Same sex marriage is not a church issue.

[Christianity in crisis?]

I believe same sex marriage is not a church issue when it comes to the law. Christians who try to ban same sex marriage are wrong, and should be consistent with the separation of church and state. BTW... I am an evangelical Christian against forms of legalized discrimination.

[Slopeshoulder]

So this is what it has come down to. Sorry for defending my customs rights.

What on earth are customs rights? Are you inferring that your custom demands special rights, at the expense of others? And how are these rights being taken away? If your rights are by definition prejudicial, they aren't rights, they are claims. And you will have to cede some space.

I guess freedom to live by ones customary social standing doesn't work with hatred.

Your customs remain your right to practice.
Your customs cannot limit the legitimate rights of others to practice their customs (including the loving intimacy best and perhaps only expressed through intense and repeated acts of same sex sodomy or scissoring within the sanctified state of marriage - hey, some folks like it, and in a democracy - not yet a theocracy - we straights and christians are just gonna have to deal with it, and even accept it if we can. I can).

Also, I see that now you've introduced "social standing," revealing your desire to be in a privledged position, at root a power play.

And what hatred? Do you equate disagreement with hatred?

Your hatred

excuse me?!?!?! what hatred? Do NOT accuse me of hate speech in a public forum unless you are prepared to back it up. I demand a retraction.

comments only prove my point again.

My comments prove none of your points. You're fantasizing. Evidence please. Logic please.

You should read my thoughts on, "Does gay marriage affect fundamental values." Another is, "Do you think that non-theists can experience the same experience, commonly known as spiritualism." Its good to broaden your horizon.

My horizens are already broad; don't presume, it's uncivil. I am a highly educated and widely read man, specifically in these areas; It was my field of study at Yale. I read reknowned thinkers in top journals. So far your self-desribed thoughts have not earned my further interest. You have a point to make? Make it here. Let us take it up here. So far you're losing and flailing IMO.

Anyway, love ya.

Nonsense. You accuse me of hate speech based on disagreement. That isn't loving, nor is it civil. And civility is demanded by forum rules.
I see a pattern of dissing others behind a veil of telerance supported by spurious appeals to custom.

In my view your words reveal xenophobia and bigotry, tarted up in half-baked diatribes that don't stand up to scrutiny. And then when challenged you call people haters. Lovely. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Lux]

Moderator Comment

Your hatred comments only prove my point again.

Personal comments such as this one are not allowed in this forum. Please avoid remarks that refer to other posters.

Please review the Rules.




______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[Lux]

Moderator Comment

You're kidding yourself, but fooling no one.

So far you're losing and flailing IMO.

These are also personal comments, and the general tone of your two last posts was not civil. Please tone it down; even if someone has been uncivil towards you, don't resort to "payback".


Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[McCulloch]

It was the church who instituted the legalities and fundamental aspect of marriage in today's societies.

From that point of view, it was the church who instituted the legalities for many things, which we now view in the secular province. The modern western legal profession got it start in the Inquisition.

In today's secular societies, marriage is not an exclusively Christian institution. Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, not-theist and Sikh marriages are fully recognized in my province.

Where we differ is how we view the extension of this recognition to same-sex couples. You repeatedly refer to this as an attack. Forgive my lack of understanding, but I just cannot see how this in any ways threatens your marriage. I, for example, have been married to one woman for more than twenty-five years. My neighbors, two women who are now married to each other, do not threaten my own wedded bliss. No one is trying to enforce their culture on your family, or to undermine or to destroy your valued customs.

We live in a multi-cultural society that is evolving. If we want to be successful as a society, we need to come to grips with that and find ways to co-exist without friction and animosity. Over two-hundred years ago, the fledgling nation, the United States of America, came up with a brilliant experiment. Secularism, the idea that public institutions and the law should be separate from religion. Since then, most of the western countries have followed suit, with a few anachronisms such as the Lords Spiritual in the UK parliament. Our laws are no longer based on the principles of religion.

You see, I just don't understand what you feel you are defending your home, culture, customs and social standing from. Gays are not attacking any of those things. Why do you feel threatened by same sex marriage? In what way are you being victimized? Gays have legal marriage in Canada. Our society has not fallen apart. Men and women are still getting married, having children. No one has lost their home, their culture or the right to their own customs as a result. The sky is not falling. Christianity is not any more hated as a result. Some Christians support the same sex marriages while others reject it. The rest of us stand back and let them disagree. To us it is of as much importance as the Christian debate about whether an infant is a suitable subject for baptism.

