will have to use it for homosexual relationships. You can’t use abuse either, because your statistics on abuse are just as relative as my statistics on promiscuity and higher chances of STD’s amongst homosexual couples and yet you deny those claims. Because it is not the case for all homosexuals, just like abuse is not the case for all polygamous and incestuous relationships.

Each day it’s as if we never had a conversation the previous day. It’s surreal, it’s like we’ve never met before. Sorry but I can’t keep on repeating the same things over and over for you.

So do you believe that God is our creator? that he created the universe and everything in it? which would mean that he created the two human genders of male and female?

As I’ve already had to repeat, my view is standard Christianity, much the same as the Church in this respect, and I’ve given you links. Sorry but I can’t keep on repeating the same things over and over for you.

*So I guess what I am wondering, is whether or not you reject this quote from the Gospel of Mathew? and if so why, what is your theory for doing so?
*

We’ve been around this several times, why do you keep repeating the same questions and ignoring my answers?

Invented Hypotheses? what has been my invented hypotheses?

I didn’t mean you, I meant that ID is an invented hypothesis.

How does 1 Cor 1:18-37 relate amongst Christians? If I say that no fault divorce is moral would God be please if I used the exact same passage to deny what Christ had said about divorce?

¿Que? I gave the verses to show that traditionally Christianity is about Christ, not about design cults.

*“God is please through the foolishness of what is preached to save those who believe.”

This is in relation to non-believers who think we are fools for believing in Christ. So yes God is pleased that we preach his truth while others think we are fools for believing.

You might want to rethink that passage you have used in an effort to end any rational discussion on the truth of the issue of same sex marriage so you can advocate a lie in good conscience. *

You don’t seem to understand a word I’ve said.

I’ve posted surveys on this thread which indicate a majority of Christians in the US are in favor of gay marriage, just as a majority of Christians in Spain were in favor. Here’s one picked at random from your neck of the woods with the same results.

When the people sat on either side of you in your church probably agree with me, where do you get off calling me a liar and questioning the sincerity of my faith?

Im quite shocked that you would call Gods creation of us an incompetent design

I didn’t.

 

[inocente]

I thought I made it clear. No. Marriage is not just about sex nor is it exclusive of it either.

My question was playing on yours to prove my point which was: When did you last here someone say “Jim and Jane are getting married. they’ll be virgins for ever, how nice for them”? Can you give me just one example of any normal person in the real world thinking marriage is completely irrelevant to sexual intimacy, completely irrelevant to sex?

Again you are evading. For the third time:

1. When did you last hear someone say “Jim and Jane are getting married, they’ll be able to have lots of sex, how nice for them”?
2. Can you give me just one example of any normal person in the real world thinking marriage is about sex?

If you redefine marriage to be irrelevant of sex, than you don’t have a case to deny incestuous and polygamous marriages.

Already answered many times.

Rape is a criminal offense because it is against the victims will.

Fornication and promisuity is immoral, but not a criminal offense because it is of consent.

By that logic buying drugs should not be a criminal offense because it is of consent.

*Of course they are both harmful. Rape is obviously gravely immoral, because it’s taking advantage of another person in such a personal and sacred way. It’s the physical abuse of a person.

Fornication/promisuity is immoral, because it is two coming together with consent to mutually appease their sexual desires.*

By that logic eating chocolate together is immoral because it mutually appeases desire.

Before criticizing others you may like to spend a bit of time working out why you think things are moral and immoral.

Like I said before, “Love of eros” is not Christian love and anyone who confuses such love with Christian love is gravely mistaken.

Agreed.

I know it doesn’t, the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral regardless of the circumstances. The last thing we would accuse them of is fornication, it’s all to do with the immorality of the sexual acts of homosexuality that makes such actions immoral under any circumstances, whether they are labelled as married or not it really doesn’t make any difference to the morality of such acts.

You’ve been on about fornication for several days and now you say that’s nothing to do with the topic.

*Not personal opinion at all.

Like I mentioned earlier, marriage is not just about sex but it is not exclusive of it either. So marriage certainly includes sexual intimacy.

And when it comes to “what bits fit.”

It is clear that God created humankind, male and female and that the two complement one another in marriage in a way that only the two opposite genders can do.*

So are you a young earth creationist, old earth creationist, gap creationist, day-age creationist, progressive creationist or intelligent design creationist?

Why do you think your brand of creationism alone speaks for Christ and that Christians like me who don’t subscribe to your brand of creationism are mistaken or liars?

