Homosexuality Debates

Using the black and white marriages as an example of how society accepts 'large' things over time is not the same as the whole of society accepting homosexuals.

Why? In nature, opposites attract for reproduction; let's not forget sex is really only for procreation and not enjoyment (even though that has changed drastically for Humans). It should be male and female, that's how I would like it to be.

I'm not at all bothered by gay people. Not a bit. Although as mentioned before, 'acts' in public places is something that would bother me. That goes for both though (straight and gay). When two gay people are, let's say, kissing and a child spots it, it gives the child the wrong idea. No, they don't JUST go "ewww", because they'd say "ewww" if it was a man and a woman doing the same thing. However now that they've seen that, there's a chance they could grow up thinking it's completely fine. It could go too far. What if the child ends up gay?

The same applies in the event of a man and a woman kissing. The child might grow up thinking he has to be straight. The only time someone should be exposed to something like I've mentioned above is when they're in their teenage years and they can choose for themselves instead of ideas from past experiences cropping up.

You might be asking what children have to do with this. They have everything to do with it; adults in the present who are homophobic will stay that way and gay people will stay gay, it's the next generation who are affected. When a young child hears all these Gay Pride Parade (or whatever) events and such they're being indoctrinated.

My points may sound vague and completely theoretical but what I'm trying to get across is that both heterosexuals and homosexuals should keep everything they have of being straight or gay to themselves.

« Last edited by Repose on Sep 24th 2009 »

On 24-Sep-2009 Repose said:

Using the black and white marriages as an example of how society accepts 'large' things over time is not the same as the whole of society accepting homosexuals.

Why? In nature, opposites attract for reproduction; let's not forget sex is really only for procreation and not enjoyment (even though that has changed drastically for Humans). It should be male and female, that's how I would like it to be.

I'm not at all bothered by gay people. Not a bit. Although as mentioned before, 'acts' in public places is something that would bother me. That goes for both though (straight and gay). When two gay people are, let's say, kissing and a child spots it, it gives the child the wrong idea. No, they don't JUST go "ewww", because they'd say "ewww" if it was a man and a woman doing the same thing. However now that they've seen that, there's a chance they could grow up thinking it's completely fine. It could go too far. What if the child ends up gay?

The same applies in the event of a man and a woman kissing. The child might grow up thinking he has to be straight. The only time someone should be exposed to something like I've mentioned above is when they're in their teenage years and they can choose for themselves instead of ideas from past experiences cropping up.

You might be asking what children have to do with this. They have everything to do with it; adults in the present who are homophobic will stay that way and gay people will stay gay, it's the next generation who are affected. When a young child hears all these Gay Pride Parade (or whatever) events and such they're being indoctrinated.

My points may sound vague and completely theoretical but what I'm trying to get across is that both heterosexuals and homosexuals should keep everything they have of being straight or gay to themselves.

Agreed that they should keep things too themselves, though I differ on the reasons why, more common decence (spl?) than anything else, a kiss here and there is fine but if a couple are practically having sex in the middle of the street thats a bit far.

For a start been gay is completely fine and I don't think if a kid sees a gay couple its somehow going to make them gay, I saw plenty of homosexuals when I was growing up, didn't turn me gay. Equally don't you think that after the persection of gays over the years and many where forced to conceal themselves we still got new gay people, apprently by your own theory there should be no gays as no-one was allowed to be seen gay, yet there are. As for been indoctrinated thats a bit steep, all it does is serve to raise childrens awareness that they are different ways of living out there, which should be no problem if they've been raised in a healthy way anyway. Theres a big difference between showing that something is ok and forcing someone to do it.

The same applies in the event of a man and a woman kissing. The child might grow up thinking he has to be straight

Its nice to think this is the reason for gay people not coming out as opposed to the fact that they are constantly told its wrong/bad/un-natural/they deserve to be killed/actually killed/beaten up etc.

they can choose for themselves instead of ideas from past experiences cropping up. and how do we make decisions? Based on past experiences, without a healthy knowledge from all sides how are they to make a true decesion when they've been denied the informatin to make that choice?

Both straight and gay people should be allowed to openly display their affection within reason.

On 24-Sep-2009 super craig said:

Agreed that they should keep things too themselves, though I differ on the reasons why, more common decence (spl?) than anything else, a kiss here and there is fine but if a couple are practically having sex in the middle of the street thats a bit far.

