Homosexuality is not natural. It's not. Regardless of what the left says, it is mostly behavioral. If it wasn't, people couldn't be "cured", so to speak. In other words, though people may struggle occasionally with homosexuality after turning away from it, they overall are capable of moving on and having normal, loving, heterosexual
It's an excellent point about the length of relationships. Actually, studies have shown that most gays/lesbians don't stay together very long at all. Actually, the maximum most homosexual couples stay together is two years; many are together much less.
And most don't want marriage. Why bother, when you can get all that and not have to deal with the legal issues? It is the extreme left that is pushing for legalization of gay marriage, because it suits their agenda. Now, I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything, just as the conservatives don't have a conspiracy against homosexuals. I don't even hate homosexuals. Though I am a strong Christian, I can deal with them. I don't have to like it though, nor do I have to "tolerate" it in the modern sense of the word. That is, I can condemn their behavior as morally wrong without saying that they are bad people - from a Christian perspective they are no better or worse than anyone else, though their actions are horrible.
The thing is, though, that the extreme left doesn't like the traditional family, because the traditional family represents traditional values and ideas, which are in direct opposition to the leftist agenda. Like it or not, when it's clear that the homosexuals themselves don't want marriage but leftist judges are setting it up and the ACLU is claiming that all gays want to be married (even though statistics show they don't), something begins to seem a little fishy.
All religious issues aside, homosexual relationships are not marriage, unless we completely redefine the word.
Marriage: the mutal relation of husband and wife; the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependece for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.
That's out of Websters. Also, in a more practical sense - who are we to think that we can overturn what every civilization has said?!!! No major civilization has approved of homosexuality except in its decadence. Rather, all societies spurn it for the simple reason that it is not natural.
It's not really biological either. The studies showing that it's "in the family" do not take into account other factors - namely, the family itself, whether other family members are gay/lesbian (and can thereby influence the person being studied), etc. Rather, they are careful manipulations of numbers to show what is wanted to be shown. They also ignore the fact that while genetics may have some influence, they are obviously not all-controlling since people have turned away from homosexuality.
I happen to be a Christian myself, but I don't see homosexuality to be wrong in the least. Sure the Bible says that it's wrong, but the Bible says a lot of things - such as people who eat fish are sinners. I personally believe that Christianity should be regarded as relatavist, not absolutist. After all, when Jesus was asked what the most important law is, he said love thy neighbour (or words to that effect). Isn't tollerating same sex marriages loving your neighbour, then? Remember no-one's forcing you to marry a man.
I'm not sure where you're coming from here. If you think that Christianity is capable of being interpreted relativistically, then you're not reading the same Bible I am. It's either true or it's not; to deny that denies the fundamental tenets of Christianity - but that's a whole nother can of worms that we can talk about in one of the Christianity threads; it really doesn't belong here. As far as eating fish goes: those commands were given for health reasons, not moral reasons. Finally, loving your neighbor does not mean letting them get away with something defined as wrong. From a Christian perspective, you love the person, hate the sin. (Mind this is a response, so no one flame me or even argue with me on this: I'm not making an argument to the overall case, but to the argument he presented and nothing else. Thanks
) Actually, we should in love correct them. That's what Christ himself did (the occasion where he cleared out the temple which had filled with money-lenders and whatnot comes to mind. They weren't bad, but their actions were and he dealt with them). Just as loving parents discipline their children to teach them how things should
be done, so does a Christian explain the Biblical perspective on homosexuality - not in condemnation, but in love. I can't abide those who say, "You're going to hell b/c you're a homo, no choice and no redemption." It should be "Your sin is deadly, turn away from it and to Christ."