I think you need to think about it also, superficially same sex marriage looks like the christian thing to advocate, but fundamentally it is the work of the father of all lies to decieve the children of good will and breed sexual immorality amongst us like never before.

That’s what’s known as a subjective opinion.

*You are saying you want to publicly announce they are in a long-term relationship, the question is, what kind of long-term relationship? Isn’t it one that shares a sexual intimacy, in which would follow, what kind of sexual intimacy does it share and the morality of it? *

As repeatedly said before, that is not a condition of heterosexual marriage so it is blatantly discriminatory to pretend it must be a condition of homosexual marriage.

Excellent, so if sex is irrelevant to marriage as you say, why would you deny siblings a long-term relationship with marriage as you say?

Go back over my posts, I’ve said it often enough.

*Did Christ normalise adultery when he did not stone the adulterer? *

The statistics here seem fairly representative, 30 to 60% are adulterers, so you tell me.

It is thoroughly ahistorical to imagine that Jesus approved of homosexuality (and yet that revolutionary statement never made it into the NT, even though the radical-enough discussion of Gentile circumcision did). It conflicts with the history, anthropology, and cuture of the time. Anyone who manipulates the text to arrive at the “conclusion” that Christ would see nothing wrong with the sexual acts of homosexuality is being disingenuous, or eisegetical for personal or political reasons.

Yes, it’s correct that in that culture at that time the law was “if a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Lev 20:13)

So are you saying that (a) Jesus agreed with that law, or (b) Jesus disagreed with that law?

*You can even google it - “would jesus support gay marriage”

See how many you find that claim yes compared to those that say no.*

I did, and somewhat ironically most of the hits on the first page said He would.

I take it you understand that your argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, that the truth doesn’t depend on how many google hits there are either way?

 

[inocente]

So what circumstances with consent is fornication or promiscuity morally right?

You’ve got confused, you started that point with “You think the [homosexual] morality is similar to the sexual act of heterosexuals?”

You also keep on about fornication, but as repeatedly said many, many, many, many times it’s just a word.

I believe promiscuity is immoral, but given that you think marriage is about sex and you want to deny marriage to homosexuals, I’m not sure about your view. So to clarify, do you want to refuse acknowledging a long-term committed relationship between a homosexual couple?

*True, yet that seems to be a factor in why we disallow incestuous marriage. Wouldn’t they not ask because it is assumed that sexual intimacy is involved in marriage? *

If you can’t remember my answers, please refer to my posts instead of asking the same question over and over and ever.

*Fornication and promiscuity are advocated through the same reasoning as the sexual acts of homosexuality are, which is “If both consent to it and it’s not hurting anyone else than whats wrong with it?”

Thus the father of all lies convinces people that sexual immorality is no longer immoral and thus the truth is rejected and our lust is embraced.

Thank you for reading*

You may not realize that “father of all lies” is a reference to John 8:44, and you are therefore implicitly calling supporters of gay marriage the children of Satan.

The remark seems to have backfired badly in Argentina, which shortly after it was said became the first South American country to legalize gay marriage.

So by all means keep saying it, it seems a sure-fire way of getting your brothers and sisters in Christ to support gay marriage.

 

[inocente]

What I said was that God could have, and very likely did, inspire secular minded individuals to have moral beliefs in line with Christian principles, an example being the Golden rule formulation from secular cultures that is in line with Christian morality. God could not inspire secular moves towards gay “marriage” because gay marriage contradicts natural moral law, inspired Scripture and Church teaching. Three strikes means you’d better head back to the dugout.

So you’re claiming God inspired the writer of Exodus with “you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” around 500 BC while at roughly the same time inspiring Confucius with the rather different “never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself” and then five hundred years later He standardized on the latter with “do to others as you would have them do to you”?

Now are you at the same time claiming that God never changes?



Come on, you must be able to see the funny side of that.

I wasn’t questioning the sincerity of your beliefs. I was questioning the consistency of your beliefs. I am not clear how you can maintain a distinctively secular set of ethical beliefs that are in direct contradiction to Christian morality, Scripture, and the combined Judaic tradition and Church teaching of the last 5000+ years.

OK, apologies for doubting you.

Should we believe in geocentrism because Christians once did? Should be believe mental illness is caused by demons because people once did? Should we believe in keeping slaves because the bible, in several places, tells us who we can make slaves?

Jesus didn’t think much of those who put the letter of the Law before the spirit. I think we can move forward, we don’t need to set scripture in stone, we can act in the Spirit of Christ.