For a start been gay is completely fine and I don't think if a kid sees a gay couple its somehow going to make them gay, I saw plenty of homosexuals when I was growing up, didn't turn me gay. Equally don't you think that after the persection of gays over the years and many where forced to conceal themselves we still got new gay people, apprently by your own theory there should be no gays as no-one was allowed to be seen gay, yet there are. As for been indoctrinated thats a bit steep, all it does is serve to raise childrens awareness that they are different ways of living out there, which should be no problem if they've been raised in a healthy way anyway. Theres a big difference between showing that something is ok and forcing someone to do it.

The same applies in the event of a man and a woman kissing. The child might grow up thinking he has to be straight

Its nice to think this is the reason for gay people not coming out as opposed to the fact that they are constantly told its wrong/bad/un-natural/they deserve to be killed/actually killed/beaten up etc.

they can choose for themselves instead of ideas from past experiences cropping up. and how do we make decisions? Based on past experiences, without a healthy knowledge from all sides how are they to make a true decesion when they've been denied the informatin to make that choice?

Both straight and gay people should be allowed to openly display their affection within reason.

For a start been gay is completely fine and I don't think if a kid sees a gay couple its somehow going to make them gay...Theres a big difference between showing that something is ok and forcing someone to do it.

Those are opinionated statements. Which pretty much, the entire debate consists of. I bring it up, because I disagree to a degree.

I am completely against it; it's a sin, according to the book of Romans. I agree with the fact that just seeing it isn't enough. Probably that entire middle of the paragraph is biologically true. Yet, we all know that that lasts only to a point; if the parents are both gay, and they adopt a baby, the baby probably has a much higher chance of being gay.


Its nice to think this is the reason for gay people not coming out as opposed to the fact that they are constantly told its wrong/bad/un-natural/they deserve to be killed/actually killed/beaten up etc.

I completely agree.


To me, there's an easy, simple way of viewing this entire thing.

a) It's a sin according to Romans, and
b) a verse in the Bible states "Hate the sin, not the sinner."

By both of those points, I don't see a problem with the person that is gay. That's where I back up your point on people oppressing them. Just because the person is gay doesn't mean that he's a bad person at all. He could be a great leader some day. What they SHOULD hate, is the sin of homosexuality. That's where our culture is completely messed up.

Even with many people not being Christian, they'd still easily agree with both of those point in the Bible, and say that the problem is homosexuality, and the person has to cross that obstacle by his own means.

It's like zits. (xD) Zits make a person look bad, maybe, but they don't change the personality of the person or the way he acts, until they take total control over his life.

Shishishi...! It's not like gays are zombies, where they're not like you. It's like the Europeans, who thought Africans were lesser because they had black skin; it's just stupid when someone berates another person for being slightly different.


I believe homosexuality is not a choice, but rather influenced by your childhood. For example, take Smithers from "The Simpsons"--he was told his father was killed by women of the Amazon, and as a result, he grew a fear of females from a young age and was influenced by fear, so he became gay naturally.
Liking gay sex doesn't necessarily make you gay, in my opinion. Records actually show that one-third of straight men like the feel of anal sex. Hetero guys.


Of course. Some people believe that marriage is sacred and gays taint it by marrying. I believe those people are f*cking morons.


Kufufu...! I say screw religious views. All they ever do is get in the way of common sense--and by that, I mean how it sparks prejudice. You see a hardcore Christian, they'll probably say gay marriage is unholy and they'll go to Hell for eternity. ...I'll repeat myself, all organized religion does is make you stupid.

On 29-Sep-2009 Ryuujin said:

My Views on Gay Rights

Shishishi...! It's not like gays are zombies, where they're not like you. It's like the Europeans, who thought Africans were lesser because they had black skin; it's just stupid when someone berates another person for being slightly different.

Whether or Not Homosexuality is a Choice

I believe homosexuality is not a choice, but rather influenced by your childhood. For example, take Smithers from "The Simpsons"--he was told his father was killed by women of the Amazon, and as a result, he grew a fear of females from a young age and was influenced by fear, so he became gay naturally.
Liking gay sex doesn't necessarily make you gay, in my opinion. Records actually show that one-third of straight men like the feel of anal sex. Hetero guys.

Gay Marriage - Yes or No?

Of course. Some people believe that marriage is sacred and gays taint it by marrying. I believe those people are f*cking morons.

