Correct, laws against inter-racial marriages would ignor the human dignity of people of all races. Those old laws demonstrated the racial hate of our country.

But we're not talking about race in marriage. We're talking about how marriage is between 1 man and 1 women, regardless of their race.

You can't prove the case for so-called same sex marriage by bringing up something not related to gender.

Didn't a lot of men in the old testament of the bible have, like, a billion wives (or two or three, I'm exaggerating)? Should we all be allowed to have biblical marriages? Society HAS changed, dude. Think about it. Besides; what do YOU really care if two men or two women can get married? How does it affect YOU at all?

Until relatively recently, marriage was not so much a bond of love than it was a bond of financial and physical stability. When modern society started getting the newfangled idea that you should, y'know, marry the one you love, instead of vice versa, things started getting complicated.

But as to the "where homosexual marriage has ever been a part of a strong, civilized society", have you ever really bothered looking into ancient Greek society? The foundations of many of our traditions? Where it was considered a good citizen's duty to have a (sometimes sexual, usually always romantic) relationship with a younger man? Or perhaps you've heard about the Theban Band, a military unit of around 300 (if memory serves) formed exclusively of male couples? Who were literally only defeated by Alexander the Great?

But yeah, other than those and pretty much any pre-Medieval Europe society, I can see how you draw the conclusion that homosexuality invariably leads to brimstone, hellfire, damnation, and "kids these days" syndrome.

Ah, the infamous "Seperation of Church and State". Do you really know the history behind that? Do you REALLY? http://www.catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=1&category=&event=5214&date=2008-06-25 (summary and audio download)

It's not about keeping religion out of politics, it's about keeping politics out of religion.

Which is exactly what is taking place. Marriage has always been religious. There is no such thing as an athiest marriage... the closest thing is a civil marriage and that's simply a legal declaration from a government agency.

Governments, which came long after the establishment of marriage, have recognized marriage because it's in their best interest to foster strong families for the sake of their society. Marriage preceeds the law and defines the law, not the other way around. Changing the laws doesn't change marriage. And even if this country were to pass some law or activist judges force it upon us, it's still not a marriage. It'll still only be a legal declaration from a corrupt government agency... oh how romantic!

If homosexual couples want legal rights such as visitation in the hospital or being able to enter in to contract together, then go after Power of Attorney or promote legal rights to allow visitation in hospitals... don't change the marriage laws.

But we all know it's not about that. It's about destroying religious marriage... subsequently the destruction of the family... followed by the indoctrination that homosexuality is "normal". The tactic is to get the parents out of the way so that they don't protect their children from these un-announced school activities: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=78829

Where's the seperation of church and state here!?!?

Let's quickly speak on this topic of love. I'll reiterate what I've said elsewhere, I'm not putting down the feelings that one person has for another. I fully understand that by having a same-sex attaction, there can be those feelings of love for another person of the same sex.

But there is something I don't understand. Every time I speak out against so-called same-sex marriage, you equate it to me speaking out against their love or the "validity" of their love.

Do you mean to tell me that love can only be expressed between two married people? Do the feelings come attached to the legal documentation from the government? When installing those love modules in your heart, watch out that you don't install them backwards like reversing the poles of a battery!

What do those seeking marriage ultimately seek? A wedding party? A ring on their finger? A regular sleeping partner? What's the attraction to marriage? It would seem to me that all of those material needs could be satisfied without marriage, especially since it's clear that few, if any, would have any interest in the relgious nature of marriage.

If you had to convince me why homosexual marriage should be permitted and is good for society, you would say what?...

Pointing to other problems, like greed, doesn't diminish the importance of upholding marriage, nor should it stop anybody from speaking against so-called same-sex marriage. This is just one of many problems in the world with greed being another one of those. If this were a posting about a hedonistic, limitless desire for wealth and power, I would be speaking just as much against that behavior.

What do you consider to be demonizing? Do you understand the gravity of such a statement? I don't hate any homosexual. In fact, we are friends with some. One even participated in our church wedding as a lector. These friends know that we don't agree with the lifestyle, but care for the person. There's a world of difference between bringing that mentality towards others and demonizing others.

Although I'm not Christian, I have read the Bible and there are lot of very positive calls to action. The new testament places a lot of emphasis on helping those in need (which goes hand-in-hand with the idea of fighting greed). While there are certainly individuals and groups who do their part to uphold those religious standards, they are far from the majority. I think it's because it's far more difficult to analyze and alter your own behavior or make sacrifices to help others than it is to simply sit back and feel self-righteous because of your supposed moral superiority.