[Faith Seeking Understandi]

Hi. I don't have the time to debate much this weekend. And from your comments i thought that it would save me time having to defend myself against slander so i added these two debates."Do you think that non-theists can experience the same experience, commonly known as spiritualism," and "does gay marriage affect traditional family values."When you look at both of these,people would tend to question allot about homosexuality as it is the truth.




i've just read the title and i have not got the time to read all the messages
within this debate but i just want to add my thoughts.

With such a wide
set of family values that were already in place before this debate ever came to
the surface within society, one must ask what basically is family values. With
what i have concluded is that traditional family values are what we consider to
maintain a healthy family. So the debate really is what aspects of a Gay
marriage, as being the head, influences a families healthy way of life.


I have a gay sister who i love dearly, as does the rest of the
family,and we all associate regularly with her friends. I'm also a bible college
student who had a gay guy take me to church when i was down and out, which saved
my life. I am straight and as a loving brother who has seen my sister grow and
have been around allot of gay people have personally sort out whether being gay
is really ok. Its what a loving brother does. What i have realized is a few
things that society seems to ignore as they want to help but they only hinder as
they gain a selfish group mentality that doesn't allow gay people to decide for
themselves. It also hinders a brothers chance to communicate his thoughts in a
loving way as society butts in, and takes that freedom to choose what is ok or
not, even from my sister. What i don't like is that the world will only give
them 2 choices, your gay or your not. But what about allowing them the freedom
to see whether it is ok to be Gay. We can say that they do have this choice but
when the rest of society say's its ok, and that there biggest lustful passion
agree's also, well then they don't have that freedom, do they.

Anyway i
can give a gene debate and a phycological development theory that can nullify
all pro gay thoughts but i will try to stay with this topic, and the topic is
whether healthy family values exist within a gay marriage. Well as with all
relationships we find that with true love comes self-less acts that supports
healthy growth within the relationship and the family. Lust is not one of them.
Any form of lust is selfish. So in any straight or gay relationship, someone who
has an issue with lust can cause problems within a marriage which affects the
rest of the families development. Now i'm not saying that a straight person
never has trouble with lust, and if they do it should be handle the right way
but i have noticed that when someone is gay their boundaries towards sex is
opened right up as they begin to openly explore everything associated with
lustful sex. With any form of lust, it can become addictive and with this new
experience in life they explore even more and is encouraged by society to do so.
By a society that "at large" encourages them because their selfish aswell. (I
get into this more down the page).

Now we can say that its in their
genes but there is also a gene to say that they can get cancer, but is that a
good gene. But the topic here is how healthy sexual boundaries are affected by
lust which would then affect a families values as the marriage leads and teaches
the children. When we look into the affects of being selfish, it goes against
humility which is a big factor of being humane, and lust is not what we should
teach our children. This goes for straight people also. The difference with
straight and gay people is that straight people would more likely grow up with
sexual boundaries and continue through the rest of their life with them, but gay
people begin by exploring beyond these boundaries, where they may at some point
settle this down, but lust may never get questioned as society encouraged it and
it is what helped them chose homosexuality. To be selfless is a matter of the
heart and so is lust and for us to debate this will take time and a deeper
study, but it is one of my points.

Im not here to label gay people or
even separate them, but we do need to look into the effects of being gay and
societies impact before we can come to any conclusion. We cannot jump the gun
so to speak with stubborn selfish view's and just say, yeh go for it. At the end
of the day we all think that we are so smart that we can make this choice
without even doing studies on both sides and then coming together in non
confrontational group studies, to freely explore why and whats happening. But
because it has to do with peoples sexual lustful drive, we want them to freely
chose for themselves because then our own lustful drives can be accepted in
society all the more. "As long that it doesn't hurt people its ok?." Or is it
that we may hurt ourselves and our families, that should be the question.. We
all need to take a good look at ourselves and realise why we debate this and
lets humble ourselves to love each other enough to selflessly see the truth in
love. We should pull down the social wall of only giving gay people two choices.
Your gay or your not. Lets have that 3rd choice for them to choose, not us. My
point is that its when we see the affects of being gay do we see whether gay
marriage affects family values.