Religious Views on Gay Marriage

Kufufu...! I say screw religious views. All they ever do is get in the way of common sense--and by that, I mean how it sparks prejudice. You see a hardcore Christian, they'll probably say gay marriage is unholy and they'll go to Hell for eternity. ...I'll repeat myself, all organized religion does is make you stupid.

Glad to know I'm a f*cking moron. Thanks.

Marriage is sacred. It's one of the Sacrements. It is the Sacrement through which 1 man and 1 woman become a single entity. I don't care what gays do among themselves, but I won't support it being called a marriage because I don't think that is is one.

Gay marriage isn't necessarily unholy, but it isn't viewed as holy matrimony in the Church. But what do I know, I am stupid because I belong to an organized religion. I have no common sense.

Also, could you cite where you got that statistic on anal sex?

On 29-Sep-2009 rate_me said:

Glad to know I'm a f*cking moron. Thanks.

Marriage is sacred. It's one of the Sacrements. It is the Sacrement through which 1 man and 1 woman become a single entity. I don't care what gays do among themselves, but I won't support it being called a marriage because I don't think that is is one.

Gay marriage isn't necessarily unholy, but it isn't viewed as holy matrimony in the Church. But what do I know, I am stupid because I belong to an organized religion. I have no common sense.

Also, could you cite where you got that statistic on anal sex?

"Become a single entity"? It's becoming a legal couple, not becoming a Saint. - -'

It's not unholy, but it's not holy. Do you know how ignorant that sounds?

I don't remember what page it was that said 1 in 3 men like anal sex, but here's a page that claims they do. (Lurkers under 13 years old should not click on this link.)

On 29-Sep-2009 Ryuujin said:

"Become a single entity"? It's becoming a legal couple, not becoming a Saint. - -'

It's not unholy, but it's not holy. Do you know how ignorant that sounds?

I don't remember what page it was that said 1 in 3 men like anal sex, but here's a page that claims they do. (Lurkers under 13 years old should not click on this link.)

There is more than just a legal, state-recognized contract. There is spirituality involved. Their bodies become one.

Holy Matrimony is the name of the Sacrement. And just because something isn't holy doesn't mean it's unholy. This dollar in my pocket isn't holy, but it isn't unholy. However, the act of homosexuality is immoral. The reason why an individual gay marriage might not be unholy, though, is the possibility that it is a legal marriage but their homosexuality is not acted upon.

Also, who sounds more ignorant? Me, for trying to explain the views of marriage of the Roman Catholic Church to you and having a little trouble thinking of how to phrase it, or you, for saying that "organized religion makes you stupid"?

So you're saying that a heterosexual couple under the age of 18 is less immoral than a gay couple over the age of 20.

The thing is, though, most people involved in organized religion fall prey to their brainwashing. |:

On 29-Sep-2009 Ryuujin said:

So you're saying that a heterosexual couple under the age of 18 is less immoral than a gay couple over the age of 20.

The thing is, though, most people involved in organized religion fall prey to their brainwashing. |:

Why would I be saying that? The act of homosexuality is a sin, and a homosexual marriage is unholy unless no homosexual acts are committed, in which case I would think that it would be morally neutral. Age is irrelevant.

Brainwashing? Are you serious? Religion isn't a cult! If I wanted to leave Christianity and join Islam I could. If I wanted to blaspheme I could. If I wanted to stop going to Church, I have the free will to do so. If I was brainwashed, wouldn't I believe what I do without question? I don't agree with the Church on every issue. For example, I support preists being allowed to get married. If I was brainwashed, I would not even consider that.

Homosexuality is in no way "sinful". Rape is sinful. Murder is sinful.

On 30-Sep-2009 Ryuujin said:

Homosexuality is in no way "sinful". Rape is sinful. Murder is sinful.

On what grounds do you say this? How do you know what is a sin and what isn't? Based on how you think followers of any religion are idiots and how you call me ignorant for clarifying something for you, then saying that religions brainwash people, you know nothing about Christianity, or any other religion, for that matter. Homosexuality is a sin because it is a misuse of the sexual organs God gave us, and because sex is purely for mutual pleasure AND procreation. It is impossible to procreate in homosexual sex. No matter how much mutual pleasure there is, there can't possibly be procreation.

On 30-Sep-2009 rate_me said:

On what grounds do you say this? How do you know what is a sin and what isn't? Based on how you think followers of any religion are idiots and how you call me ignorant for clarifying something for you, then saying that religions brainwash people, you know nothing about Christianity, or any other religion, for that matter. Homosexuality is a sin because it is a misuse of the sexual organs God gave us, and because sex is purely for mutual pleasure AND procreation. It is impossible to procreate in homosexual sex. No matter how much mutual pleasure there is, there can't possibly be procreation.

