It has been.  Not only do other species (specifically chimpanzes) engage in homosexual behavior it has also been shown on various brain scans that there is a marked difference between a heterosexuals brain and a homosexuals brain regard attraction.  I don't have specific links to provide to you but the studies have been done.

Then at one time it was "special" to have interracial marriages, aren't they legal today?  Why then should it be different between homosexual couples?

Slavery wasn't the full cornerstone which is why I included indentured servents which was widely used in the North and if you ask me was just as bad as slavery.

How is the man/woman relationship a foundation of any state or our country?  Aren't "all men created equal" shouldn't that extend to whom they love?  Religion is irrelevant as the bill of rights grants us the freedom to practice whatever religion we wish, or to practice no religion.  Our tax system is always changing so again that is irrelevant.  As for social structure I once again refer you to the times of slavery and segregation.  Just because something is the status quo doesn't make it right.

Again we are talking about a legal definition of marriage not a religious one.  Religion has no place in law or government.  If the definition of marriage is broadened to encompass homosexuals that wouldn't mean that any given religion would be forced to marry those couples.  Just like today if a Catholic church didn't want to marry a couple because one of them isn't Catholic that is completely within their rights as a church no one would force them to marry homosexual couples.  As for marriage in nature, as far as I'm aware no other species get married, some mate for life if you want to call that marriage fine but equally there are species that have homosexual relationships therefore it is perfectly natural whether you agree with it or not is an entirely different issue.

Most of the research I've seen regarding this doesn't address children of homosexual couples but rather those of single parent households.  I could be wrong but I'm not sure I buy the argument that a mother can't teach her son to be a man and a father can't teach his daughter to be a woman.

Love is not something that can be taught.  I was never taught to love my wife, I just knew how to do it instinctually.  As for a father or mother helping their children thru adolesence my father didn't really help me thru mine he was absent emotionally in part due to the untimely death of my mother.  That said I turned out pretty darn good even with a single parent for most of my life, I would imagine the same could be said for homosexual couples.  Even if marriage is defined as being between a man and woman you can't guarantee that both parents will be around for the entire childhood of their children due to deaths, divorce, etc.  So to me this argument is null and void.

I would imagine they would go thru the exact same experiences as a child with a mom and dad who get divorced.  Divorce sucks what does it matter whether you have a mother and a father or two dads or two moms or whatever.

Again you can't guarantee that every child with a mother and father will always have a mother and father.  Some will lose a parent to early death, or divorce.  It happens, that's life, this argument is null and void as a result.

But none of those commitments carry with them the legally binding rights.  Grandparents can't file their taxes jointly with their grandchildren.  A neighbor may not be allowed in the hospital room of a dieing neighbor.  When homosexual couples are commited to each other much in the same way as a married man and woman shouldn't they be afforded the same rights that a husband and wife have?  What happens if one of the partners dies?  If they don't happen to have a will made out then the surviving partner gets nothing.  In some cases the surviving partner can't even collect the life insurance from the one that died.  How is that right?

No offense but this argument is neither here nor there.  These societies didn't fall because of homosexuality.  Just because they had homosexuals doesn't mean that there was a causal relationship between the homosexuals and their downfall.

So people are choosing not to get married.  That's happening in this country.  The main reason that my wife and I got married was because it made filing taxes easier.  We both love each other and already felt married well before we actually said the vows.  Neither of us felt the need to get marriage other than the fact that it made filing taxes and other legal issues easier to deal with.  I guess I just don't see how legalizing homosexual marriage impacted the statistics that you cited.

Maybe I'm misreading this but it sounds to me that you would rather return to the 40s and 50s where the man went out to work and the woman stayed at home cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the kids.  I'm sorry I don't see our society crumbling because women have moved out of the kitchen, I think our society is stronger because of it.  We had a female running for president for crying out loud.  As for the entertainment industry, it would have no influence over our children if parents (single and otherwise) would do their jobs in educating their kids on the difference between right and wrong, but that is a topic for another thread.  Again it seems like you taking correlations and assigning causal relationships.

I think assault is the wrong term but there is the desire to broaden the definition of the family that I will agree with.  If you are ok with civil unions I don't see what there problem with just calling them all civil unions or all marriages is.

Again I am addressing the idea of marriage from a legal standpoint not a religious one.  Religion has no place in law or government, that's what our founding fathers wanted.  So you can continue to think that homosexuality is a sin, but why can't homosexuals have the same rights as you and I?

All of that said I think I definitely have a better understanding of where you come from and I thank you for taking your time to explain it.  To sum it up it sounds like you define marriage from a religious standing, because the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman it must be so legally.  As I feel that religion has no place in law or government I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on this issue but thank you for explaining your standpoint.

