MS wrote: > However, in the end, it's not because I think that homosexuals are bad > people inherently, not only because I'm a Christian, but I can't find any > reason to think that it's a normal state of being. In the eyes of many > people, Christian or otherwise, it's unnatural.
Where do you draw the line about "natural"? It's not natural that I'm alive -- I'm diabetic, and have been for over a decade, and should be dead by now. I'm kinda happy that medicine has unnaturally lengthened my life. Hell, for that matter, God is, by definition, unnatural. He exists outside of, or above, nature. I can understand if it gives you the willies, or something. I grew up in a small Southern town, and getting used to the idea that people around me -- including one of my best friends -- were gay was kinda a step for me. > Of course, you can refer to that group of monkeys who are all gay, or to > some obscure bird species that mates with another of it's own gender, but > we're not monkeys or birds, we're humans. So what? It seems to me that, by pointing to examples of homosexuality in creatures not sophisticated enough to think one way or another about it, you're saying that it *is* natural, just not for people. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. > I have said before, I don't believe that any person can define his own > preferences, but it is up to the people who live in a nation to define the > morals of that nation. Texas has apparently done that. People in Vermont > feel differently, and that's their right. Who are you to tell the Texans > that they must allow homosexual marriage in their state, if the majority > does not want it? Should a group of Texans go to Vermont and dictate that > Vermont must overturn their law? > > You'll want to base this on the Constitution, but I don't think, and I could > be wrong, that any aspect of the Constitution gives any rights to > homosexuals as a group. This means that the 10th Amendment comes into play, > thereby giving the right to the states. I'm not going to argue that the Constitution protects gays, because you are right -- it doesn't specifically do that. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't. I believe that sexuality needs to be added to that long list of creed, race, religion, gender, etc. > Here in the end, I'm not convinced by anyone that it's immoral to deny > homosexual marriage anymore than you are convinced by my argument. I can understand that. But I'm still gonna yell and scream about it. :-) > As I've gotten older, I'm believing that local rule is the best rule. I'm admittedly not that old, and over time I may come to agree with you, but I think that in matters that affect only locals, you're right, but in this case, we're not talking about that. What about someone who moves from Vermont to Texas to take care of his ailing aunt? Is his civilly unionized (of course that's a real word) partner now recognized as such or not? What if the partner is still living in VT until the mother can be moved? Sorry, I just don't see how this can be solved at the local or state level. --Ben ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:180551 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