I then had a a great reply which helped the discussion to continue. If you want to check it out you can,

This was my response:

Thanks for your reply. Its good to see that people have an opportunity to talk
about this topic freely and with people who has spent time looking into this
social concern. But i think that we are slightly on two different topics. I
thought it was a topic on the affect of traditional values so what i try'd to
discern is what is traditional values. Not on the topic of whether it is right
for gay people to get married.

Personally as being a Christian i believe
that marriage has more a cultural concern than it has with family values. They
do both intertwine but marriage is more cultural. When we look into culture we
see that culture has an element of time and place and contains differing social
elements. Today to be a true Christian who maintains celibacy and considers the
covernant of marriage as being an act of self sacrifical worship, which
expresses my utmost love to God, while having placed my future hope for marriage
2nd below God, puts marriage socially and culturally as one of importance. Today
many westerners say that they are Christians but really their not. Westerners
place Christianity as part of culture but they act more like Canaanites and
other cultures during biblical times than the Israelites. Actually one of the
acts of Baal worship was to get drunk and get in touch with the spirits and have
orgies and do homosexual acts. Some while even cross dressing. Obviously these
are two separate cultures. So in saying when someone from another culture comes
and adopts or puts on a cultural act from another culture and then disrespects
them by questioning why they carn't is wrong. Also when that culture is mocked
for their acts of worship it then can become racial, which can even be regarded
as racism towards Christians

In regards to marriage being a contract, i
don't like to think that man can put their own spin on things of God, but it was
first institutionalized by a Christian culture. Similarly the same can be said
by how the Israelites developed their cultural laws and ethics. So as a
fairdinkum Christian man i will defend my family and my institution with
marriage. Thats family values right there.

In regards to lust affecting
both gay and straight people both having that issue is so true and I'm glad that
you said that. But what I'm saying is that we do not have the sufficient studies
on the developmental aspects of gay people to determine any social or internal
attitude that may vary. And a big factor that has affected this at large is the
social impact upon the people doing thes studies by enforcing a pro gay feel. It
is a bias thought. What i don't understand is that if straight people get picked
at inside and out in regards to relationships and themselves as individuals,
good and bad, then why don't gay people. Also in regards to the affects of
single sex parenting their has been studies on the effects of single people
raising kids where they found that it benefits children's development to have
both sex's raise that child.

In regards to Pauls statement on lust, the
bible says that any lust is no good. What Paul was saying, was to a church who
probably had an issue with lust. He says that for them it is better to get
married than to be tempted to sin with lust. Lust is never seen as good in the
bible and to remain single without lust is a gift. When we get married hopefully
love will over rule lust as they are both a matter of heart that are of two
extremes.

Overall what i am saying is that i see legal marriage as being
different to family values. In regards to family values my gay sister has
amazing family values but for her to get married is when she steps onto my side
and picks on her brother. And she knows that. Its the same when i go to a gay
bar to catch up with her. I know that i would have to respect them, as i do,
because i'm on their turf. If i don't like it, i politely go. Its all done in
love. And with lust, all i am saying is that we haven't touch the surface in
regards to studies, as majority if any at all in an unbiased way and to the
indepth manner of heterosexuals. So why not with gay people. I believe that
people ignore this issue by jumping the gun and attack Christians on marriage so
that they can pass this essential topic. Why not. As a man I've been picked and
prodded by science and many ways.

Also with that 3rd choice issue that i
have in regards to my sister, what i'm trying to say is that my sister doesn't
get the freedom to look into the many differing studies of scientific thought of
homosexuality as straight people do as it is heatedly contested. One choice of
freedom that it can take away is her making that choice to see whether its ok to
be gay or not. Societies ways of ranting and raving is her main influence and of
cause when both parties are heated,she will go towards a side that accepts her.
And i blame Christians for this as well, which i have firmly put across in bible
college myself. Its because of all this that i cannot speak to my sister about
my thoughts on her being gay. I want civil discussions into anything that has to
do with homosexuality. Its when we calm down on both sides that we can then come
up with the true well being of gay people.

I don't have much time to
keep typing this message, but thanku for your comments. I may of missed some of
your comments but hopefully we can talk some more later. Bible college is
starting this year and i become more of a book worm, so hopefully we can catch
up soon. Thanku again. God bless.



