Before I respond to this post, I need u to define in clear and concrete terms the definition of the institution of marriage to make sure the we are on the same page.
I think you may have taken my comment out of context. I don't believe sexual preference is a choice. I think it is as natural as breathing. Those who have to consciously "choose" their sexual orientation are fighting an inner battle. That is the only point I was trying to convey in my prior post.
Two definitions. 1. A legal definition. 2. A religious definition. Say a couple get married by some church that the government does not recognize as "legally" performing a marriage. Is that a marriage?
There are preists and nuns who chose celibacy and a single existence for their lives. Is this natural? No. Is resisting hitting someone when they insult a person natural? No. Is theft natural? Yes. Murder? Yes. Having sex outside of marriage? Yes. Greed? Yes. We have instincts, and then we have intellect that makes decisions on how to respond to our basic animal instincts... What we prefer may be instinctual, but that is not what makes us a civilization. What makes a civilization is how we control our instincts. Fighting the inner battle between our high and lower nature is what makes for civilization... We learn to learn many things in life, and we need to learn tolerance of gays, and their basic human right to marry whomever they wish, as long as both parties involved are capable of informed consent in their decision making process.
For precisely the same reason that people here in the united states commit crimes that carry a capital punishment, and are proven competent by the medical community. They choose to do what they WANT to do regardless of the consequences, because they do not fully measure the consequences of discovery, and do not believe they will be caught.
i dont think you can control an errrrrrection thats under autonomic control. your first erect occurred when your mommie wiped your ass, what's that say about your preferences?
The "theory" of genetic predisposition to homosexuality has no concrete evidence. Is there a genetic predisposition to cancer? If so, how can there be agents that "cause" cancer? It also follows, that if there is a sex gene for the same sex, there is also a sex gene for finding humans without secondary sex characteristics attractive. Acting of the latter, even viewing it, carries very serious social consequences. But it does not stop what i would guess to be millions around the globe. If a man gets behind a horse, or a woman get underneath a dog, was it in the genes? Finding a gay gene is a lot like finding a fat gene. The reality is that people want to do what they want to do, and some of these people have enough financial firepower to come up with "scientific" studies to justify what is ultimately nothing more than social choices.
It probable meant they had to pee, or were frightened. Women carry erect nipples when sexually aroused.......or if they get cold.
I will worry about homosexuality as some sort of national threat when I start reading headlines stating 'Straight Man Forcibly Raped In The Ass At ATM Machine' in the papers. I haven't heard much about these crimes of passion outside of prison walls. p.s. In full disclosure, homosexuality used to carry a designation of mental illness under the DSM (I think DSM-III) but it was removed due to political pressure from gays. Maybe that issue is still a fair one. Also, I do NOT want to see public schools stepping into this quagmire and saying that homosexuality IS or IS NOT normal. Leave it alone, public schools. I do not want 'My Two Mommies' or 'My Two Daddies' read to my children. Let me decide how they are exposed to this issue, and let me exercise parental governance over matters such as this that are the proper province of parents alone.