Runner <"It was only 20 years ago the vocal homosexual lobby pronounced marriage as outdated and dead."

Is that so?
I can't remember ever reading that, but I doubt most homosexuals believed that, as I am sure many of their own parents and other close relatives were married.

Tell me again Runner, exactly HOW will allowing Gay couples to marry affect anyone else at all?

Marriage was around long before Christianity, so you can't continue to use the old Bible 'abomination' argument.

david f

Your attempts to justify homosexual behaviour on the fact that some animals who have no conscience display aspects of that behaviour has nothing to do with biology. Look at what the body parts were designed for and the disease rates among those violating that design and you will be a bit more scientific in your logic. Animals goring each other does nor prove that its okay for humans to do so.

Susi

Marriage does outdate Christianity but not Adam and Eve.

Dear runner,

Adam and Eve have no more reality than the rainbow serpent, the Japanese sun god, the Greek chronos or other primitive creation myths. At some point god was invented. At another time marriage was invented.

Nothing that happens in nature is unnatural. I neither justify nor condemn either homosexual or heterosexual behaviour. They both are practiced by humans and other animals.

If you can argue rationally do so. Citing primitive stone age myths like that of Adam and Eve proves nothing except that you are a gullible believer in superstition.

Dear runner,

What other people do sexually as long as they are consenting adults is none of my business. It is none of your business either. It only becomes other people's business if they spread disease by their acts. If they take precautions and everyone involved is a consenting adult it simply is nobody else's business what they do.

What the science realists and religious community must do is identify the actual act of lifelong commited hetrosexual intercourse to a term like "human unit" as defined scientifically, or "one flesh" as defined religiously; so as to identify the act seperatly to sex with the same gender, and register it differently. The term "marriage" has been perverted to merely mean platonic love, and does not identify the intention to bond to breed.

Davidf,
I haven't considered the detail of the link I posted. I glanced through it and posted because I thought it may interest other posters here.

As for your question, any legal union between homosexuals will not affect me in any way what so ever.

My objection is simply the use of the word 'marriage', which now has a definate meaning of a union between a man and a woman.

Same sex unions are different enough to warrant a seperate word or words to describe such.

I think the use of the word marriage for same sex unions is simply to gain some public respectability.