I imagine because homosexuality causes no harm to anyone as it's between two consenting adults... Whereas the other things he listed clearly do cause harm. There are non-religious definitions of right and wrong, too. And as we do not live in a theocracy, one could argue that laws should be based purely on this form of morality and not merely on the words of a particular religious text.

Also, do you believe that infertile couples should be forbidden to marry? Couples that have no interest in having children? Older couples, who can't have children because the female is post-menopausal?

Indeed, as you seem determined that marriage is purely a religious thing, do you believe that atheists and those of other religions should also be forbidden to marry?

On 29-Sep-2009 rate_me said:

There is more than just a legal, state-recognized contract. There is spirituality involved. Their bodies become one.

Holy Matrimony is the name of the Sacrement. And just because something isn't holy doesn't mean it's unholy. This dollar in my pocket isn't holy, but it isn't unholy. However, the act of homosexuality is immoral. The reason why an individual gay marriage might not be unholy, though, is the possibility that it is a legal marriage but their homosexuality is not acted upon.

Also, who sounds more ignorant? Me, for trying to explain the views of marriage of the Roman Catholic Church to you and having a little trouble thinking of how to phrase it, or you, for saying that "organized religion makes you stupid"?

I love how you think Judaism/Christianity created marriage.

Whilst the thought of gay sex does give me the shivers, I believe that, at the end of the day, homosexuals have as much right to be together as hetrosexuals. I'm not religious in any way, for the record.

Gay men tend to get more trouble out of being gay than lesbian women, which isn't exactly fair. They can't help being gay - it's just what feels right to them. Just like us hetrosexuals feel right about having sex with women, gays feel right having sex with men.

On 30-Sep-2009 Catharsis said:

I imagine because homosexuality causes no harm to anyone as it's between two consenting adults... Whereas the other things he listed clearly do cause harm. There are non-religious definitions of right and wrong, too. And as we do not live in a theocracy, one could argue that laws should be based purely on this form of morality and not merely on the words of a particular religious text.

Also, do you believe that infertile couples should be forbidden to marry? Couples that have no interest in having children? Older couples, who can't have children because the female is post-menopausal?

Indeed, as you seem determined that marriage is purely a religious thing, do you believe that atheists and those of other religions should also be forbidden to marry?

What about incest and prostitution? They don't really harm anyone if it's between two consenting adults. Yet they are also prohibited. Every moral decision affects others in some way.

Everyone seems to be missing my point. I define mariage as between a man and a woman, and I wouldn't support any law that tried to extend it to homosexuals, since I consider that act to be a sin. I don't believe it's a real marriage, and I will oppose calling it that. I don't want any religion imposing laws on any country (except the Vatican, of course), but am I not free to base political opinions on a religion's philosophy?

From http://www.catholic.org/pol...5&page=2:
In order to be genuinely married, a couple?any couple?must: (a.) commit themselves to the type of personal union that would be fulfilled by bearing and raising children together; and (b.) perform the conduct by which they become biologically one, conduct that, with the addition of conditions extrinsic to that conduct, might result in procreation (and even if those extrinsic conditions do not obtain, as in infertile couples, their act has still biologically united them). (a.) and (b.) together constitute the beginning of a marriage and are necessary for consummated marriage. Any couple who is unable to fulfill those conditions is unable to marry. Not only same-sex couples, but opposite-sex couples who are too young to form a commitment and opposite-sex couples who (because of impotence) cannot consummate their union are unable to marry.
^no, I don't think that infertile couples should be forbidden from marriage. If a couple doesn't want to have kids, that's fine, but I don't condone birth control or infanticide (abortion). If they choose to have intercourse, they must be open to the possibility of children.

I really don't care if atheists get married, but whether the believe it or not, they are still inextricably bound to each other in the eyes of God. People from other religious orders should feel free to get married in their own Church/tradition. Why would I oppose that?

On 30-Sep-2009 XZYOE said:

I love how you think Judaism/Christianity created marriage.

Why would I think that? That would be stupid. Really stupid. What made you think I believed that marriage was invented 4000 years ago?

On 30-Sep-2009 rate_me said:

What about incest and prostitution? They don't really harm anyone if it's between two consenting adults. Yet they are also prohibited. Every moral decision affects others in some way.

