What percentage would you need to consider something "natural"?

If 10% do it regularly, and 13% of the population are left handed, is there a 3% difference between what is natural and unnatural? Or are left handed people unnatural too?

I posted those stats in regard to the comment that you made that said that not too many heteros engage in anal sex.

If we use the low number of 10% and use that on the world's population (even though the population is not 100% hetero, but lets just leave that one for now) 10% of 6 billion people is 60 million -- a whole lot of people having anal sex, I'd say. And the numbers go way up if add in homosexuality.

My argument is in the label of "unnatural".


They're having a hard enough time teaching about hetero sex in schools these days. If you judge what is natural by what is taught in schools, then "abstinence only" would be considered natural by that definition.

I do not believe sexuality can be taught. Biological responses to arousal are not taught. I do not believe that a male heterosexual by nature can become aroused by another man and likewise a lesbian can become aroused by a man either. LOL she may be able to fake it! but I doubt she is truly aroused LOL, sorry guys you can't fake it! Listen I have known Gay people all of my life as I am sure most people have. I can honestly say that I am not Gay nor do I ever wish to be Gay. I did not learn that behavior though I was exposed to it. Girls just don't turn me on.

Choosing what hand you prefer might be a genetic thing, but it is human nature to adapt could come into play. For example I write with my left, but everything else, batting, throwing, using scissors, driving I prefer to do with my right. My identical twin brother is the same way. That fact is that we live in a right handed society dictates what we must use, therefore we must adapt. (or head over to Flanders left handed store which I haven't found. )

So referring to people who want the law to treat an entire class of people as second class citizens as "bigots", the least objectionable term I can think of for such a person, is unacceptable but to refer to homosexuals as "unnatural" is just hunky-dory?
This is simply laughable.
So gay sex is such an alluring thought that societal disaproval is the only thing keeping you from doing it?

To all of you who keep repeating over and over that the reason gays should be denied marriage rights is because their method of having sex is somehow "unnatural" or "faulty" or because they can't have kids, I offer you this quote I just read in Newsweek (the boldface is mine):

I currently believe that the entire debate hangs on whether marriage is a basic right or not. If it is, all forms of marriage should be permitted, including homosexual marriages, polygamous marriages, marriages of children, marriages of adults and minors, etc. If marriage is not a basic right, but a privilege rather, then it is up to society to decide, at the government level, what criteria must be met to qualify for any civil marriage.

Answering this question is taking place at many levels: the courts, legislatures, and ballot boxes.

To date, for the most part, marriage has been treated in America as a privilege. Exclusionary rules have been set into place such as age, gender, number of persons, differences in age, unforced into the union, not family related, etc. All of which are indicative of a privilege. It is not to be bigoted that such exclusions exist, but rather to protect society from uncertainty.


This is a little bit off topic, but I just wanted to make a distinction; that sexuality is not a choice, but sexual behavior is. If sexual behavior was not a choice, we would see pedophiles and rapists running free in the streets. I think that many on both sides of the political spectrum confuse this.

From Dictionary.com:

I think you exhibit the traits of a bigot more then anyone else in this debate. At least I wouldn't care what homosexuals did if they weren't so flagrant in the ways they do it and force their views on the population that don't agree with it. Before you start denying that they aren't flagrant then why was 5 of the issues today in the top 10 topics about homosexuality? Why did you (not specifically you but the others agreeing with you) press the issue when we voted for reasons forcing the debate? On HN news this morning it wasn't even ranked the top 3 topics voters are concerned of this year.
Furthermore you identify people debating as bigots just to demean them so that you can obtain the moral ground and it has nothing to do with the issue, I use the term unnatural because it is what my issue is about. The topic is on reasons why we are against homosexuality, not if people who are against it bigots. If you are not prepared to read the responses of why we disagree with you, then stop reading.


No it's not alluring at all, but there is no reason for us to be to be promoting it in school. And if we don't teach homosexuality in school they come along and complain "we're second class citizens, because they don't teach our "culture or lifestyle" in schools. It's discrimination you bigot!"

To AMF:
I fail to see how your article relates to the unnatural argument, can you please elaborate?

