And I have made REPEATED posts that make using this argument a mockery.

1.Canibalism
2.Infanticide
3.Incest
4.Stealing a spouse from another through violence
5.Spouse killing partner after sex

All occur in nature.

Simply because an animal does something is no justification for human behaviour.

This is one "parry" you have completely ignored.

[quote]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

Quote:

*Cut the post down for size sake only* Hope I answered you fully. SOrry I don't see opposite to you enough to outright argue against you. My final point: I reiterate that legal "marriage" (i.e. partnership benefits which could be otherwise created by contracts/estates/trusts) is a DIFFERENT THING than religious marriage (which carries the meaning assigned to it by the particular church).

As usual TL on the legal front we do agree, but no kissing on this one ;) Imagine that a devout Atheist and a devout Christain agreeing what is the world coming too. Should homosexual couples/partners be afforded the legal rights of citzens? Of course their citzenship has nothing to do with, how or who they "Boink". As for there being a differance between legal and religious marriage, yes and no. Yes they have differant cerimonies, No in this country a couple married in a Church is just as married as a couple at the courthouse.
As for the animal kingdom see my reason for not using that logic, bad logic to use it opens up the pro side to much more damage than, it helps.

IN fact (Not for TL but for those that havn't really read what I have posted) No where can you find where I say that homosexuals should not be afforded the rights of citizenship neither has Sir K in fact in his opening post he clearly states that.

So what that leaves us with is The word "marriage" it has a meaning, quit changing words to create a new meanning, and create a new word much easier, effiecent, and effective. Personaly I'm just getting into the frey for the fun of expossing the logic used. The problem here is that people want to be accepted as ok by others, sorry that ain't going to happen, the real fight is will they be accpeted by the government. As long as the fight is you must accept me but I don't have to accept you it is utter foolish stupidity. Live Your lives people, who gives a rats rear end if others accept you or not, it's your life not theirs they have their own lives to live. You live yours and let them live theirs.

No legal rights should be deined, you've not read any of my posts, nowhere have I even come close to abvocanting homosexuals should not be afforded the rights of citizenship. My posts have been on the use of a word in the english language, and when ASKED about the religious stance I've answered it, as I do try to answer all question posed to me. I understand Legal and religious are not the same, and I've not even tried to argue that point.

Read my post to Chewbacca's questions when he re-posed them. You'll see they were answered Before they were asked.

On the animals all I'm saying is don't use that logic it opens the pro side for more harm then it helps. In fact I'm giving the pro side advice that if heeded would remove a powerful agrument of the anti side. But knowing human nature I don't believe that the pro side will follow the advice. Pick you battles ;)

And I have made REPEATED posts that make using this argument a mockery.

1.Canibalism
2.Infanticide
3.Incest
4.Stealing a spouse from another through violence
5.Spouse killing partner after sex

All occur in nature.

Simply because an animal does something is no justification for human behaviour.

This is one "parry" you have completely ignored. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, Yorick, I just missed em. Not ignored them.

Yes, all of those things occur naturally. In and of themselves, may or may not be wrong, but .... as a society though we have adopted the notions (generally speaking) of do no harm to others, live and let live and all that. So that address all of your counter points but #3.

Now, incest is a societal taboo, not a physical one. It is not necessarily wrong, except from a genetics point of view, if breeding were to take place, the risk of recessive weaknesses in the DNA structure greatly increases.

Now, from the possible baby's point of view, incest is not recommended. But, if breeding does not happen, it does no harm to others, and falls under the category of consenting adults. As does homosexuality.

I am not trying to destroy your nor anyone elses view of religion. Nor do I advocate that lifestyle. But I am a strong libritarian and think that they should have every right of heterosexual couples.

JD, it appears we are both agreeing and disagreeing on the topic. The point of contention being terminology. I could really care less about terminology. I can see where the gay community, seeking acceptance from the larger populace would like the rest of us to use the same terms when refering to them, but I think that may be short sighted. But the UltraCons proposing a Constitutional Ammendment to ban them is utterly rediculus.

And canibalism and the other "natural occurences" like theft, murder, rape and the like?

Monagamy is natural in 3-5% of animals, as is showing affection and sheltering the young. Organizing into social groups is found in the animal kingdom.

Maybe I just missed the point, but comparing homosexuality to cannablism, incest, ect. is just way way way out there.

What should only matter is how its occurance in nature relates to the human animal. For this we must elevate from comarisons to the animal world.

Now you are ignoring arguements Yorick. I've already agreed that they do happen "naturally", but they also fall into the category of harming others.

Homosexuallity, though, is both natural and consentual. Now, one could argue that they are harming their souls, but in a nation where the concerns of Church and State are separated, that has no bearing under the law. They could be excummunicated from the Church, and they may be banned from Heaven. But both of those are beyond the scope of this topic.

A very interesting article, well documented : On the Evolution and Cross-Cultural Variation in Male Homosexuality. [img]smile.gif[/img]

How does eating the dead harm others?

In any case, have you been following the arguments? Chruches have homosexuals in them. Mine does for example. They are not "banned from heaven". Are you reading wht's being written or not?

Whether or not something is harmful or not is not the point. You used the argument "it occurs in nature" as a defense. It doesn't hold any water whatsoever. Left to nature alone, a newborn human would die before their first month. Other animals are independently able to survive from day one. For humans it is only through society, through the initial love and concern from others, through interdependence with others that we survive.

THAT is what is natural to humans. As such, what is natural is that we establish groundrules for that society to exist and flourish. If one of those groundrule include an emphasis on encouraging healthy males and females to engage in lifelong procreational and family building potential behaviour, then that is that societies perogative.

The fittest will survive.

Catholics - without Papal endorsed birth control - will soon outnumber protestants in Northern Ireland. Referendum of unification with Eire anyone? The solution to the "troubles" may be that simple.

Put simply, a society of 100% homosexuals will not survive a generation. We are all the product of hetrosexual activity.

THAT is natural and the law of nature. The fittest survive.

Well, i wouldn't exactly feel comfortable with the idea of someone eating my grandfather's dead body, would you ?