How does anyone know what Nature intended? Nature doesn't have intent. Nature just IS. Using "nature's intent" as your justification for the status quo hasn't worked since Social Darwinism got laid to rest.
But if you want to talk about nature, let's talk about the natural fact that somewhere between 3-5% of the world's human population is homosexual, and that's a conservative estimate. And none of them have any more choice in the matter than you do about your skin color. And if you want to call THAT fact into question, just know that outside of a few loud adherents to certain popular monotheistic religions, no intelligent human being believes that being gay is a choice. No major scientific organization (or minor one) gives any credence to that idea. No major association of psychiatric or medical professionals will accredit or endorse so-called "reparative therapy" wherein gay people are psychiatrically treated to become straight. The DSM does not recognize homosexuality as a form of mental illness to be treated. It does, however, recognize the traumatic effect that discrimination and hate can have on anyone subjected to it because of their sexual orientation. On that note, way to go, fellow Californians! (That's sarcasm, Keymaker, in case you were wondering.)
So, OK, I'm going to say it's a given that gay people can't decide to be gay or not. Therefore, you can't legislate their behavior out of existence without eliminating the people themselves. This is why the issues of gay rights have become Identity politics issues, because America has treated gays as if they were a particularly undesirable ethnic minority. They are discriminated against on the basis of something uneradicable in their physical makeup. Anti-Gay Rights activists are essentially doing the same thing as of they tried to pass laws saying all black people should be white.
So when you deny gays the right to marry for whatever reason, you are doing no more than discriminating. You are NOT correcting aberrant behavior, you are not protecting your own marriage, you are merely forcing your personal distaste onto the lives of others who neither can nor should change themselves to suit your religious-esthetic preferences.
Well, sure, I'm not trying to stop you. My point is that there is absolutely no comparison between gay marriage and bestiality. And it seems that when someone uses a metaphor or an analogy in this thread you tend to take it literally, as in the "Cream in the coffee" analogy, and the "modified corn genes" analogy. I'm just trying to avoid any more confusion and clouding of the issue.
...you are merely forcing your personal distaste onto the lives of others
Not at all - although that's what the proponents of change are doing by demanding that marriage be re-defined. It's a rather absurd suggestion that European gays who campaigned for civil unions were discriminating against themselves by not pressing for the terminology of marriage.
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.