Well then we just need to point some out and she'll  be on her way.

This is just off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure the Quakers have no issue with it for one.

If your referring to Christian churches there are several that have no problem with gay marriage at all.

Nothing but modern conformists looking to make a god 'cool'.

You say 'modern conformists' we say 'people that don't cling to massively-outdated beliefs'. Funny isn't it, how when science advances we call it progress, when religion advances it's called heresy or a disgrace against religious principles.

I think Danny Devito said it best in "Always Sunny in Philadelphia":  "If they want to be miserable like everyone else, then go ahead and let them."  whatever they want to do with their bodies as long as they're not hurting non-consenting other people is fine by me.

You say 'modern conformists' we say 'people that don't cling to massively-outdated beliefs'. Funny isn't it, how when science advances we call it progress, when religion advances it's called heresy or a disgrace against religious principles.

It's fine if they want to make a religion based around a god who doesn't mind homosexuality, but while they continue to worship a god who's book tells you to stone homosexuals, there's a problem.

I think I've replied to this before, or maybe it's just another duplicate.

Yes, they should.
"They have the right to be miserable just like the rest of us." - Robin Williams.

A cynical approval, but just trying to add some levity.

I believe they should. Gays getting married doesn't threaten a **** thing, and most arguments against boil down to intolerance and misunderstandings. And people fear what they don't understand. I once did myself, until I found out that it doesn't hurt anything.

part of the reasoning for them being "bad" by some interpretation is that they go against the typical male/female monogamous relationship.  You might say there is no grounds by which it should be monogamous male/female over anything else.... well.... males and females together are the only coupling that produces new humans naturally.  As for monogamy,  it would be especially necessary back in ancient times.  In the current day, most stds are easily treatable with a shot or pills.  Back then they could literally rot you to death because there were no treatments.  I'm not going to say that homosexual = intercourse with everyone they meet... but one of the locals here stated something to the effect of ...."darn Christians and always trying to ruin a good orgy" once upon a time.  I am a little too skeptical of that kind of lifestyle for me to partake in it... it just increases the your chances of getting diseases... and I don't have tons of money to spend on treatments so I think I'll opt out of it.  I also have my misgivings about people who partake in that forbidden fruit... I wouldn't if those afflictions were only contractible through intercourse... but they're not.  We still have people today getting stds through blood transfussions.  You can contract some of that stuff from touching objects that the afflicted just happen to of touched.  Sometimes they don't manifest much if at all in individuals, so they don't know they have it and thus can spread the malady around like crazy. 

although the means to their end are really sketchy, the issue they were curtailing back in the day was of great significance.  If one person were to get a disease and then frequent massive orgies prior to the invention of contraception then everyone could get it and then they'd all be in trouble. 

Now in the present day we understand things better and can in fact fix a lot of the problems that arise.  ...and thus its your prerogative to partake in such things.  I generally don't care what you do... just tell me if you have a disease should the need to tell me such a thing arise (it could be a number of things... not just the obvious).  so whoever wants to get married let them.  its not like a lot of straight people nowadays don't spread all kinds of nastiness around.

part of the reasoning for them being "bad" by some interpretation is that they go against the typical male/female monogamous relationship.  You might say there is no grounds by which it should be monogamous male/female over anything else.... well.... males and females together are the only coupling that produces new humans naturally

....I am missing the point of this. Why does it matter that male and female pares (Ignoring asexual reproduction since you seem to be referring to humans)can create a children? And why does it matter that it goes against the normal thing?

As for monogamy,  it would be especially necessary back in ancient times.

...HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAH....Many cultures had polygamy, including many biblical figures in the case your are a Jebuz nut. May I ask you to name the cultures that had monogamy?

In the current day, most stds are easily treatable with a shot or pills.  Back then they could literally rot you to death because there were no treatments.

...Since when? I can't think if an STD on the top of my head that is easily treatable by any standards. And as previously stated, polygamy was far more abundant back then then it is now further disproving your hypothesis.

I'm not going to say that homosexual = intercourse with everyone they meet... but one of the locals here stated something to the effect of ...."darn Christians and always trying to ruin a good orgy" once upon a time.

So you are not, but you are. When you say "I'm not going to" and then "But" just stop there, since you are lying.

  I am a little too skeptical of that kind of lifestyle for me to partake in it... it just increases the your chances of getting diseases... and I don't have tons of money to spend on treatments so I think I'll opt out of it.

What "Lifestyle"? Homosexuality? Nope, they are the same as normal relationships. Polygamy? Nope, they are the same as normal relationships, except the male is typically dominant and has a ton of wives, not having sex outside of marriage. I don't see what you are getting this from at all.

I also have my misgivings about people who partake in that forbidden fruit... I wouldn't if those afflictions were only contractible through intercourse... but they're not.  We still have people today getting stds through blood transfussions.  You can contract some of that stuff from touching objects that the afflicted just happen to of touched.  Sometimes they don't manifest much if at all in individuals, so they don't know they have it and thus can spread the malady around like crazy. 

So you have a problem with sex? Why? And as stated, homosexuality doesn't effect STDs, so I don't really get white you are getting at.

although the means to their end are really sketchy, the issue they were curtailing back in the day was of great significance.  If one person were to get a disease and then frequent massive orgies prior to the invention of contraception then everyone could get it and then they'd all be in trouble. 

...HAHAHAH....No. They just wanted to control people's sex life. Have sex outside of marriage? Stoned. Have sex before you are married? Stoned. Two men have sex? Stoned. Masturbate? God smites that one guy apparently in your mythology, so it is bad. So if this theory is correct, then why would they consider masturbation bad?

Now in the present day we understand things better and can in fact fix a lot of the problems that arise.  ...and thus its your prerogative to partake in such things.  I generally don't care what you do... just tell me if you have a disease should the need to tell me such a thing arise (it could be a number of things... not just the obvious).  so whoever wants to get married let them.  its not like a lot of straight people nowadays don't spread all kinds of nastiness around.

Why are you still making a connection between homosexuals and STD's? Seriously, there is no connection there.

...HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAH....Many cultures had polygamy, including many biblical figures in the case your are a Jebuz nut. May I ask you to name the cultures that had monogamy?

prove it

...Since when? I can't think if an STD on the top of my head that is easily treatable by any standards. And as previously stated, polygamy was far more abundant back then then it is now further disproving your hypothesis.

doubt it.

So you have a problem with sex? Why? And as stated, homosexuality doesn't effect STDs, so I don't really get white you are getting at.

you gays are the same. just shut up and quit spreading aids. condoms are the way to go

prove it

Very well.

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.[3] At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.[6] To take on more than one wife often requires considerable resources: this may put polygamy beyond the means of the vast majority of people within those societies. Such appears the case in many traditional Islamic societies, and in Imperial China. Within polygynous societies, multiple wives often become a status symbol denoting wealth, power, and fame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#P … _worldwide

you gays are the same. just shut up and quit spreading aids. condoms are the way to go

Yay, uninformed, ignorant Bigot let's us in to his almighty resevoir of knowledge! AIDs is spread by any sexual activity, not just homosexual activity. Three cheers for the ignorant Bigot! Hip-hip, Hooray!