Everyone seems to be missing my point. I define mariage as between a man and a woman, and I wouldn't support any law that tried to extend it to homosexuals, since I consider that act to be a sin. I don't believe it's a real marriage, and I will oppose calling it that. I don't want any religion imposing laws on any country (except the Vatican, of course), but am I not free to base political opinions on a religion's philosophy?

From http://www.catholic.org/pol...5&page=2:
In order to be genuinely married, a couple?any couple?must: (a.) commit themselves to the type of personal union that would be fulfilled by bearing and raising children together; and (b.) perform the conduct by which they become biologically one, conduct that, with the addition of conditions extrinsic to that conduct, might result in procreation (and even if those extrinsic conditions do not obtain, as in infertile couples, their act has still biologically united them). (a.) and (b.) together constitute the beginning of a marriage and are necessary for consummated marriage. Any couple who is unable to fulfill those conditions is unable to marry. Not only same-sex couples, but opposite-sex couples who are too young to form a commitment and opposite-sex couples who (because of impotence) cannot consummate their union are unable to marry.
^no, I don't think that infertile couples should be forbidden from marriage. If a couple doesn't want to have kids, that's fine, but I don't condone birth control or infanticide (abortion). If they choose to have intercourse, they must be open to the possibility of children.

I really don't care if atheists get married, but whether the believe it or not, they are still inextricably bound to each other in the eyes of God. People from other religious orders should feel free to get married in their own Church/tradition. Why would I oppose that?

The main justification for the restrictions on incestuous sex is the fact that children resulting from such relationships are more likely to have genetic disorders. The justification for the banning of prostitution is the fear that women may be forced into it against their wills. Whether those justifications are valid is a matter for another debate. But it's irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage because it's not homosexuality that's being condemned - in most Western countries it's perfectly legal to engage in homosexual intercourse, while it is not legal to have sex with a prostitute or with close relatives (although heck, even those are legal in some countries or states). This is a debate about marriage, not sex.

You are free to base your opinions on anything you wish. I cannot, however, understand why you would choose to not only selectively pursue a legal enforcement of this particular facet of your religion more than any other. I don't see you campaigning for birth control to be banned, for instance... At some level, you have to admit that whether or not people obey your religion's rules and regulations is up to them. Should laws, therefore, not be based on what would benefit society? Because it doesn't matter how many religious laws you introduce - people will not suddenly convert to Catholicism. Even if you made attending church compulsory, would people REALLY believe? No. And if people don't believe, what's the point in stopping them from engaging in a few sins, given that in God's eyes all sins are equal?

So, from your source I can conclude that you believe the impotent should be forbidden to marry. And that if people don't have intercourse despite being married, they should have their marriage annulled. Why aren't you arguing that these laws be introduced? Because if you don't believe that they should be, then you can't use Catholic tradition as a reason to ban gay marriage, because you're not obeying ALL parts of Catholic tradition.

See, this I don't understand. Your main argument is that "marriage is a religious institution". However, you then declare that you have no objection to people who aren't religious at all, or people who believe entirely different things, getting married. Does this not make a mockery of the idea of marriage as a purely Christian idea just as much, if not more than gay marriages?

So you're saying that a man and a woman who don't love each other have more of a right to get married than two homos who love each other.
See, this is why I don't like religious beliefs.

I don't want any religion imposing laws on any country (except the Vatican, of course), but am I not free to base political opinions on a religion's philosophy?

In which case you will need to provide some political arguements as to why we should ban homosexuality, since unless you can come up with a good reason for it without refering to religion then any such law would be religion imposing upon socitey without any benefit to socitey. Of course your free to chose how you want but what will the benefit be to everyday people of getting rid of homosexuality? None.

In order to be genuinely married, a couple?any couple?must: (a.) commit themselves to the type of personal union that would be fulfilled by bearing and raising children together; and (b.) perform the conduct by which they become biologically one, conduct that, with the addition of conditions extrinsic to that conduct, might result in procreation (and even if those extrinsic conditions do not obtain, as in infertile couples, their act has still biologically united them). (a.) and (b.) together constitute the beginning of a marriage and are necessary for consummated marriage. Any couple who is unable to fulfill those conditions is unable to marry. Not only same-sex couples, but opposite-sex couples who are too young to form a commitment and opposite-sex couples who (because of impotence) cannot consummate their union are unable to marry.
^no, I don't think that infertile couples should be forbidden from marriage. If a couple doesn't want to have kids, that's fine, but I don't condone birth control or infanticide (abortion). If they choose to have intercourse, they must be open to the possibility of children.