No, that silly slippery slope does not apply here, it has been raised and defeated countless times. I cannot understand how people can with a straight face assert that allowing gay marriages would somehow automatically allow people to marry children.

Does consent mean anything to you all? Please stop asserting this silly slippery slope argument, it is on par with "How can we legalize pot, does that not automatically mean we have to legalise cheap bad crack cocaine cut with rat poison?"

Really? I don't remember ever suggesting that heterosexuals be denied any basic human rights, as defined by the US supreme court. Could you point it out to me if I have?
Every single case in the news has been put there by bigots attempting to write discrimination into the law. The Massachusetts case resulted from a blatantly discriminatory law being passed, the national discussion is centered around the Musgrave amendment which was proposed by anti-gay forces.
I could suggest the same to you. I am simply calling a spade a spade, and if you don't want to read my response there is nothing forcing you to.
Oddly enough, I went through sex-ed classes in school that focussed exclusively on heterosexuality, and live in a society that strongly promotes heterosexuality, without having any interest in heterosexual behavior. People have sex how and with who they want to, and exposure to different lifestyles doesn't change anything except for possibly alleviating some of the misery gay teens face.
Aside from which, allowing couples to marry has absolutely nothing to do with teaching about homosexuality in school. These are two completely separate issues.

Actually, Rev, you ARE a bigot. You believe that homosexuality is a choice. You offer no evidence that proves that it is. (That is not the topic of this thread, but if that is the basis of your argument against gay marriage, you have to defend it - and while tired of arguing the choice vs biology aspect of homosexuality the point is that there is no conclusive evidence that it is one and not the other.) Being that there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is choice, you have to believe that it is true. We can believe that it is not true.

The fact that you enforce your beliefs on others (of different beliefs) by lobbying to deny them equal rights, that makes you a bigot. It is a derogatory term in a sense, but it is not name calling.

Rev_DelFuego Posted on Feb 20 2004, 07:52 PM


I do respect you concerns, I am a parent and I struggle daily with the never ending question am I doing right by my children, will they grow to be happy, productive members of our society, will my lessons meet their needs as they fly the coupe and make their way. That said, I believe in your concern for the roll of society in the rearing of children in essence diminishes the influence of the parents. Now mind you I do not compare you with these people, they are an extreme that illustrates my point well. Members of the KKK have children they attend schools, they are exposed throughout their lives to people of less extreme views. I would even venture to say that they are taught tolerance and the concept of equality at different points of their lives. If society had such an overwhelming influence on their development then why does the organization still exist? By now they should be obsolete. I believe traditions and morals are taught by the family. I believe school serves to teach tolerance and sense of community. I do not wish for my community to deny any member basic liberties (access to our laws) as the result my traditions and morals nor the traditions and morals of other members of the community, It is unjust and unfair.

I take personal offense to these statements, Amlord. In fact, there is much in what you have posted here which is offensive, even with you attempting to mask your prejudice behind "socio-economic" arguments.

My partner and I had children without the benefit of marriage. Our kids were not "an afterthought at best" and if either one of them heard you make that statement in their presence, they would doubtless punch your lights out. And I would proudly applaud them. On the other hand (getting back to the real world here), for heterosexual couples, marriage is often "an afterthought at best" when some stupid chick has already got knocked up by some irresponsible ignoramus - or even after the unwanted child has already been squeezed out. This is the carefully manufactured "product" of marriage which you feel demands state sanction? Give me a gay couple with the means and desire to raise a child in a loving, nurturing environment any day. I have no doubt that their kids, like mine, will be brilliant.

There are many - many - gay couples who would like the state sanction of marriage solely and exclusively in order to pursue adoption rights. I can't speak for Amlord's broad experience with homosexuality, but the raising of children, for most gay couples that I know, is a fundamental desire. Maybe I just hang out with a better class of homosexuals than he does.


