My reply is too long; I'll have to split it into two posts.

Originally Posted by
BigJulie
And yet alcholism and sexual behavior are both based on behaviors while skin color is not.
How many times do we have to go over this—sexual behavior is (um, rather by definition) based on behavior; attractional orientation is not.
Please provide something other than a WIKI.
Seriously? You're complaining about source objectivity while linking me to "catholiceducation.org"? I'm dumbstruck.
Nonetheless, read what I offered at Wiki again: "a decent summary and links to further resources on the empirical research". Take the first example, Twin Studies. You'll find a summary within the text, as well as footnotes leading to the studies, in this case to the empirical, peer-reviewed scientific journals American Journal of Sociology, the American Neurological ***ociation's Journal of nervous and mental disease, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and Archives of sexual behavior.
Regardless, behaviors that are harmful, even if genetic, such as alcholism, are not embraced by society.
You have yet to establish that a ****sexual orientation is harmful, and even if you had, it does not follow that same-sex relationships should be criminalized, or driven underground, or any other method of legal discrimination.
Even if your slanderous comparison to addictions were accurate, the government does not prohibit people from purchasing alcohol (even alcoholics!) or tobacco.
Did you even read the article I provided you.
I read it about as thoroughly as I'd read this book—“THE NEGRO A BEAST”
. . . OR . . .
“IN THE IMAGE OF GOD”
The Reasoner of the Age, the Revelator of the Century!
The Bible as it is!
The Negro and His Relation to the Human Family!
The Negro a beast, but created with articulate speech,
and hands, that he may be of service to
his master—the White man.
The Negro not the Son of Ham,
Neither can it be proven by the Bible, and the argument
of the theologian who would claim such, melts
to mist before the thunderous and
convincing arguments of this
masterful book.
—(pdf), printed in 1900, arguing that black people are not humans. (That's a heck of a ***le, though, I must admit.) Or the 1894 book Revolted Woman: Past, Present, and to Come, arguing that if women gain civil equality, they will have deformed children and destroy the human race.
Which is to say, no. I skimmed through it as a curiosity, for its bad logic and bigotry, but I felt no need to closely ****yze its arguments.
Let's get gross here for a moment---the body is not meant to conform to ****sexual sexual practices. As a result, damage is done to the body and it becomes suseptible to all kinds of diseases.
1. Many gay men do not have **** sex.
2. Virtually no lesbians have **** sex.
3. Many heterosexual couples have **** sex.
**** sex is not a "****sexual sexual practice".
****sexuality is a behavior---you can't be sexual until you act on a feeling. You can't be anything that is determined by a behavior at all unless you act. You can't be a baseball player until you stand at a plate. You can't be a pianist until you sit at a piano. I might feel to hurt someone, but I am not considered violent until I act.
You're welcome to your private idiosyncratic definition, but you shouldn't expect reality to bend to your will. As I've said before—from my earliest childhood memories, the entirety of my schoolboy crushes—whether on actors, cl***mates, or whatever—were women and girls. All of this before I even knew what sex was.
I have always been heterosexual.
Marriage isn't based on the fact that some couples may be infertile. Marriage is based on the fact that when a man and a woman get together, offspring is a possibility and offspring is ONLY a possibility when a man and a woman have intercourse. Marriage is that union. Yes, I know that we have desecrated marriage to the point that the purpose has been lost--but look at the end result of our society. Crime, drug abuse---so many problems in society can be linked to the failure in the home. Every teacher who has ever taught children will tell you, children from homes where the parents are not home, single parents, chidren of divorce--these kids are struggling.
A man is different than a woman and a woman is different than a man. It takes a man and a woman to have a child and as such, the child has a right to be raised by both and the best scenario is for the child to have their biological parents who raises them in love. This "best practice" has been desecrated over and over again. Now, to think that a child does not need a mother or a father is ludicrous. A ****sexual recognizes a differences when choosing a partner--and now the child is not supposed to notice a difference of not having one or the other (and society too)? ****sexual "marriage" is just one more nail in the coffin for the well-being of children.
You're welcome to believe all this, but none of it has anything to do with the legality of marriage, either descriptively or prescriptively.
Acceptions to the rule should not make the rule. We don't do a fertility test for marriage, we just understand that offspring is a possible result. And, all situations, in which you gave---if these people did adopt, there would be a man and a woman to raise the child. While adoptions are a bandaid--these homes would still at least, at minimum recognize that a man and a woman are not the same and that a child should have both.
A man and a woman is different than 2 men or 2 women. Men and women are different. If ****sexuals themselves did not recognize tihs difference, there would be no reason to be ****sexual.
I have yet to see evidence that two men or two women are incapable of providing healthy, stable, loving homes for their children, either adoptive or natural. In any case, adoption law is a separate issue from marriage law. Married couples who are unstable or have mental health issues are prohibited from adopting, no? So if the empirical evidence actually showed that gay people are bad at parenting, then prohibit them from parenting. Prohibiting them from marrying is a non sequitur.
Yes, and we can see from tribal experiences, that this open sex policies has resulted in disaster and even the discontinuation of many tribes.
Source? I've never heard anything of the sort.