Well put.  Maybe we should legally change all "marriages" termed civil unions and let the various religions perform marriages.  That way all couples that wish to join in a civil union (both same sex and mixed sex) can enjoy the same rights and priviledges without offending anyone with the term marriage applied to both.

That's important! It will be the most used feature of the Obama universal health plan.

EL-DUDERINO - Help me to understand.  I find it odd that you would make the absurd claim that somehow it is unacceptable that one might guide political decisions with a particular religious outlook, that of a theist, and then demand that one uses a different religious outlook, that of the atheist. What happened to not establishing a state religion? Why do you appeal to the 2nd amendment when it comes to the Christian worldview only to throw away your argument to provide a special case for the atheist?

If the issue was whether to legalize theft or murder, would you honestly argue against the Christian that voted against the measure because of their religious beliefs and demand that they have some non-religious reason you sanction before voting?  Or what if one decided that since their religious convictions against the measure don't count in EL-DUDERINO's eyes, that they would use a non-religious means of choosing how to vote, like flipping a coin?

I for one would be glad for anyone that voted against such a hypothetical measure, whatever the reason, and I think you would too.  It sounds to me that because you are in the minority on this issue, and you don't like that the majority have religious reasons (among other reasons) for their position, thus you want to deny their freedom to act on their moral convictions.

So, people still have good values about what is really love about.

I am glad to hear this news.

Not very well either.  He bummed them off his campaign workers.

Agree 100%.

This would be a good argument, except you're missing something.  This is not about having a religious reason versus having no reason.  As someone familar with the basic tenets of the Constitution, you would know that it contains provisions intended to prohibit the establishment of a particular religious belief to the detriment of others.  If your argument is really that, from a religious standpoint, gay marriage should be banned, what about the religions that do not find gay marriage problematic?  In that case, you are privileging Christian beliefs-- and moreover not even beliefs held by all Christians-- over others.  That's pretty clearly unconstitutional.

The comparison to theft or murder is misleading, as it subtly implies gay marriage is somehow comprable.  Until you can demonstrate that it is, this is a bad analogy.

If you can't come up with any basis for criminalizing theft or murder than religious reasons, you have a problem.

I'm not sure when people decided that, because someone is in the minority on an issue, they must be wrong.  And further, any arguments they make should be automatically discounted because "the majority has spoken."  Fortunately, democracy is an ongoing process, as some people seem to have forgotten, and discussion and debate between informed citizens is vital to maintaining the health of our country's political system.  If a person believes the majority is wrong on a given issue, they should feel free to speak up and question it, rather than be silenced.

I don't think this statement is misleading at all.  Homosexuality has always, in the past, been  considered a sin or deviant behavior until most recently. 

It's only been fairly recently that we've chosen (for the most part) to get this deviant behavior accepted as an alternative lifestyle.  In fact Homosexuality was on a list of psychological disorders as late as 1973.  Robert Spitzer who was the President of APA during the 70's  was instrumental in getting homosexuality taken off the list only to recant years later saying he made a mistake. 

All we've done is move it from the sin list to the acceptable lifestyle list. 

Why is it not ok to murder and steal?  Where did we get that from?  What set of principles did we draw from to get our rules and laws? 

It all started with the 10 commandments.  So like it or not...our country was founded on moral Christian principles and there is a truckload of evidence in the history books (not revisionist) to prove it. 

I'm confused.  Didn't you also argue that there were ancient societies in the past that tolerated and accepted homosexuality?

True.  But that doesn't mean is was right.  There were reasons why it was taken off the list.  Frankly, I'll go with the American Psychological Association as a whole on this one, rather than the one individual Spitzer, given that his "recantation" was based on non-random sampling procedures, and was basically discredited by any reliable peer review.

I've studied constitutional history, including the Founders.  I can safely say that there are at least some scholars, conservatives even, who think the opposite.  Personal letters of Jefferson, for instance, reveal that he held Jesus to be not divine but mortal.  So suffice to say, it isn't as self-evident as you make it sound.

Make me the argument that homosexuality is as harmful as murder.  Please.

Like it or not we live in a secular society.  Our constitution is set up in that manor.  Our founding fathers recognized that letting religion be involved in government or laws is a bad idea, it was part of what they were rebelling against in the first place.  I am not argueing for an atheistic viewpoint I am merely stating that using "god says being homosexual is a sin" is an invalid argument when dealing with the legal standing of marriage.  Your god may claim that homosexuality is a sin but anothers god may say that homosexuality is worthy of death, and another may say that homosexuals should be put on a pedistal.  Should any of those positions be made into law, of course not.  That isn't puting atheism into law but keeping religion out of the law.