I had no response so i added another:

Hi there again. Just got back from class and I'm realizing that i don't have the
time to debate so much for the next few months. Sad i know as i absolutely love
this forum. But what i will add is random thoughts that has to do with
homosexuality which i would love to bring up here as there is some very great
minds who i'd appreciate their views.

One is why did the psycology board
of America origanly say that it is ok to be gay? I can remember as a child that
their were many gay bashings, their were fears that gay people were child
molestorers and their were even gay serial killers. What the psycology board of
America had to say was that its ok to be gay and that to be gay does not mean
that they molest kids and so forth. There was allot of hatred towards gay
people. And what the psychology board said worked, but what it did is disregard
previous studies on the development of homosexuality as people began to
"enforce" the complete opposite perspective without considering the studies
already done because of the monstrosities committed against gay people. What
happened was that hatred for gays turned into sudden hatred for thinking
anything outside of," its ok to be gay."

One great theorist who's name,
if i remember correctly, (had Sullivan in it), came up with a view that caters
for all thoughts on this topic. Its got to do with introjection and projection
and assimilation, in childhood development. When we are children,we look to the
same sex. Boys look to their father, superman, batman and so forth in a form of
awe. Girls look to their mother, barbie and so forth in a form of awe. Its like
i want to be like them because their amazing. What they then naturally do is to
begin to try on for size their attributes. A boy jumps off a roof and realizes
that he is different. A girl looks to the figure of barbie a see's that its
impossible to have those dimensions. Its extreme examples i know but you get the
drift. When a boy recognizes that he cannot do what his hero's can do he then
moves on to seek out more of who he truly is. And the same goes for woman. Gay
people never do identify and assimilate what they truly are as they carnt seem
to move on. So as they come to the genital stage of life, they are still looking
on in awe with their same sex hero's. For guys its the hunky batman who has this
way about him, and for woman its the hot woman who epitomizes womanhood. They
then become sexually attracted to the same sex. Thats why a gay person says that
they were gay as far back as they remember. What this reveals is an issue of
identification and assimilation of ones true self, which may affect how they
assimilate other stuff into their life also.

This theory makes perfect
sense to me, on the topic of the basic concerns of being gay. The latter stuffs
needs more study. But what my concerns is that theories like these that make
perfect sense has been pushed under the rug for so long. My sister has the right
to look into this and so does every other gay person, and it might explain some
of their issues in life. People may rant and rave against these thoughts out of
their selfish reasons but truly i do this in love, so why do people hate this.
Is it because they don't want to know as this has got to do with lust, which is
of a selfish nature.

Now I'm not singling gay people out here, because
straight people have allot to answer for, in regards to orgies, adultery and so
forth. And what does this have to do with family values? To be sexual in such a
way ignores nearly all forms of healthy boundaries. The affects of this comes
out in the way people talk and treat others and in so many other ways. (This is
also another debate which i don't have time to get into.) So what does this say
to our kids. Lots. But I hope that someone steps forward, speaks out, and humbly
seek the truth. What would inspire this world for selfless acts of genuine love,
is if a group of gay people did truly and honestly sort out the good points and
bad points about themselves and make it known. You may save the world from
themselves as it might also encourage straight people to do the same.


Thanku for this forum and opportunity to speak out. Good on
ya.




This is the spirituality debate. It does not have much to do with this topic but it will hopefully help you see that Christianity is not fanciful. Its something that everybody experiences. Spirituality that is.



Hi there. This is my first time in a debate within this forum and i think that i
have got the gist for what you all are debating and i might add that it has
varied allot and has been at times intense. But i want to put a thought out
there in regards to people feeling spiritual and some being incapable of the
same emotions, while at the same time adding to peoples emotional responses to
life.

We all are human and to consider this general statement means that
we all have similar states of being. Its when we find these similar states of
being, that we then have a common ground to build upon. This will hopefully put
form to thought, emotions and our general human states so that i can discuss our
spiritual and emotional states of being. This being done in a "good spirit" will
hopefully lead to discussing our deferences in a respectful manner. And by the
way, the phrase, "good spirit" is just a saying that us Aussies may use at times
or when we feel like it." So anyway, what are these general states of being that
lead to spirituality, or is it just our emotional state or lack thereof?


