It is a normal state. There are no genetic abnormalities associated with homosexuality. The best available evidence suggest that homosexuality has a physiological/genetic component that is just one side of a normal (in the statistical sense) distribution.
In the eyes of many other cultures its completely normal as well. So what makes your cultural biases better than someone else's? As for the comment about monkeys and birds, remember we are animals and are related to "monkeys and birds." Therefore you can extend what happens with them to us. Because we share some evolutionary ancestors, you can make that logical extention. Its the entire logic and reasoning why animal models are used in research. Moreover regarding your justification of the constitutional arguement. Again that issue was settled about 140 years ago. It was called the Civil War - It settled 2 main questions, slavery, and the supremecy of the Federal system and the Constitution. On 11/9/05, MS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Larry was referring to physical attacks on people. I'm referring to taking > away of rights. But you do bring up an interesting point. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > As I've gotten older, I'm believing that local rule is the best rule. > - MS > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Doom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:42 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: [QUARRANTINE] RE: I'm surrounded! > > We're not attacking women in any way, but they can't vote. > We're not attacking blacks in any way, but they only count as 3/5 of a > person. > > --Ben > > MS wrote: > > That's out of context, Larry. This law does not attack homosexuals, it > > merely affirms the wishes of the electorate that marriage is only between > > and man and a woman. > > > > - MS > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:5:180585 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
