And your argument for restricting this to heterosexual relationships is?
Homosexuality is not new and yet it has not been given social sanction but the most advanced civilization in history.
Why?
And it's somehow harmful to promote monogamy amongst homosexuals, how?Can you produce evidence, other than irrelevant historical evidence, to prove that this is taking place?
I reject the claim on its face. If the idea were to be promoting monogamy the same voices would be promoting mongamy among heteroes but their other actions do everything to tear down monogamy and ridicule nuclear families.
I can produce evidence that Christians have engaged in genocide. That historical evidence isn't proof that modern Christians do so. What does one have to do with another?
Because permission leads to action. The savages in the M.E. repeat to themselves how it is OK to take sexual slaves from among the conquered so they have no qualms about raping female reporters.
Granted, there is a far cry between gays and savage Islamic rapists but since you introduced such analogies it seemed fitting.
You were born heterosexual, were you not? Are you then proving that you *choose* to be heterosexual when you make a choice to marry?
I can choose my sexuality. There is no part of my physical anatomy that differs from any other male's. Ditto for every male homosexual.
I agree- relationships are a choice. I suppose a homosexual person could make the choice to never have sex, never engage in a relationship, live and die alone. But why should they?
Or maybe they have chosen the lifestyle because it physically feels good.
Or maybe they are psychologically mal-adjusted due to some trauma (child sexual abuse victims are more likely to engage in homosexuality).
Or maybe they are psycho-physiologically defective the way a diabetic suffers from his condition.
Which of those possibilities deserves force of law?
In our Country, this has been decided by the courts as false, during trials to determine the legality of prohibiting marriages between blacks and whites.
False analogy.
As I noted, homosexuality can be acculturated, learned, a reaction to trauma or imbalance.
Race is none of those things.
Marriage has been deemed a right.
And it can be undeemed just as easily.
It can also be restricted. Just as speech is a right but vocally advocating violence is not permitted.
The right for blacks and whites to marry had to be established without the consent of the majority, as the majority opposed the measure.
And while the practical result is socially agreeable it would have been far more effective if the laws were overturned in their proper place: the legislature.
If legislation is incapable of imparting morality, so much more so judicial diktat. At least legislation enjoys (for the most part) the consent of the majority.