Gilda

Marriage is a civil right in the United States. This is a fact, and to deny it is to deny reality.

Loving v. Virginia establishes marriage as a constitutionally protected civil right under the 14th amendment.

Incest, either between a brother and sister, parent and child, or uncle/aunt and neice/nephew increases the chance that offspring produced will have reinforced harmful recessive genes. Long term inbreeding likewise increases the chance of offspring having recessive genetic diseases.

Homosexuality, however, has a zero chance of producing offspring with genetic diseases.

Also, your example isn't really parallel. If you're going to go down that slippery slope, we're already on it. Most incestuous relationships are between a male and a female--it's more closely related to heterosexuality than it is homosexuality.

Strange. You made an absolute statment, which was easy to refute, then react as if you didn't mean it as absolute, then repeat the same absolute statement. You can't have it both ways. The fact that there have been recent changes in Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain, and Canada on gay marriage refutes on its face the claim that it "has always been" between a man and a woman. It also refutes the statement "For as long as anyone can remember". I remember the last couple of years when several countries amended their laws to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples. I'm sure the people in those countries remember that as well.

It isn't necessary for me to name an ancient culture to disprove these statements. You're making an absolute claim, that it has always been this way, and then setting as your criterion for disputing that claim one small part of it. It doesn't work that way.

I understand why you phrase it the way you do. It has more power that way, and if true, carries more weight. It's a dangerous tactic because it makes it easier to disprove, which I have done.

Oh, and your last sentence is misleading. People haven't just "tried to challenge that" it has been successfully challenged and changed.

"A man and a woman" hasn't always been the norm. For much of recorded history, polygyny has been an accepted form of group marriage, both in Western and Eastern cultures.

Finally, in ancient Greece and ancient Rome, to name two, male homosexuality was both commonplace and accepted, especially among the upper classes.

Marriage is a form of social structure.



How can dressing and occupying the social role of the opposite sex even to the point of forming a premanent pair bond with someone of the same physical sex not be related to sexuality?

Well, first, homosexuality isn't the same thing as homosexual sex. I'm gay because I'm attracted to women and not to men. That attraction preexisted any homosexual contact I ever had with a woman. I share a household with, sleep with, have an intimate social and spiritual bond with, and will in the foreseeable future be raising a child with as coparents, another woman.

Many male homosexuals identify as gay and exhibit feminine characterstics from early childhood, four or five, long before becoming sexually active.

Heterosexuals aren't heterosexual solely when having sex. Heterosexual behavior isn't limited solely to intercourse. The same is true of homosexuality and homosexual sex.

You're using the same tactic here, making a broad claim--homosexuality is unnatural--and asking for proof that one specific part of that claim is untrue to refute it. It simply doesn't work that way.

By the way, I've seen a male dog hump another male dog. Male mammals when stimulated will try to fuck just about anything available, including other males of the same or even different species.

Also, what, precisely, is "homosexual intercourse"? I can't think of any sexual activity engaged in by homosexuals that is not also engaged in by heterosexuals. This isn't to say that there aren't I just can't think of any. Is it unnatural only when homosexuals do it, or is also unnatural when heterosexuals do it?

I don't dispute this. Since homosexual sex cannot result in reproduction, "social interaction and to relieve stress", along with "it's a lot of fun" is a pretty good way to describe human homosexual sex. For intimate couples, it can be a form of emotional and spiritual bonding, too, but that's hardly a homosexual characteristic.

Gilda