08-18-2004, 01:37 AM
Quote:I'm not justifying it because it happens in nature. However, many people call it "an unatural perversion to the natural order of things." I would assume that things that happen in nature on a fairly regular basis is, in fact, natural.Ok. Many mammals will eat their young if there is a risk to the nest. Male lions will exterminate any unrelated offspring in a pride. It happens in nature. Taking the devils advocate position, one could take the position that the primary purpose of sexuality in nature is for procreation. The fact that it is pleasurable for humans is a trick of nature to induce us to suffer through child rearing. I think the best defense of any sexuality between adults for non-procreation puposes is that it is of no concern to anyone other than those adults involved. Generally, humans are the exception to the rule when it comes to nature, and I think we are guilty of performing "unnatural acts" in many areas other than sexuality.
Quote:But the mere fact that it is different in the case is implying that it's not "worthy" of being called marriage, like it is something less.Well, it is. It is marriage without all the religious encumberances. Let the devotees of a religion be married, and those who do not want the religious baggage have something else. If the religions want to change to accept homosexuality, then they can offer gay marriages. So, if the Anglicans, for instance, want to allow gay clergy, gay bishops and sanction gay marriages why should the state interfere with that particular sects beliefs? But, until homosexuality is commonly accepted by the culture, a gay marriage by civil union may not be recognized by most churches, and many bigots. The important distinction is that there should be zero difference in how it is treated by the state.