Taking a deep breath, counting to ten, and getting back to his original "argument" against gay unions, I see several points being raised. In some ways, these are more invidious than strictly "moral" objections - they actually seem rational on a certain level. I call them Amlord's Seven Theses:

1. Political argument: The government has a vested interest in the "products" of marriage (trust a capitalist ).

This reminds me of the anti-choice movement. Life is sacred up to the point of birth - then we don't give a damn what happens. The government has - or should have - a vested interest not just in seeing heterosexuals procreate, but in seeing that "product" raised in a stable, loving environment. Gay couples can do this just as well - and, according to some studies (cited below), even better than straight couples. If one's only interest is in seeing the birthrate maintained at dangerous levels, sure, this is an argument. Not a good argument, true, but it is an argument.

2. Historical argument: Property and inheritance.

Amlord glibly dismisses this: "We have other means". Okay, why not? History is bunk. Though, of course, for heterosexual married couples, property and inheritance are easy. For non-married couples, regardless of sexual orientation, it is difficult, costly, and time-consuming (see below).

3. Historical argument: Bloodlines.

Again, Amlord glibly dismisses this: "This is much less important now." Okay, history is still bunk. Then again, this is very important to some people. For many who are barren or have other procreative difficulties, the ability to adopt can be quite important - not in terms of primogeniture, but in terms of "carrying on the family name". The same holds true for many gay men and lesbians. But, well, who cares, right?

4. Historical argument: Procreation.

And, again, Amlord glibly dismisses this. Oh, wait - no he doesn't. Just as some people are more equal than others, some aspects of history are evidently more salient than others. Though Amlord himself offers a few other means for children to be "produced", for some reason the state-sanctioned marriage strikes him as being the only viable option. Why? "Because children need parents." I couldn't agree more. But he's using this as an argument for how those children are actually being spawned. In many cases, the "means of production" and the raising of children are totally unrelated. In a lot of those cases, this is for the absolute best. The point has already been made repeatedly for just how desperately awful many married (and divorced) heterosexuals are as parents - how supremely unfit they are to have anything to do with raising children. Amlord would apparently like such children to have no alternatives.

Before we leave the history of marriage, though, it is worth making a couple of points. As has been pointed out elsewhere, most early civilizations from the Egyptians through the Roman Empire, through the early Christian Church did have same-sex unions. It was not until about five hundred years ago that the church began to turn on such relationships. History is on the side of gay unions.

Also, historically, marriage was not necessarily the sole recognized medium for procreation. Concubines were frequently used to produce legitimate offspring and to continue the patrilineal bloodline (take Abraham, for example). The woman was considered a mere vessel and the child was the property of the man. Even many royal families recognized bastards of a king when the more legitimate children died off - or were not forthcoming. Marriage as the shrine of parenthood is a relatively recent notion.

5. Sociological argument: Married couples, especially with children, are much more likely to produce healthy, successful children.

Well, I guess married couples with children are more likely to produce healthy, successful children than married couples without children.

That rather tautological point aside, Amlord goes on at great - very great - length demonstrating that children with two parents fare better than children of single parents. Thank you, Amlord, that is a great argument for allowing gay couples to raise children together.

He then goes on at great - very great - length demonstrating that children from married couples fare better than children from cohabiting couples. Thank you, Amlord, that is a great argument for allowing gay couples to marry.

6. Sexist argument: Children need one stereotypical nurturing female and one stereotypical competitive male. Gay marriages do not provide this balance, almost by definition.

Neither do most heterosexual marriages, but that is irrelevant.

The last time this point was raised (here), I presented some of the little evidence - as in evidence - which actually exists in relation to children raised by gay couples. Here it is again. Those of you with open minds might profit from it. Those of you with closed minds will doubtless be raising this argument again and again and again. The quote is from a primary source - the American Academy of Pediatrics - and includes their report in full with over thirty supporting references:
Let me reiterate a few bits of that: there is no difference between gay and nongay parents in parenting skills, there is no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents, and empirical evidence suggests that gay parents are every bit as good and in some areas better than heterosexual parents. One more time: there is NO difference between gay and straight parents (except where gays are superior) and there is NO risk to their children.

As Amlord himself says, "we need children and we need individuals to raise those children". Apparently he only cares about the first part of that equation. I care about both sides of the "and". My same-sex partner and I have raised two children. Were we able to legally foster or adopt in this country, we'd be raising even more. And we'd be doing a damned good job of it - no matter which heterosexuals didn't want them.