Megs: "I actually do know the bible verses of which you speak...and all the other bible verses...that people like you use to tell people who they love is an abomination...(incidentally so is eating shrimp and a plethora of other random things)...but I also understand that the bible was written and edited by men thousands of years ago...it has been revised and mutated due to inaccurate translations and men's own personal agendas...(a great read Misquoting Jesus)..."

And that is why there's the Catholic Church, the keeper of the true teachings of Jesus. In 2000 years, none of the doctrine has changed. And historically speaking, they have some of the oldest collections of Biblical text. They aren't working from a translation of a translation of a translation. The church doesn't tell people what they want to hear, it tells people what they need to hear.

Megs: "I believe that you have a fundamental difference of opinion than I do...I believe that what other people do in the privacy of their lives and homes is not for me to judge or even concern myself with as long as they are consenting adults...."

But you're not asking for us to turn a blind eye towards what people do in the privacy of their house. First off, wrongful behavior is still wrong even if it's behind closed doors. Secondly, you seek to bring that behavior out in to the open by promoting so-called same-sex marriage. So-called same-sex marriage would empty heterosexual marriage of its meaning. And that will tend to weaken marriage even further, which will further increase the divorce rate and maximize divorce-related misery.

The institution of marriage is precious. It enhances the health, longevity, and well-being of married couples. It increases the health, vocational success, and emotional well-being of children. In providing all these benefits, heterosexual marriage contributes to the happiness and prosperity of society. Marriage must, therefore, remain limited to one man and one woman who strive to keep their marriage exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and life-giving. Nothing less will ever meet the needs of the human person, because nothing less satisfies.

Because it is intrinsically disordered, we must not recognize homosexual activity as legitimate, and we must not give public approval to homosexual marriage because of the harm that will do to the institution of marriage and because of the social harm that will result from emptying marriage of its meaning. Perhaps the most serious social harm would be to children: the children of divorce and the children of same-sex couples, who will suffer all the ills we have discussed.

Society has a lot to lose from legalizing homosexual marriage. And homosexuals have nothing to gain.

Megs: "I believe that all people no matter the gender, creed, race, or sexual orientation should have the same rights because as it says "All men are created equal"...and there for all people deserve the right to get married to whomever they choose...I believe that NO ONE else's relationship or marriage has any bearing or will have any bearing on mine..."

Being equal in human dignity doesn't equate to having the right to marry. There has never been an unlimited right to marry in this country. States have provided minimum age requirements and have insisted that both persons be unmarried, that one be male and one female, that they not be too closely related.

Marriage is not an unlimited right. Marriage can not be granted to whoever they want. Legalization of so-called same-sex marriage would detach marriage from reality. It would deprive marriage of any objective meaning whatsoever. It would open the door to group marriage, polygamy, bestiality, and whatever other permutations the imagination can invent.

Megs: "And you believe that if gay men and women are aloud to marry than it some how affects the sanctity of your union...you seem to believe that it is your duty to save gay men and women from love...(which I'm sure they do not appreciate)..."

It does affect my marriage and ever marriage! One of the downsides to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would be the weakening of the meaning of marriage, which would cause more divorces. Human nature being what it is, if the meaning of marriage is weakened, it will be psychologically easier for even more people to divorce. Look at what happened when "no-fault" divorce was legalized. The divorce rate skyrocketed. [Footnote 1] If the nature of marriage is further undermined in the minds of couples then when things get rocky, more couples will be tempted not to work through their problems and get happy again but rather to divorce and find someone else.

That is a bad idea, because most marriage therapists agree that divorce generally "doesn't work." Divorce doesn't solve the problems that caused the first marriage to break up. Divorced people bring the same problems to their new marriages that broke up their old ones. That's why second and later marriages are statistically far more likely to end in divorce than first marriages are. [Footnote 2] Also, a large majority of couples who contemplate divorce but stay together describe themselves as "happily married" five years later. [Footnote 3] So staying together "works" better than divorce.

Megs: "You believe that being gay is a disease...(what if gay people thought that being heterosexual was a disease...what if they believed that your relationship was sick and wrong...how would you take that?)..."

I would ask for the evidence that heterosexuality is unhealthy. I can easily point out the problems associated with a homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuals of both sexes remain 14 times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals [Footnote 4] and 3.5 times more likely to commit suicide successfully. [Footnote 5] 30 years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals. [Footnote 6] Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight. [Footnote 7] Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age 65.

Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers). [Footnote 8] Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer. Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.

Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners. [Footnote 9] Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. Pardon the graphic image, but the rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners. A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals' propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide. [Footnote 10]

The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation like those noted in Footnote 11.