Who is "we?"

Those of us who don’t oppose gay marriage.

And you would know that, how?

Born again, dude.

Now notice I am not filling the empty spaces with rolling emoticons to contemptuously ridicule your points. And in the spirit of “take it like a man” I won’t pretend to NOT be judging your competence under the guise of portraying myself as the one being judged by you.

Well done. It was fun putting that post together though.

There are a lot of Christians who think Christ has authorized them personally to tell other Christians what they must and must not believe, and if you’re not one of them then apologies for misinterpreting your words.

 

[PRmerger]

There are a lot of Christians who think Christ has authorized them personally to tell other Christians what they must and must not believe,…

Yes. Catholics are some of those who think Christ has authorized them personally to tell others (not only Christians) what they must and must not believe.

In fact, we are mandated to do this.

To object to telling others what they must and must not believe is akin to objecting to a professor telling her students that the slope of a curve can be defined as



Or objecting to a physician telling her patient, “You need to stop believing that you’re invincible. If you don’t start checking your blood sugar and taking your insulin, you are going to die.”

Objecting to being told what to believe and what not to believe is like a kindergartner protesting, “My teacher told me that I can’t believe that this is a circle!”

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...4C6rnnJ1KnyGPyu_8Q3Tz-DT7wXV5WHHz7JMyNLvhI5Lw

It is similar to a Christian objecting to being told to believe that Jesus died and rose for your sins.

So, yes, anyone who has any interest in Truth ought to be interested in proclaiming to others what this Truth is.

 

[inocente]

A label does not alter the superiority of a conclusion based on personal experience to a mere impression.

I said my impression is there are a lot of studies which reach the opposite conclusion. If you make this google scholar search you’ll see lots of papers, and if you look a the papers you’ll see lots of references to other studiees.

In that case you admit - are unconcerned - that homosexual marriage exposes children to a greater risk of infection

Doesn’t follow - I said it’s the responsibility of adoption agencies to ensure children are not put at risk.

*A blatant non sequitur! The moral status of marriage is not determined by adoption agencies.
*

So when you said “adoption agencies take the nature of the prospective adopters’ relationship into account regardless of whether they are married - which is another reason why the demand for gay marriage is absurd” what you actually meant was “the moral status of marriage is not determined by adoption agencies so it’s not another reason in any shape or form”.

They are essentially different sexual relationships, one of which leads to a greater risk of infection.

So you think a heterosexual marrying a drug addict prostitute has less risk of infection than Elton John from his long-term partner?

Two men cannot possibly be a girl’s parents!

Your failure to answer the questions weakens your case considerably. Do you really believe the paternal and maternal instincts are illusions, that the father and mother fulfil identical functions in bringing up the children, that two men can understand an adolescent girl as well as a woman, that two women can understand an adolescent boy as well as a man, that the evolution of the two sexes had nothing to do with the needs, interests and development of children and that bringing up children by a gay couple is preferable to being brought up by a heterosexual couple?

Evasion just forces me to repeat the point (and it’s a serious point, not a debating game), so again:

The reason I asked for a supporting argument / evidence is I don’t know whether these traits are biological, i.e. exactly the same in all cultures, or if they vary by culture.

If they vary by culture then changing the culture will change the traits. For example, the survey I linked indicates that homophobic discrimination varies quite widely between different EU states, which is strong evidence that the discrimination is cultural and not natural.

Also, for instance what if the two men are the girl’s long-time parents while the woman is a childless stranger? In other words you cannot treat people as if they are machines, you cannot wave your hand and choose one trait while ignoring all other factors.

1. Religious considerations are irrelevant to the topic.

So just yesterday in #848 you were irrelevant to the topic when you said:

"Unfortunately you have rejected Design - which rules out an appeal to the teaching of Jesus (who pointed to the beauty of the lilies as evidence of divine purpose and love). Moreover the topic is secular arguments against gay marriage which rules out an appeal to the religious basis of morality - unless you believe in one law for you and another for your opponents… "

2. Children should not be deliberately deprived of a father and a mother by two men or two women because children are persons who also have equal rights.

We can’t discuss this until you support your claim (see the points above about biological vs. cultural differences). It also remains completely off-topic since gay marriage doesn’t change the large number of children already living in gay families.

Which is still irrelevant to gay marriage since in your country and many others unmarried same-sex couples have been able to adopt for many years.
tonyrey;10765277:

Historical precedents do **not **

determine moral values.

Irrelevant, it is still off-topic.