7. Argument from tradition: Marriage has traditionally been used to promote people having children who are legitimate and who have the most chance to succeed in society.

Very well, Amlord, why should my children not be legitimate? Why can they not bear my name rather than that of the heterosexuals who abandoned them? Why should my children - David and Paul - not be given a chance to succeed? Tell me.


Throughout, Amlord seems to be arguing a negative: Why on earth should the state secure rights to all human beings rather than just heterosexual human beings? While he argues that most of the reasons he might have for suggesting that the state "benefits" from heterosexual marriage are now - he tells us - invalid, he still maintains that heterosexuals should retain the benefits their status affords them. He tries to glibly write many of these off with a simple "we have other means". But it is not so simple.

Amlord, by marrying his wife, automatically had certain rights secured. My partner and I, being prohibited from forming any kind of legal union are denied these rights. If we wish to try to secure them by other means, it is a struggle - if it is possible at all. It is easy for a married heterosexual like Amlord to be dismissive. He is not denied Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses, public assistance from the Department of Human Services, eligibility for the housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation, exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, death benefits for the surviving spouse of a government employee, accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee, or funeral leave for government employees.

While he seems to believe that no gay man or lesbian has ever served in the armed forces, were he or his wife to have served, they would not be denied veterans' preference to a spouse in public employment, exemption from property taxes in homes of totally disabled veterans, or rights regarding the burial of service member's dependents.

Nor is he denied the right to change names, the right to enter into a pre-marital agreement, spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications, rights by way of dour or courtesy, payment of proof of business partnership, beneficial owner status of corporate securities, insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society, income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates, exemption from conveyance tax, real property exemption from attachment or execution, tax relief for natural disaster losses; he's not denied the right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land, exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants, spousal immigration benefits, the nonresident tuition deferential waiver, in vitro fertilization coverage, criminal injuries compensation, or the right to be notified of parole or escape of an inmate.

He can also afford to be smug about raising children - he's not denied the right to adopt, he's not denied legal status with partner's children, he's not denied appointment as guardian of a minor, he's not denied right to support from his spouse, right to file action for nonsupport, nor is he denied award of child custody in divorce proceedings - and neither is his wife.

He's also not denied certificates of occupation, control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property, division of property after dissolution of marriage, right to support after divorce, disclosure of vital statistics records, waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics, making partner medical decisions, rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment, spousal visitation rights during hospitalization, qualification at a facility for the elderly.

And, should he or his wife die, God forbid, they are not denied consent to post-mortem examination, making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts, permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation, financial assistance for burial payments, right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act, worker's compensation benefits after death, payment of wages to a relative of a deceased employee, notice of probate proceedings, continuation of rights under existing homestead leases, right of survivorship to custodial trust, inheritance of land patents, right to inherit property, and rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code.

Of course, none of the above matters - not to heterosexuals. All they have to do is sign a bit of paper in a County Clerk's office and - voila - basic human rights. None of this matters to the government either - unless one believes in the principle of equal protection under the law. I guess that's as outmoded as the importance of bloodlines. Frankly, little of this matters to me either. My partner and I (and our two sons) have - through a lot of toil - circumvented many of the rights which have been denied us. It would be nice, though, if the kids that we have deeply loved and conscientiously cared for, the kids for whom we provided a safe haven, the kids for whom we willingly sacrificed so much, the kids we successfully raised to maturity could, at least, bear our names...

But I guess that's just "an afterthought at best".

From the article:

Anyone who defines marriage largely in terms of what happens in bed has never been married.

So... this begs the question: why do you, Rev feel that homosexuality is unnatural? Is it because sex between two people of the same gender cannot produce children? See the statement above. Marriage isn't largely about what happens in the bedroom.

And no one here is trying to push a "gay agenda" down your throat. Just the same way as blacks didn't try to push their agenda down the throats of those who lived in the South in the 1950's and 1960's. People are just fighting for the same rights you already have. What? If they get those rights, you won't have them any more? Are they taking something special away from you that you have to somehow keep those rights away from them? What's the deal here? What's YOUR agenda?

