Thanks to everyone for their comments. Different strokes for different folks...

It's made me realize that sex can mean a thousand different things to a thousand different people. What I don't understand is how can anyone of us say to people, "You cannot receive legal recognition in our society because you have offended us or God seriously. You are not normal."

Any relationship is based on a decision that a person has to make for themselves. And usually that person is far harder on themself than an objective law could be. If given a chance, people will evaluate their relationship in terms of the person with whom they seek love.
They will center their attention on goals and meaning, not on any single action/actions, or a personal "state of grace."

This takes a great deal more reflection and sincerity than any effort to limit their legal acceptance into our society. We must believe in people and respect their rights to make personal decisions. Each of us will love another human being in a unique and personal way. Who is to say which act will bring love, and which will tear a person from the core of himself. In our society we do have rules - but perhaps ones that deny the legal rights of people - need to be looked at again.

I'm a little bit in love with you Foxy.

And I say that having no idea what gender you are.

Foxy

You need to distinguish between natural and normal. In some disease ridden clubs homosexuality is normal. No one could possibly argue that sodomy is natural. The diseases that go with it is enough proof.

And driving cars, typing at computers, or using mobile phones *is* natural?

Further, show me the slightest proof that homosexual couples in committed monogamist relationships are more prone to any sort of disease than heterosexual couples. Then prove to me that allowing couples in such relationships to have their unions legally recognised (the *only* point of this thread) would somehow increase their likelihood of spreading or catching diseases.

If only.... eh... if only we could ONLY look at the limited scope of the topic..and assess the situation on that basis.....alone.

But we can't.

Because the issue of homosexual couples does not end with them in the very well managed spin that a few posters have managed to present above.

Nope.. recognition of such unions would entail total capitulation by a large proportion of the community to values which they abhor.

The idea of a man...living in a sexual relationship with a man.. and then bringing children into the picture ? it boggles the mind that such a thing can even be contemplated let alone openly supported.

As soon as you bring children into it... you bring the REST of us into it... you are seeking to re-shape society in terms of behavior which many of us find disgusting.

You won't change 'us' who find it disgusting when that assessment is based on revealed truth, and many secular people just hate the idea anyway.

So the only likely outcome of advancing this agenda, will be to polarize the community, alienate a different (and much larger group), and marginalize them.
If anyone thinks there would not be an element of 'our turn/revenge is sweet' in that process, then I suggest a quick read of history.

No one is addressing the philosophical point either (except Bothersome who just denies it) that acceptance of THIS behavior, MUST mean acceptance of ANY behavior between consenting 'people'.. I won't say 'adults' because the definition of 'adult' is also subject to change.

So....sorry .. no deal.. no way.. door is shut 4eva to this one as far as I'm concerned.

runner - as I already pointed out the "diseases" argument is moot. Unprotected heterosexual sex will do the same thing. The only difference was that inititally diseases such as HIV were transmitted because they weren't wearing condoms because there wasn't a threat of pregnancy.

As far as philo's: "Evidently evolution got it wrong to have developed male and female genitals according to new age science. Nature got it wrong to have grown male and female genitals according to curent educators. God got it wrong to have created male and female genitals according to homosexuals."

I take it then he's in favour of banning marriage for barren people, seeing as they can't have children either, and that anyone who is attracted to a barren person must have a "screwed up mind" as clearly, they'll be unable to procreate.