As Cath has already pointed out how can you agree with one thing from that arguement and disagree with others? That article clearly says that infertile couples can't marry yet you say that you think that could get married, why go against that sentiment but agree with the fact that homosexuals can't marry? Talk about picking and chosing. In the words of comedian Andy Parsons 'how come we've got to the stage where those who never have sex, are telling us that do, how to do it?'

You've gone on about marriage is religious etc and pretty much go on to say that even marriages that aren't religious are religious (they are still inextricably bound to each other in the eyes of God) Now from where I am sitting that just seems like the church trying to extend its influence over people who don't want it to, if I was gay and I wanted to be married in a church I could accept that the church could say no, but if I chose to get married in something outside of the church with no religious attachments at all, what right has religion got to impose its will on me outside of its own religious circle.

On 30-Sep-2009 Catharsis said:

The main justification for the restrictions on incestuous sex is the fact that children resulting from such relationships are more likely to have genetic disorders. The justification for the banning of prostitution is the fear that women may be forced into it against their wills. Whether those justifications are valid is a matter for another debate. But it's irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage because it's not homosexuality that's being condemned - in most Western countries it's perfectly legal to engage in homosexual intercourse, while it is not legal to have sex with a prostitute or with close relatives (although heck, even those are legal in some countries or states). This is a debate about marriage, not sex.

You are free to base your opinions on anything you wish. I cannot, however, understand why you would choose to not only selectively pursue a legal enforcement of this particular facet of your religion more than any other. I don't see you campaigning for birth control to be banned, for instance... At some level, you have to admit that whether or not people obey your religion's rules and regulations is up to them. Should laws, therefore, not be based on what would benefit society? Because it doesn't matter how many religious laws you introduce - people will not suddenly convert to Catholicism. Even if you made attending church compulsory, would people REALLY believe? No. And if people don't believe, what's the point in stopping them from engaging in a few sins, given that in God's eyes all sins are equal?

So, from your source I can conclude that you believe the impotent should be forbidden to marry. And that if people don't have intercourse despite being married, they should have their marriage annulled. Why aren't you arguing that these laws be introduced? Because if you don't believe that they should be, then you can't use Catholic tradition as a reason to ban gay marriage, because you're not obeying ALL parts of Catholic tradition.

See, this I don't understand. Your main argument is that "marriage is a religious institution". However, you then declare that you have no objection to people who aren't religious at all, or people who believe entirely different things, getting married. Does this not make a mockery of the idea of marriage as a purely Christian idea just as much, if not more than gay marriages?

I am not trying to convert people. All I am saying is that if a bill allowing homosexual marriage was on the ballot, I would vote against it. The only reason why I posted in this thread for the first time in about a month was to let Ryuujin know that he was not looking at any side of the debate aside from his own, not because I'm campaigning against gay marriage. Normally I would have ignored his post and this topic, but I felt insulted when he said "Some people believe that marriage is sacred and gays taint it by marrying. I believe those people are f*cking morons" and "all organized religion does is make you stupid", and I felt the need to correct him. I don't really think that it is fair when Ryuujin can say that religions brainwash their members and that organized religion makes you stupid and nobody but me challenges him on it, but when I say what I define marriage as everyone takes it to mean more than it does.

I'm not selectively choosing which topics regarding my faith to debate on. I was just responding to Ryuujin's post. If there was a birth control topic, I might post in it, but there isn't one. I only seldom post in this thread because my stance on it is, in my opinion, fairly simple. That's why I prefer the existence of God thread more: my opinion on it is much more developed.

Speaking of opinions, I don't really have one on whether or not men who are impotent should get married. Same with people who don't intend to have intercourse getting married. Sorry :/

Ultimately, yes, it is up to the individual to decide how to live their life, and I can't do anything about it. If gay marriage is legalized, all I can do is keep my opposition to it to myself.

I don't care if atheists get married because there is no sin in them marrying. If they choose to focus on the ceremony and not on the spiritual part, that's their choice. If Christians decide to focus more on the spirituality, that's their choice. Marriage is not purely Christian. I encourage people of other religions getting married however they want because they're celebrating the same unity lauded in a Catholic wedding, just in a different way.

Also, where did you get that all sins are equal? If that were true, a life of stealing pennies from fountains would be equivolent to the kind of life Jeffrey Dahmer left. Not all sins are equal.