Religion and LGBT people

[Esquilax]

It is not "opinion" that the bodies of same sex couples are not naturally physical compatible, like those of a heterosexual couple are.

Ever gotten a surgery? Worn glasses? If you were dying, would you get an organ transplant?

Just how important is the integrity of the human body and what it's used for, to you? And that's even ignoring the fact that what you think other people should do with their bodies means nothing to the rest of the world.

(This is why homosexuals have to use artificial means -lubricants etc - to overcome the fact that their bodies are not naturally compatible.)

Ha! You know that straight people use lube too, right?

This is biological fact. What you say is downright stupid.

I guess the more important question is this: why does your opinion about gay sex matter at all?

You atheists seem to be of pretty low intelligence. With some notable exceptions, I am very disappointed with the level of intellect I have encountered on this site so far.

Insults. Just what I'd expect from a theist, when their arguments run out.

Here you are making the mistake of arguing based on your own point of view, not based on reality.

Speak for yourself, dummy.

Translation -

"argh, the clever Catholic man managed to prove his point using factual data and impartial sources.

Quick - say something erroneous about bigotry or hate."

Yes, you certainly seem less arrogant and self righteous after that.

1) homosexual acts are not unifying like heterosexual sex are - because their bodies are not complimentary in the way heterosexual sex is. A unifying act of physical love is where two partners combine their sexual organs and both experience pleasure for it. Homosexuals cannot combine their sexual organs - they do not combine with each other. (eg this is why gay men have to combine their sex organ with their partners anus). You are denying reality.

You are assigning meaning to reality that's highly subjective. Why does your opinion of "physical love" mean anything in this context? Why should it mean anything to anyone else? This is a total non argument.

2) my point is not invalid because you have undergone medical surgery to destroy the natural function of your sex organs. If you had not done this, (for reasons of health or choice), and your organs still functioned, then there would be a chance of procreation occurring. My point is valid.

So you think that people that are infertile from birth, or become infertile through disease, shouldn't be allowed to marry?

I have already presented detailed statistics to show you this - please go back and read them.

We seem to have arrived at the point where my facts are bouncing off the brick wall of your own personal prejudices / bias.

Knock down that brick wall and consider the facts impartially.

Cheers dude
GS

Why should we, when you so clearly refuse to do likewise?