With what i have read you all have brilliant minds to reason out life.
So to do this we have the ability to look beyond oneself into the unknown and
form a structure 'within reason,' of what is not yet fully seen and if our
reasoning does not add up, we then re-evaluate our political stance and
re-ajust, or in other words adapt to this new thought. This ability of looking
beyond the present into something else is humankinds ability of being
self-transcendant, and this pattern of hit and miss and re-adjusting is our not
so perfect state of being.

If we look at animals they too can adapt to
there surroundings by looking beyond themselves and if they never did how can we
ever truly have a loving relationship with a pet as there would be no indepth
relatatable interaction, (but this is another debate). What has truly stood out
is that humankind are the most adaptable beings and its this that separates us
from the animal kingdom. And if we cannot get what we have seen beyond our
emmediate state, we will transcend beyond what is seen and create into being
what our thoughts have seen through reasoning within this state. At this point i
believe there can be an open discussion on this revealing the spirituality of
animals and humankind, but it does reveal the depth of Humanities spirituality
compared to animals by just our state of being. And i know what some may be
thinking that there could be a debate against spirituality, by saying that our
creative ability is done through reasoning out within the boundaries of our
previous life experiences. Its through these experiences that we find within the
causes and effects of our actions that finally allows us to come up with a more
full proof approach to what we can now create new. But this contradicts itself
because at some point humankind has to see (or transcend) what they are desiring
to create that which will be completely new and not yet experienced our seen. A
good example of this is when Eistien(I think that's how to spell it), was
baffled with this equation and could not work it out. So he got up to clear his
thoughts and did the dishes. It was when he did this that the equation of y=mc
squared popped into his head. Phycologists would call this intuition. I
personally would call this spiritual without emotions. Christians call this
general revelation. But this is not what i wanted to state.

This
adaptable ability that Humans have that enables them to adapt or create to their
surroundings, is what makes all humankind to eventually look beyond into the
spiritual. Its our human state that makes us spiritual. It is when we create
what we want, that we begin to move on and desire a new goal, or take on the
next challenge, our what ever other way we want to put it. We take on the image
of what we were created, God, and transcend into something else and create
something new. If we don't our life looses passion, and we become sick. But
because we never reach our final destination which is our ultimate goal, our
lives begin to loose meaning and this is where we question our purpose and is a
sickness in itself as we have not yet seen what our true purpose is. Without
true meaning and true purpose we loose our sense of peace. What some people may
do is to ignore this view and seek passion within this world through sex and
explain it away to animal instincts, or use alcohol, or anything that has that
thrill that only is an exscape which can lead to addictions, or it can also
affect our relationships and the truth through ignorance. But, If we continue to
seek, as we all should, as this is what our human state is and as a result makes
us healthy people, we begin to look beyond even our transcending ability into
what is in the spiritual. We become spiritual beings looking into the spiritual.


If we want to know what is spiritual and what is not we need to know the
image of God so that we can know ourselves. If you don't believe at least put
into consideration of this outlook and adjust it to what you believe. The
Israelites spent thousands of yrs to determine this. Its silly to disregard what
they new within our lifetime. But what truly amazes me is that God created us so
that we are compelled to seek Him or the thought of Him. If we don't we become
sick. Sorry, strong word I know. I don't mean to offend but science will say
that having no goals in life, and not wanting to abapt to life pressures and
create something new, that there is a tendency to become isolated and sick. It
goes against our Human traits and Godly image.

Another interesting
thought is that if we can adapt through what we create which is empowered
through our spiritual beings then with all that the world has become it has been
spiritual. So where have we gone wrong to see all this destruction in the world.
Its because we chose to worship the animal than the Creator. We chose the spirit
of sin over righteousness. We chose death over life. We chose sickness over
health. We chose to speak lies than the truth to suit our selfish agenda's.




I don't have the time to continue to debate much, but please forgive me for my sarcasm. I remember someone saying that sarcasm was the highest form of intelligence, and me being sarcastic said that who ever said that was being sarcastic. Anyway i hope this helps you with you perspective of where I'm coming.

[Faith Seeking Understandi]

As i just posted my last reply i saw the comment on secularism. The thing about secularism is that is was not meant to cross cultural boundaries and impose some other culture by trying to change it.

