Fractlle,

Once again you are introducing red herrings in order to ... whatever ... your purpose isn't clear.

Everytime I hear someone wanting homosexuals to share marriage as the churches and I recognise it ... makes me laugh ... it is simply impossible for homosexuals to share such a marriage.

My and the churches definitions and assignations includes the possibility of procreation. How can that occur between two homosexuals.

Why don't you address this point? Too hard?

I don't care if homosexuals marry all I am concerned about is that my and the christian definition of marriage and it's widely accepted roles are given separate and equal recognition.

Balnes

So what? One of the mandatory conditions of the traditional Christian marriage is that it occur between a man and a woman. But while the definition might not include the possibility of procreation it is widely accepted by christians and the churches as one of the prime roles of a marriage. It isn't mandatory.

And Balnes, why are you not also waiting for two males to announce a virgin birth. Are you being a tad sexist?

It seems that homosexual people want equality based on their own self definitions.

They indulge in homosexual activity therefore their behaviour must be rational and logical in the same way as a heterosexual. Because they indulge in homosexual activity then there must be an immutable characteristic in their makeup which destines them to be homosexual in the same way that heterosexuals are programmed. There must therefore be a gene to scientifically prove that their sexual activity is as logical and reasonable as heterosexuals. Therefore they must be entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals since they can no more change their situation than can a person change their skin colour or gender.

Just because we behave in certain ways it does not automatically follow that those ways are reasonable and logical. To claim that behaviour is reasonable and logical and then to jump to assumptions beyond that without having the initial premise verified is poor logic to say the least. It would certainly be an irresponsible reason for changing the law.

People indulge in sexual activity for many different reasons and often those reasons are not logical or reasonable. Provided no one is hurt by that then it is just another case of irrational behaviour and the only one who loses out is the person behaving irrationally.

(cont.)

(cont.)

People are attracted to members of their own sex for all types of reasons but it does not automatically follow that sexual activity is logical and reasonable. It is normal and natural to love members of the same sex but it does not follow that sexual activity with them is logical and reasonable.

There are of course times when it is logical and reasonable to have sex with someone but you can never prove that to others unless it can be seen by them. The only situation that can be verifiable is when two heterosexual people decide to have sex in order to create a new life and nine months later the logic of their actions can be seen.

Homosexual people will never be able to prove that any of their sexual activity is reasonable or logical and this is just something they have to live with. It does not mean it is not – it just means it cannot be proven. They should be at peace with that and not demand rights that they cannot prove they deserve. To continue to do so would indeed be illogical.

Well, yes, it's true that everyone is equally entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex, just as in jurisdictions where miscegenation was banned, everyone was equally entitled to marry someone of the same race. I'll leave this one to the late Mildred Loving, who with her husband Richard instigated the end of anti-miscegenation laws in the US: http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/06/mildred-lovings-statement.html

I'm tempted to ask for more detail about what "reasonable and logical" sexual behaviour might entail, but on second thoughts ...

Maybe someone could just point me to where it states that "reasonable and logical" sexual behaviour is a pre-requisite for marriage.

Woulfe,
Reasonably and logically argued!

"Just because we behave in certain ways it does not automatically follow that those ways are reasonable and logical. To claim that behaviour is reasonable and logical and then to jump to assumptions beyond that without having the initial premise verified is poor logic to say the least."

Yes! Thank you for your good sense, phanto!. That is a perfect argument against religion. That's what you meant, I assume?