Philo.

Marriage between humans is a "social" act and institution.
Sex is a biological act - procreation is biological. Marriage, however, is a social mechanism.

Kipp

Dale O'Leary is not George Reakers, and she has nothing to do with NARTH. (Otherways I cannot see any reason to question George Reakers' honesty.) I am sorry but you have no excuse... You read the literature or you prove to be bigot in my eyes.

It is a popularized false belief that "homosexuals are born that way as science proved it".

It is a popularised false belief that "homosexuality is harmless for homosexuals or for other people".

It is a popularitsed false belief, that "homosexual parenting has no harmful effect on children".

And it is also a false belief that homosexuality is not an illness or that it cannot be cured.

See the scientific evidence behind these statements:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/genetic.html
http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/hparent1.html
http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/index.htm#6

Judith Stacey - Timothy Biblarz: (How) Does The Sexual Orientation Of Parents Matter? American Sociological Review 2001/2

Goode - Troyden; Psychiatry, 1980, 43: 51-59

Doll et al. Child Abuse & Neglect, 1992, 18: 825-864
www.narth.com

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14567650?dopt=Abstract

Archives of Sexual Behavior 2003 Oct;32(5):403-17 (discussion 419-72).

If anyone has just one day or at least a few hours to read these articles, he or she would have a couple of convincing arguments against the "normalcy" and political or legal acceptability of homosexual marriage.

Poirot,

Marriage is and has always been a biological union.

The marriage ceremony publicly formalizes the sexual union of the couple to the exclusion of all other persons (why all other persons?); and the legal contract registers such a union with the State the legitimacy of that exclusive union.

The couple might have many close loving relationships and shared property with others but if it does not involve a sexual union and it is not a marriage. If it does involve sex it is adultery, and is a violation of the contracted agreement. It does not violate the agreement for one party to inherit property or to love someone else.

Don't tell me that homosexual do not want "marriage" to legitamise their sexual union as normal, as acceptable and legal. Surely it is not just about love and property which does not need a marriage, but a mere civil contract.

Philo,

If marriage was a biological imperative for sexual union and procreation, then it would not be possible to produce offspring from a "living together" arrangement. It does "not" serve a biological function. It does, however, "formalise" a social arrangement.

Philo,
Every single member of the taxonomical class mammalia reproduces sexually, from pygmy shrews to blue whales. Only one of them gets married, 'coz marriage is a sociological concept invited by man, whereas sexual reproduction is a biological phenomenon which has been around for a lot longer than the species Homo sapiens. If sexual reproduction were the same as marriage, cattle breeders would have to be wedding celebrants as well.

i see the "intolerant liberals" from the loony left are ranting incoherantly & demonising normal people as usual.

#1, they constantly complain about the failure of some "heterosexual" marriages while forgetting that immorality & easy divorce is what has been causing the failure of some marriages today.

in other words earlier examples of social engineering designed to manufacture child abuse were successful, therefore we should continue manufacturing child abuse because the "plan for failure" has been working.

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm DO read all of it but pay particular attention to #26 & #40.

Then ask yourselves why you are so keen on promoting the neglect & abuse of children.