The more radical homosexual activists flaunt their promiscuity, using it as a weapon against what they call "bourgeois respectability." [Footnote 12] But even more conservative advocates of gay marriage such as New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan admit that for them, "fidelity" does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity. [Footnote 13] In other words, they admit that exclusiveness will not happen. And without exclusiveness, their "marriages" will have little meaning.

Sullivan argues that marriage civilizes men, but anthropology would counter that marriage to women civilizes men. Male humans, homosexual or heterosexual, are more interested in random sex with strangers than women are. [Footnote 14] Men need to be civilized, to be taught the joys of committed sex, and that lesson is taught by marriage to women, not by other men who need to learn it themselves. The apparent instability of lesbian relationships suggests that lesbians understand that lesson less well than heterosexual women do. Exclusivity will not happen, and without exclusivity, marriage does not exist.

Without exclusivity, permanent and unconditional relationships will not happen, either. By definition, a relationship that allows for "cruising" will be shallow and mutually exploitative, just as sex with strangers is shallow and mutually exploitative. So far, same-sex marriage is 0 for 3: likely to be neither exclusive nor unconditional nor permanent.

Megs: "And you believe that somehow it is your place to tell gay men and women and those who support the rights of gay men and women...that they are wrong and that God (which not all necessarily believe in or believe in your god) hates that they love, and that God believes that gay men and women deserve fewer rights than the rest of us have by the "virtue" of being straight..."

Heterosexiality is not a virtue. Chastity is a virtue, which should be practiced by all non-married persons. To show that I'm not one-sided in this arguement, I also speak out against heterosexuals that engage in sex outside of marriage or that use contraception within marriage. Their fornication behaviors and contraceptive mentality is also unnatural and works against normal human sexuality.

God isn't advocating for less "rights" for homosexuals. Men and women have equal dignity, but are also different. It's not an insult to men for not having the ability to bear children. Nor is it an insult to women when men are given greater physical strength. Men and women fulfill different and complimentary roles. These roles reflect and support the natural law created by God. And for there to be a natural law, there must also be a right and wrong. Nobody takes a plant and thinks that putting it in the dark will make it grow. Nor do we put water in our vehicles and expect it to run. In the same way, human sexuality and society at large benefit from the proper orientation of the sexes in their complimentary roles within an exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and life-giving marriage. Nothing less will ever meet the needs of the human person, because nothing less satisfies.

Regardless of whether one shares my religious views, I can assure you that expressing myself on this site is not motivated by hate, but rather out of a sincere concern for all of mankind.

Footnote 1: Leora Friedberg, "Did Unilateral Divorce Raise Divorce Rates? Evidence from Panel Data," American Economic Review 88 (1998): 608-27.

Footnote 2: Judith Wallerstein, Julia Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (New York: Hyperion, 2000), 295, 297.

Footnote 3: Waite and Gallagher, op. cit., 148-9.

Footnote 4: C. Bagley and P. Tremblay, "Suicidal Behaviors in Homosexual and Bisexual Males," Crisis 18 (1997): 24-34.

Footnote 5: R. A. Garofalo et al., "The Associations Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-Based Sample of Adolescents," Pediatrics 101 (1998): 895-902.

Footnote 6: R. Herrell et al., Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-74; D. M. Fergusson, J. Horwood, A. L. Beautrais, "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 876-80; M. J. Bailey, "Homosexuality and Mental Illness," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 883-4.

Footnote 7: P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 757-76.

Footnote 8: Laura Dean et al., "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health: Findings and Concerns," Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association 4, no. 3 (2000): 101-51.

Footnote 9: A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978).

Footnote 10: J. B. Lehmann, C. U. Lehmann, and P. J. Kelly, "Development and Health Care Needs of Lesbians," Journal of Women's Health 7 (1998) 379-88.

Footnote 11: S. Sarantakos, "Same-Sex Couples: Problems and Prospects," Journal of Family Studies 2 (1996): 147-63; P. Tjaden, N. Thoennes, and C. J. Allison, "Comparing Violence Over the Life Span in Samples of Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Cohabitants," Violence and Victims 14 (1999): 413-25.

Footnote 12: Stanley Kurtz, "What Is Wrong with Gay Marriage," Commentary, September 2000, 35-41.

Footnote 13: Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1995).

Footnote 14: D. M. Buss, The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating (New York: Basic Books, 1994); D. Symons, The Evolution of Sexuality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979); M. Ridley, The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (New York: Penguin, 1993); S. Goldberg, Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance (Chicago: Open Court, 1993).