Forgive me, I certainly didn't mean right . Rather, I simply wanted to know how the issue of children is the most significant basis for marriage than any of the other reason. What puts it head and shoulders above everything else and why do the benefits of marriage not apply to children (If it is such an important basis).



Marriage is the legal way of saying to the government: "We're not two different people, we're on a team." In other words, people who want to get married desire a partner that they can depend on in a legal way. The "benefits" of marriage reflect this: ("this isn't the property of two people, its our property (as a team)," "Were not going to fill out our taxes separately, we're going to fill them out together," etc).

Its the legal recognition of two people who wish to pull their resources together. This seems to be a much more valid reason, seeing as how the "benefits" reflect a teamwork aspect rather than a child producing one (I do not see how these benefits encourage child making). Yes, I am willing to say that the qualities of marriage, from a legal standpoint, signify a team and not a baby factory. Thats what all of the benefits and disadvantages are geared around, anyways.

I don't think that the government (The state) necessarily has to have a reason to marry people. I think that people want legal obligations tied together which is enough for the government to tie it into law. The government serves the people, not the other way around.

If people want to file their taxes together, pull their possessions together and cover each other with their health insurance, the government is obligated by the peoples will to provide that service. The reason the government is tied into all of this is because only it has the power to alter such legalities into a cohesive team.

Or thats my two cents.

And lastly, I do not see how the production of children should limit gays from marrying. People who cannot make children can marry now, so why prevent gays from marrying because of that? Marraige is not, as it stands now, contingent on whether or not you can create offspring.

Why did you have to bring my parents into this, Wertz?
(just kidding, maw and paw)

I agree with all you have said.

Maybe some people are putting too much importance on S.E.X.
That is only one part of a relationship, and perhaps the only differing
characteristic seperating homo/hetero-sexual relationships. The way
they HAVE sex (and the conception factor, which is not the only way to
become parents)..

When two people get married, if they are mature and
responsible, they are doing so because they have decided they want
to build their lives together. And, perhaps, create an environment that
would best serve potential children.

I do not understand why people, who are willing to look at this issue
from a rational perspective, would be against it.

This is an excellent point, so let me take it a step further and provide more clarity.

I am an individual. I have incorporated my company -- of which I'm the sole owner and employee. Incorporating meant filing papers with the state to define this new entity. Why did the government have an interest in it? Well, they've defined a whole set of laws and regulations about how a corporation differs from an individual. Those rules apply if the corporation has one person or 1000. The government also provides a way for me to define a legal partnership that has rules different from being just an individual OR being a corporation.

Now, later this year, I will marry. When that happens, the government will recognize that the two of us are functioning in many ways as a new entity and confer certain legal rights and responsibilities on us. We have no kids; we might never have kids (although we want them). And we refuse to just live together, because we don't want to live together as two individuals. We want to be together as a legal couple.

Notice, not once in the above paragraph did I mention my fiancee's gender. Didn't have to. The law MUST be blind to that distinction or we're back in the 60's fighting about civil rights again.

And that was a fight the conservatives and religious bigots did not win.

From Perspective:

They have provided no argument besides saying that birds do it, and comparing it to being left handed. How can it be normal human behavior when at least 65% do not do not participate in it, and 75% (from gallup) don't even support gay marriage.

The only reason why am against gay marriage is it wouldn't end there. Personally if they just left it where it is and not acknowledge homosexuality I would have a problem with it either.

From Piper Plexed:


I believe tolerance is a very important lesson to teach kids, but if the government acknowledges it, they expect me to promote it and accept a behavior that I believe is unnatural.

From Wertz:

Now then, when your kids gets beaten down because he attempted to hit someone with an opposing view it's assault, 12 months probation. Now if that issue is about gays, it's now a hate crime, mandatory hard time. All of this, despite the fact your kids where the aggressor, and despite the fact that you yourself fuels the violence with your applause.

The homosexual society would experience the same problem if they had the ability procreate.
From AMF:

For one reason the lack of homosexuals out their. The fact that some of the homosexuals I know are homosexual due to abuse by the opposite sex, the fact that a man or woman would mutilate their own body. Now if you expect me to accept homosexuality as normal behavior, I'm going to need more evidence then "because the birds do it."

