Motorguy222,
You seem to be fixated on the physical sex act of homosexual couples and the physical differences of male and female. I will concede that there can be homosexual sex without being homosexual. But marriage does not imply a need for the sexual act. I've never seen one marriage ceremony where sex was discussed. It's all about honesty, caring, sharing, love, commitment. I think you would agree that two people can have a strong marriage without the sex act. Could gays be married and not have "the sex act"? If it were just about sex, gay couples would not need marriage or any other union. The gay marriage issue or homosexuality is not isolated to the religious community, but it is being driven by the religious community and Bush's appeal on this issue is to get votes from the religious community, particularily the black religious community, who usually overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and seem to have a stronger dislike for homosexuality than do white folks. I think they're living in denial. If this issue was only one for the secular community it would be a non issue and not paid much attention to.
You keep saying that I would not expect Kerry to abandon his views so why should I expect you to, and then you throw in the 4 letter word "liberal" for good measure just in case anyone might forget that liberals are next to the devil for being evil, a common theme on this board. I would hope that anyone, including Kerry, could be persuaded by the facts and reasoned argument on any issue. As far as the natural world is concerned it presents us with a wide variety of differences in the species whereas your interpretation of the bible seems to only allow one. That's why I gave my example on babies that are born with no clear sexual orientation, and that's why I posted the link that discussed homosexuality in the animal world. Did you read any of the links? You even seem to have said that but for mans law you would see no problem killing gays because the bible says that's what to do. You even seemed to have said that even though a child is born with their brain wired to be homosexual or of the opposite sex (did God allow that?) then that would be wrong because the bible says it's so, I guess implying that those children have to deny who they are for your religious beliefs. If you confine your arguments to non religious ones they don't make sense, nor are they born out in fact, but I don't think you looked at the natural world and then consulted your bible for proof, I think you took your interpretation of the bible and then tried to see how the natural world might fit that interpretation, then if the natural world doesn't quite fit there's always the bible to set things straight. Kinda like the early religious teachings that said the universe revolved around the Earth, it was so because the bible gave us proof and that's what religious leaders were forcing us to believe, under threat of heresy, I might add. The other aspect to this discussion is that somehow if we allow gays to marry that will force their views on the rest of us. This is simly not true, no more than allowing other religions to exist forces those religious views on the rest of us. Gays don't want a special law on gay marriage, just the same application of the law as it is applied to the rest of us. I also find it odd that you want to keep government out of everyones life until it comes to preserving your religious views, then you want the government to control everyones life through the Constitution, for which it was never intended to be used, to create a subclass of citizens separate from the rest of us. Now I can be open about when to use the term "marriage", as only in a church, but how do you define a gay marriage then that is done in a church? See, we get into grey territory that I think we should let evolve naturally in the community and not be defined in law. Great discussion by the way that has not deteriorated as some in the past.
[ August 19, 2004, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: needtoknow ]