Also
We were never meant to sin and when we do its unhealthy pyhysically and spiritually. For Christian male and female is both healthly relationships and under marriage it fine. That go for all heterosexual relationships. But gay marriage is sin and it mocks God. So what we as Christians try to do is seek the truth in all matters and the affects of sin also. We are just looking out for your best intentions. You may hate it, but i'd rather a slap in the face than to see people sin and become unwell.

Secularism has nothing to do with trying to impose in another culture by trying to change it.

At the moment I'm really tired so i hope that it makes sense.

[Faith Seeking Understandi]

Hey this is a good one.

The definition of culture according to the Oxford University Dictionary of Sociology.

Culture is a general term for symbolic and learned aspects of a human society. It interplays between race and ethnicity.
The Sociology of race see's race as a useful way of indicating that this manner of caterogizing individuals and population groups, and it is not based on any biological valid distinctions between different genetic make-ups. Racial categorization is frequently (though not always) based on phenotypical deferences;that is, differences of facial characteristics etc. But this does not correlate with genotypical differences(differences in genetics makeup). Nor does innate differences of personality, intelligence and so forth, between populations caterogized on either of these bases. Sociology of race is largely concerned with examining the causes and consequences of socially constructed division of social groups, regardless of whether this is legitimated by reference to the above factors or non of them.

I would say that we are of different cultural race within countries. Different races, different cultures and the people who accept gay marriage has just separated from Christianity as it is seen as not of God. So secularism does no longer come into play. So the term racism does come into play. Please Stop it.

[McCulloch]

We were never meant to sin and when we do its unhealthy physically and spiritually.

That is the view of your religion. People who do not subscribe to your particular religion may differ from you as to what activities are sinful and what effect they might have on our well-being. The whole point of secularism is that we do not base our laws on religious faith. You are free to believe whatever you wish about the sinfulness of homosexual marriage and the sinlessness of eating pork. But the articles of faith of your religion are not binding on others in our multi-cultural society any more than the articles of faith of someone else's religion.

But gay marriage is sin and it mocks God.

In your opinion. There are those Christian clergy who bless gay marriages, who rather obviously disagree with you. You have no more right to dictate to them than they have to dictate to you.

So what we as Christians try to do is seek the truth in all matters and the affects of sin also. We are just looking out for your best intentions. You may hate it, but i'd rather a slap in the face than to see people sin and become unwell.

This might come as a surprise to you, but some of the rest of us also seek truth. Really we do. Our methods are different from yours. We seek truth by objectively testing any claims of truth, trying as best we can to refute any and all claims. Those which survive, can be provisionally taken to be true. Your approach, at least as it appears to me, is that you have an ancient and revered book, passed down through generations which you accept uncritically as being true. Anything which disagrees with that book is false; any truth must be made to harmonize with that book. I resent any implication by any of the people of the book that those of us who reject their (to my mind flawed) methodology are not seeking the truth in these matters.

[Faith Seeking Understandi]

Secularization is a thought. and that all it is. Their is no act or legal laws for it. Its a thought that stands against my church defending its rights. Secularism is your thought that religious beliefs, practices and institutions lose social significance. so its your thoughts of oppression. It means that all that the Church stands for is false. Its actually your own thoughts against Christians. Its like the KKK who think blacks are worthless. Aren't we meant to be in a forum the does not blantantly discriminate. This definition is what i got from a dictionary. Shame on your racists comments Pure unethical and evil. Strike that from your comments. Shame on you. Obviously you haven't gone with the times and studyed the sciences that back up the bible. you are obviously begoting yourself on fanciful statements. Your obviously disolutioned in your own dilemma. You are obviously resorting to such low blows because your lost for words. You have no comeback worth justifying your views. This only backs up what i've been saying.

[Faith Seeking Understandi]

I want to put this forward. Secularization exagerates the commitment to organized religions in pre-modern societies and equates secularism to the decline in Christianity. But these two issues should be kept separate as it underestimates the importance of new religious movements in so-called secular societies. Such as yours. Humanism is a form of religion. Secularism does not make sense and is irrelevant to this topic as we all come from views that function similar to religion. And gay's seeking marriage is an example to this view. So your debate contradicts itself. It may not have the spiritual but functions like a religion. Your views are fundamentally faulty.