Yes they are taking away something from me, since I believe that homosexuality is unnatural, they effect me by their anti discrimination laws. As a soon to be multifamily homeowner I am responsible for all problems associated in the house. If two gay people are in the house with the other three families with kids, and have a problem with them kissing and hugging around the house I can't do anything about it. Even if all three families disagree with homosexuality. Now if we replace that gay couple with a drug user, I can boot him to the curb.
Even though I want my kids to tolerate it, I don't think the government should have a place in my house when I decide not to foster it.

BTW this is my final post on this topic. I don't believe it's civil enough with the begging for us to respond, and calling us names and threatening violence when you disagree with our response. Good way to promote your cause.

At one time, the majority supported slavery. Does this mean that slavery was right?
You are now attempting to justify discrimination against a minority based on the fact that they are a minority.
We just want to be left alone. Gay marriage is in the news only because the issue has been forced by the opposition.
I find prejudice to be unnatural. It has been my experience that people have to be taught to hate, yet you would have this unnatural practice enshrined in the law.
All that is being asked of you is to live and let live. No one is asking you to marry a gay man (I find it hard to imagine there would be any who would want to), no one is asking anything of you other than that you leave us alone.

[Note, edited to delete intemperate response. -Grendel]

What does bodily mutilation have to do with anything?So now you are claiming that your right to discriminate is more important than homosexuals' right to marry? I suppose the government interferes with my right to own slaves in much the same way.
Yes, how dare people become angry at being declared less than human. It's not as if anti-gay forces have ever used violence.

So now only "normal" behaviors are offered civil rights? Who decides what is normal?

My point was simply that there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is unnatural. There is no conclusive evidence that it is biological. There is no conclusive evidence that it is a choice. Those who believe it is one or the other are following their hearts, their minds, the limited evidence that exists. The fact that they believe what they do is attributed to faith.

Many of our best artists, poets, novelists, researchers, scientists, professors, philosophers, inventors - were HOMOSEXUAL. Throughout history, there have been so many such scandalous whispers about homosexual aristocrats I can't even keep track. I have faith that homosexuality is more normal than society believes it is. You have faith that it isn't. Neither of us can prove our point, so how is faith any reason to create a foundation of discrimination? It's not. That's the point. Marriage between brothers and sisters is forbidden because there is conclusive scientific evidence that shows that offspring from such unions are riddled with genetic problems. THAT is a great reason to deny people the right to marry - it's in the interest of the safety of their offspring.




You can't get offended when someone calls you what you really are. We already explained to you how the term "bigot" really does fit your words here. Bigot is hardly name-calling. No one is threatening you. We disagree with your response, and become equally frustrated, because you have not offered any logical, reasonable defense of your position. Debaters expect that. If you aren't equipped to debate the topic, it might be best for you to come back when you are. Please do come back once you have some enlightening information for us.

In all these pages of posts - I still have not heard any reasonable stance against gay marriage. I was hoping to gain some understanding here. Surely you guys can do better?

While I was speaking somewhat hypothetically, I do feel that there is a place for honor in our society. Some here have said that they may support someone's right to burn the American flag, but if they actually saw someone doing it they would, say, kick them in the face. I would feel roughly the same were someone dishonoring my family. Maybe it's okay with you to have people running down your parents. It's not okay with my kids.


Sure. I'm not denying that homosexuals are any different than heterosexuals - you are. What's your point?

The fact is that any gay couples who do have kids have them because they want them. Allowing such couples to legally marry and adopt would mean that a vast majority of them would be doing so because they want to provide a good home for otherwise unwanted children - and there would be no possibility of them having kids "by accident". Another very good argument in favor of gay marriage. Thanks.


So if you believe that black people are naturally inferior to white people, their anti-discrimination laws are also "taking something from you", right? This is why our country is founded on the principle of equality - not on the prejudices of individuals. Thanks be to God.

