[QUOTE]
Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post

You are mistaken. Attractional orientation is far deeper than "a behavior"—it speaks to attractions, likes, predilictions. I was heterosexual long before I engaged in sexual activity—indeed long before I knew what sex was. When I was a child, the entirety of the set of people to whom I felt attractions or schoolboy crushes were women/girls.
And human sexuality goes far deeper than just preferences---ask any rape victim or sexual abuse victim. Sexuality is socialized as well as other things. Yet, it is still a behavior that defines it.

Bigotry is bigotry. Nobody is saying racial bigotry is the same as bigotry against non-heterosexuals—rather we are saying it is ****ogous.
But, maybe the gay rights movement is stretching this too far. Bigotry against race is far different rather than closer and to use the Martin Luther King argument is not right to blacks and what they went through. The argument has been said that ****sexuals have never had to sit on the back of the bus, use separate bathrooms, etc. What the gay right movement wants is to be recognized as different but accepted as the same.


It depends on if there's a basis for the bigotry, apart from tradition and religious preference.
What if it is "bigotry" because there are those in society who feel that the union that can and often does produce a child should be protected precisely because it can bring children into the world. Nature dictates that a ****sexual union cannot produce a child. Anyway you slice it, it is not the same thing. If it is not, then why should we pretend it is?



Two words: Informed Consent.
Yes, has marriage been desecrated to little more than "informed consent"?

You can call them whatever you want: you can't restrict their behavior using the force of civil law without a rational justification.
I am not restricting their behavior. But why should I think that that behavior is the same when it is clearly different.

You could choose to listen to heavy metal music; could you choose to like it?
Ever heard of Pavlov? Sexuality is not just some biological setting. If you want to talk about statistics of ****sexuality, should we bring up the diseases (not talking about AIDS here) like hepa***is, because the body is not meant to function in the way they behave? Increased violence---you explain why there is an increase in violence in ****sexual relationships (don't know myself). What about the higher number of partners (also well researched.) So, the question is, how as a society have we gone from understanding ****sexuality is a harmful behavior to embracing it?

I appreciate your willingness to consider equal protection under the law for gay people. Honestly. Thank you.
I am willing to consider equal protection under the law--I am also willing to be honest about the stats that come with ****sexuality and the obvious problems that go with it. Are you willing to do that as well?

And as it was defined 40 years ago, it was a union between a man and a woman of the same race.
And as it was defined 100 years ago, it was the union between a man and his property.
And as it was defined 500 years ago, it was the union between a king and his national ally.
And as it was defined in Biblical times, it was the union between a man and as many women as he wished, or a man and his rape victim, or a man and the spoils of war.
...
It is still defined this way. Every single one of these definitions can be used. It speaks to a contractual agreement for the protection of those within the stewardship. Today, it is the children. Children still need to be protected and there is a reason that statistics show that children do best when they are raised by their biological mother and father who are still married. They don't do as well with divorce. They don't do as well with single parents. They don't do as well with adoption. That's the stats.

Marriage has undeniably evolved over time. Allowing a small minority, who has traditionally been excluded, to marry will not upend the social order—and will certainly have no effect on my marriage with my wife.
But just as divorce, single parenthood, infidelity, out-of-wedlock children, etc. etc. have had a large toll on this society and a large cost to society, it is naive to think we could lose one more protection for children and it also not affect society. Men and women are not the same. There is more similarity between a 5 year old girl and an 80 year old woman than there is between a 50 year old man and a 50 year old woman. Medically, biologically, we are not the same creatures. If you don't believe in God, then at least accept Darwin created differnces in parents for a reason.


Perhaps you should meet some gay people and see what they think of your suggestion.

Thanks for the discussion.
I know many. They are very nice---but I would say this to their face as readily as to yours. Men and women are different. Children deserve more than to be a pet to someone's dream of what they want in life.