Reading the discussions in this thread have been interesting, however not particularly enlightening......
Many old arguments have been recycled for the umpteenth time. The essence of the OP was "should same-sex marriage be legal........my answer would be a resounding NO. No, so long as it is specifically called "marriage", which has for thousands of years been defined by societies worldwide as a relationship between two humans of opposite gender.
I have absolutely no objections to homosexual "civil unions" which carry all the same privileges as "marriage" in the common usage........religion aside, "marriage" must be defended as an institution that generally benefits a society, and provides stable environments for children and young adults.
Specifically regarding homosexuals (I refuse to refer to them as "gay"......I've known many over the years, and frankly there is little gay about them in the literal sense), I'll try to place a little different spin on this. As close to a "scientific" analysis as I can muster, up until the DSM IV (and the advent of "political correctness"), the prevailing opinion of professionals in the behavioral sciences was that homosexuality (in all of its gender or sexual preference variations) was a mental illness. One can argue whether it is genetic, or acculturated (or a mixture of both), but until the DSM IV was published, the theory was close, if not spot on. The point essentially is that until "PC" set in to the behavioral sciences, homosexuality was abnormal behavior.
The question now becomes whether or not abnormal behavior should be enshrined in law, or society in general.........I will allways maintain that this is a bad idea, the continued "blurring of lines" between what is normal and abnormal will erode the foundations of an ordered society, and result in unintended consequences......generally negative ones.
When I view homosexuality through the logic of a scientist, I can discern absolutely NO distinction socially between a practicing (male) homosexual couple, and a priest (or pastor) molesting alter boys.......the only difference is the age of the participants. One will be "tolerated", and the other will land the adult in prison.........but fundamentally they are no different, both are aberrant behavior.......and always will be.
Societies always seek to create order out of chaos. The inclusion of vast numbers of variant aberrations erodes the order, and ultimately destroys the "society", not unlike aberrant cancer cells will ultimately destroy the host. Therefore, from purely a logical position, granting "normalcy" to homosexuals is a contradiction in terms, and must be resisted.
Does this mean that I advocate violent repression or isolation of homosexuals....no, does that mean that I think that homosexuals should be denied jobs, benefits (with some caveats) visitation rights, the means to cohabitate, the ability to transfer their wealth or possessions to their partners upon death..........no I don't, no more than I would for some individual with Down's Syndrome.
What I DO believe is that homosexuals should not be considered "normal", and since words have meaning, "marriage" is confined to the societal limits of normalcy, and must stay there. I could care less what anyone does in the privacy of their own homes, so long as it stays there. I don't want to be forced to attempt an explanation to my small grandchildren public displays of aberrant behavior.......nor will I tolerate them being exposed to it as a part of the curricula of their primary education.
In an ordered society, lines must be drawn, and limits established.......I've established mine. I grow weary of a tiny fraction of our society constantly clamoring for "acceptance", using the legislatures, courts, and the media. societies, not unlike the water of a lake will seek their own level........that happened for most humans a number of centuries ago.
doc