From Grendel:
[quote]At one time, the majority supported slavery. Does this mean that slavery was right? ......I suppose the government interferes with my right to own slaves in much the same way.
[/quote]
Slavery, is forced labor. Do we beat you and force you to work? Have any links to prove it? We can prove that being black is natural.
[quote]All that is being asked of you is to live and let live. No one is asking you to marry a gay man (I find it hard to imagine there would be any who would want to), no one is asking anything of you other than that you leave us alone.
[/quote]
So am I. I don't want to be forced to raise my kids next to a couple that I perceive as disturbing behavior.
[quote]What does bodily mutilation have to do with anything?[/quote]
Transsexuals, which creature on earth attempts to change its sex for sexual purposes. Is it natural? Should I support it because you feel the need too change your sex? I tolerate it, but promoting it is a different story.
[quote]It's not as if anti-gay forces have ever used violence.  [/quote]
[quote]I do feel that there is a place for honor in our society.
Well it seems Wertz is advocating it and you don't see to disagree..... I would feel roughly the same were someone dishonoring my family. Maybe it's okay with you to have people running down your parents. It's not okay with my kids.
[/quote]
Well if we use your logic it's ok for me to shoot you for a dispute. No where in any of my posts have I advocated using violence. You are the ones who condone it, not I.
From Perspective:[quote]So now only "normal" behaviors are offered civil rights? Who decides what is normal?
[/quote]
Society, we don't think drug abuse is normal behavior and therefore limit it, but also it's not totally looked down upon. We allow them to be denied work, and sometimes freedom.
[quote]My point was simply that there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is unnatural. There is no conclusive evidence that it is biological. There is no conclusive evidence that it is a choice. Those who believe it is one or the other are following their hearts, their minds, the limited evidence that exists. The fact that they believe what they do is attributed to faith.
[/quote]
I completely agree with you. Since I can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that homosexual are unnatural behavior I respect your opinion and must tolerate the behavior, but I think since you cannot prove that is not, then you should respect the opinions of those that oppose your own, and tolerate them. At least until science proves one way or another.
[quote]Many of our best artists, poets, novelists, researchers, scientists, professors, philosophers, inventors - were HOMOSEXUAL.[/quote]
Would they have dumber if they had been heterosexual? I can introduce you to a few impulsive and ignorant homosexuals. What's the point of this comment, is there a link between sexuality and intelligence?
[quote]We disagree with your response, and become equally frustrated, because you have not offered any logical, reasonable defense of your position.[/quote]
Well since you refuse to address the points lets rehash:
Homosexuality is unnatural human behavior:
- If sodomy is natural then why does only 10% of the heterosexual population practice it.
- If homosexuality is natural why is there such a minimal amount of homosexuals out there? If it was natural wouldn't there be more homosexuals.
- Where in nature does anything attempt to change it's sex by mutilating its body?
So far the only responses I have been getting from the opposition is:
- You are a bigot because you will not accept our views, but I do not provide any logical, resonable defense
- Birds are homosexual
- There is a close number of left handers in a right handed world and number of people who practice anal sex.
- My kids will beat you up if you disagree with me
- Homosexuals are smart
- Homosexuals are slaves and deserve freedom
So my response to you is
[quote]Surely you guys can do better?
[/quote]
Finally Wertz:
[quote]I do feel that there is a place for honor in our society.[/quote]
Yeah, we sure do honor people who resort to violence for difference of opinions.
[quote]So if you believe that black people are naturally inferior to white people, their anti-discrimination laws are also "taking something from you", right?[/quote]
First of all I do not consider you inferior, I just do not agree with your life style and would not like it shoved in front of me, to explain it to my children. We can prove that being black is natural without a shadow of a doubt, but can't say the same of homosexuality. We do not know if it's taught or genetic or what. Like I said a few posts back, I don't really care if you get married and be a family, just don't expect me to promote it to my kids as an acceptable lifestyle.

How does America standing by it's constitution

Force you to promote any lifestyle to your children? What you teach your children is your choice! There will not be any Homosexual Morality police in your living room when you discuss the birds and the bees with your kids. You can teach them whatever you want, that is the beautiful thing about America you are free to do that. Free is the operative word and it is that very freedom that Homosexuals wish to have the Freedom to Love and Marry and receive all the perks and benefits that their fellow citizens get. As long as the anti Gay Marriage arguments are based on a personal perception of right or wrong, natural or unnatural they hold no legal or constitutional ground therefore they are biased and bigoted.

