[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by XR1stang :

Let us not forget that not too long ago that very same "time-tested legal definition of marriage" also precluded white folks marrying black folks, black folks marrying asian folks, and asian folks from marrying white folks. Also that same definition (but a little earlier in time) precluded people of different national origins from marrying each other, and let's not even bother to touch on the subject of arranged marriages. So personally I think that argument is full of more holes than swiss cheese.

You may think what you wish but your contention is completely false. First of all, one cannot compare two essentially different realities. There is simply no analogy between interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex. Inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior, which describes homosexuality. Artificial barriers to marriage based on race or origin were attempts to preclude people of different races from marriage, a manifestation of past racial discrimination in America that still florishes in other parts of the world where certain races, tribes and ethnic groups are not legally allowed to intermarry. What homosexuals demand is that we radically alter the legal definition of 'marriage' to now include people who are biologically the same: homosexuals. That is absurd and the fact that homosexual activists try to sell the idea by tying it to past racial discrimination that precluded black and white races from marriage is clever but a totally false premise. As much as 'gay marriage' advocates want to believe it, there is no comparison because race is genetic and immutable but homosexuality is not.

Oh one other thing I wanted to touch on. Someone hinted at "looking at the flowers and animals" because they got it "right". I would like to point that poster to the fact that sea lions, sea gulls, grey wolves and numerous other animals have been known to have homosexual relationships. Heck, I could point you to the fact that your common domesticated dog will hump ANYTHING regardless of whether it's alive or inanimate, male or female, or even of a DIFFERENT species all together. There are also certain flowers that have been found to only propagate through the interaction of pollen from TWO female flowers of that species... oh, and what about all the androgynous/asexual species of animals/insects that are out there? Care to touch on that subject?

Yes, I do. You're simply making the case that exceptions in nature prove the rule in a lame attempt to defend the indefensible. In Homo Sapiens hetrosexuality is the norm due to simple biology. Same-sex male partners seeking something akin to normal male sexual gratification are forced to use a male anus as a (poor) substitute for the female vagina. Two females must use artificial applicances to simulate male-female copulation, proving their same-sex sexual practices are clearly unnatural. While oral and anal sex is also practiced by hetrosexuals, only a male and a female have congruent physical bodies that compliment each other sexually. Male and female humans are made to copulate, conceive and bear children, which is obvious and undisputable. Same-sex couples cannot do this and their attempts to copulate are biologically unnatural. In addition, homosexuals attraction to the same sex has never come close to being proven the result of a genetic component. All of which make the attempt to compare some animals and plants reproductive activity to human sexuality an invalid premise but one is trotted out by 'gay marriage' advocates every time, no matter how often it's shot down. Again: you are attempting to defend the indefensible.