Again I would argue that one shouldn't use religion to base any legal viewpoint.  Be against theft or murder for some other reason, because it has a victim that is obviously hurt in both cases perhaps.  If you use religion to help you decide what is right and wrong that's fine but it shouldn't be the sole basis of any legal standing because we have a constitutional protection from that religion interfering in our lives.  One religion may say that theft is wrong and should be punished by the removal of a persons fingers or hands, another may say that it is wrong and warrants only a slap on the wrist, while still another may say that theft is ok in certain circumstances.  How does the law pick which religious view is the "right" one?  You can't therefore there must be some other rationale for making something illegal and picking the punishment for the crime.

As for being in the minority on a position, it was once the majority opinion to not allow blacks to vote.  It was once the majority opinion to not let blacks use the same water fountains as whites.  It was once the majority opinion to not let women vote, it was once the majority position to not let women work.  Simply put the "majority" isn't always right.  That doesn't mean that I am right on any given issue which is why I strive to understand where everyone is coming from so that I can make an informed decision and modify my opinions as I aquire new information.  My assertion here is that because we have a freedom of religion and a freedom from religion in this country then we cannot use religion as the sole basis for a legal decision.  If you want to think that homosexuality is a sin that's fine but that doesn't mean that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Believe me, I've studied this at length and for years as well.  I can absolutely say with confidence that we can take Jefferson's writings (one of the least religious founders) and make him out to be quite the bible thumper in comparison to today. 

KFC, I understand your argument and I too voted against gay marriage because I don't agree with it either. But to say that a man can not raise a girl and a woman can not raise a boy is not a very good argument because this is something done all the time. My sister from Puerto Rico is not gay/lesbian yet she has a son that has to live in a house with 4 women (2 sisters, a mother and a grandmother), not to mention his father lives in Chicago and he is doing just fine. Sure, he is not your typical boy who thinks women should be in the kitchen while the boys get to do manly stuff, but he is not very feminine either.

Keep in mind that while in a lesbian relationship there may not be a male figure, there are male people in their lives that could provide the necessary education for a boy to be a man (what ever that is considered in todays world) and the same can be said about a gay couple having women in their lives. My only concern would be that a gay/lesbian couple would want to raise a child in the same manner a father tries to raise a boy or a mother tries to raise a girl.

It's traditional for most men to want their sons to be, well, men. Watch football, Sports illustrated swimsuit edition, construction worker, mechanic, muscle cars and stuff like that. It's also traditional for mother to want their daughters to be more feminine, sexy clothing and accesories, cooking, shopping, WE tv (please, I am not trying to stereotype men and women here, I am simply using the most basic of this to relate them with). For a gay/lesbian couple to attempt to make the child (boy or girl) to be like them when the child may not be gay/lesbian is a bit freightning to me, not that I am saying they all w ill do this, but people already complain about parents who try to keep their children from accepting they may be gay.

It's a very conflicting issue that will simply draw more and more rules to be changed just to satisfy every small difference when one simple rule to stop it all would seem more effective. But that's just my opinion.

No it did not.  Many of our founding fathers were Christians that is true, but many of them were not, some were simply diests and others were athiests.  In fact some of the Christians among them felt that religion was a private matter meant for the home rather than anything involved in government and law.  The 10 commandments were NOT a basis for our society. That said some of those commandments are simply universal I think everyone can agree that killing people is bad, not because god said so but because you are taking the life of another person ie there is a victim.  And even then there is a little gray area where some murder is considered justified.  I think everyone can agree that stealing is wrong, again not because god said so but because there is a victim.

Did you choose who you love?  Did you walk into a room and say "I'm going to love that person and not this person"?  I know I didn't.  I didn't have any choice in the matter I just fell in love.  Why is it a psychological disorder for somone to be in love with someone of the same sex just because it doesn't fit in with what you consider normal?  If you are in a same race relationship is it a psychological disorder for someone to be in an interracial relationship just because it doesn't fit in with what you consider "normal"?

Charles all I'm saying is it's in the best interest of the boy to have a dad.  Wouldn't you agree? 

What's in his best interest?  Is it better for him to be raised by 4 women or a mom and a dad as God and nature intended? 

If I were raised by two dads and had no mother I think I'd be a bit resentful myself everytime I saw my girldfriend shop and snuggle with her mom on the couch.  Every girl wants a mom.  Every boy needs a dad.  Sure they can do without if situations dictate but why are we looking for it?  Why are we setting homes up like this when it's clearly not in the best interest of the children? 

It seems to be a little arrogant, or at least naive, to assume that your opinion stands as the final word in this matter.  I know and have met children raised by gay/lesbian couples.  They seemed happy.  In fact, what bothered them most was that people treated them like they were somehow "deficient" in their development because their family structure was different.

The overwhelming evidence on childhood development of individuals raised by gay/lesbian couples shows no significant difference.  Conclusion:  specific family qualities are more important than the sexual orientation of the parents.

This idea that families that are different are bad is the same logic that demonizes single parents.  Hopefully we can all agree that is somewhat problematic.