[quote=Rev_DelFuego,Feb 21 2004, 06:23 PM]Slavery, is forced labor. Do we beat you and force you to work? Have any links to prove it? We can prove that being black is natural.[/quote]Gee, thanks for the information. No, I am not beaten and forced to work, but my earnings are taxed for benefits that are denied to me. I am treated as a second class citizen in this country, and I'm getting pretty damned sick of it.
My point, in case you really are too dense to have gotten it, is that just because a view is held by the majority does not make it right.
[quote]So am I. I don't want to be forced to raise my kids next to a couple that I  perceive as disturbing behavior.[/quote] So you would prefer the couple next door be shacked up? That is the practical effect of opposing same sex marriage.
Or do you propose that housing discrimination also be instituted against homosexuals?
One is also forced to question just what you think gay folks do. My neighbors have no more idea what goes on in my bedroom than I have of what goes on in yours.
[quote]Transsexuals, which creature on earth attempts to change its sex for sexual purposes. Is it natural? Should I support it because you feel the need too change your sex? I tolerate it, but promoting it is a different story.[/quote]Would you be opposed to a person with a genetic heart defect having surgery to correct the problem?[quote]Well if we use your logic it's ok for me to shoot you for a dispute. No where in any of my posts have I advocated using violence. You are the ones who condone it, not I.[/quote]The ignorant rhetoric you spew about how "unnatural" we are is the root cause of the violence that makes me fear for my safety whenever I leave the gay neighborhood in my town. Don't kid yourself that your dehumanizing words have no effect.
[quote]we don't think drug abuse is normal behavior and therefore limit it, but also it's not totally looked down upon. We allow them to be denied work, and sometimes freedom.[/quote]Um, yeah... Drug abuse causes actual harm to people.
[quote][quote]My point was simply that there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is unnatural. There is no conclusive evidence that it is biological. There is no conclusive evidence that it is a choice. Those who believe it is one or the other are following their hearts, their minds, the limited evidence that exists. The fact that they believe what they do is attributed to faith.
[/quote]
I completely agree with you. Since I can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that homosexual are unnatural behavior I respect your opinion and must tolerate the behavior, but I think since you cannot prove that is not, then you should respect the opinions of those that oppose your own, and tolerate them. At least until science proves one way or another.[/quote]And such tolerance you've shown. We shouldn't have access to basic human rights because it might make you uncomfortable.
[quote]Well since you refuse to address the points lets rehash:[/quote]Your "points" such as they are have been addressed multiple times.
[quote]Homosexuality is unnatural human behavior:
- If sodomy is natural then why does only 10% of the heterosexual population practice it.[/quote]What definition of "sodomy" are you using? You will note that as a legal term sodomy has been defined in a multitude of ways which essentially boil down to "sexual activity I find icky": oral sex was considered sodomy by some laws, other laws only considered it sodomy when performed by a same sex couple. If you mean anal sex, you are truly demonstrating ignorance of the issue: Heterosexuals can and do have anal sex, and not all homosexuals have anal sex.
[quote]- If homosexuality is natural why is there such a minimal amount of homosexuals out there? If it was natural wouldn't there be more homosexuals.[/quote]Being left handed is natural, but the vast majority of people are right handed.
[quote]- Where in nature does anything attempt to change it's sex by mutilating its body?[/quote]Where in nature does anything perform open heart surgery to save the life of a fellow member of it's species.
[quote]So far the only responses I have been getting from the opposition is:
- You are a bigot because you will not accept our views, but I do not provide any logical, resonable defense
- Birds are homosexual
- There is a close number of left handers in a right handed world and number of people who practice anal sex.
- My kids will beat you up if you disagree with me
- Homosexuals are smart
- Homosexuals are slaves and deserve freedom
So my response to you is
[quote]Surely you guys can do better?
[/quote][/quote]LIAR. You are a bigot because you would have us live as second class citizens. It has absolutely nothing to do with accepting opposing views, you can think whatever damn fool thing you want but discriminating against groups of people is the very essence of bigotry. You have offered no reasonable excuse for gays to be denied the basic human right of marriage. "It hurt's my ickle head to think about it." is not a valid reason to discriminate.

And finally, your attack on Wertz is totally uncalled for.