Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

[del]

The case was about other than One Man & One Woman?... And our very existence and survival has what to do with Homosexual coupling?...



peace...

fail

again

Weak... even for you, fat fuck...



peace...

what part of fail confuses you, penisbreath?

 

[mal]

Ah... Didn't have anything of substance to counter with eh?...

Welcome back deldo.



peace...

i stopped trying to teach pigs to whistle a long time ago, porky.

it's clear that you've never read loving and that you, as usual, just make up shit. have a nice day.

Someone had Loving very clearly shown to him a long time ago....about the time he bugged out.

Dumptruck can't back that up... bet.



peace...

 

[del]

i stopped trying to teach pigs to whistle a long time ago, porky.

it's clear that you've never read loving and that you, as usual, just make up shit. have a nice day.

Someone had Loving very clearly shown to him a long time ago....about the time he bugged out.

Dumptruck can't back that up... bet.



peace...

neither can you

certainty

 

[mal]

fail

again

Weak... even for you, fat fuck...



peace...

what part of fail confuses you, penisbreath?

Your gay is showing again...



peace...

 

[del]

Weak... even for you, fat fuck...



peace...

what part of fail confuses you, penisbreath?

Your gay is showing again...



peace...

and?

 

[Ravi]

Is being a debate interrupting asshole troll in your job description?...

I didn't realize you missed me this much fat boy...



peace...

arguing with the voices in your head (and losing) doesn't constitute a debate, porky. sorry to be the one to break it to you.

perhaps you could link me to the exact part of loving that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

alternatively, you could eat shit and bark at the moon-your call.

The case was about other than One Man & One Woman?... And our very existence and survival has what to do with Homosexual coupling?...



peace...

You continually and willfully misinterpret that phrase. Our fundamental existence and survival as a country depends on our right to pursue happiness.

Choke on it.

 

[mal]

arguing with the voices in your head (and losing) doesn't constitute a debate, porky. sorry to be the one to break it to you.

perhaps you could link me to the exact part of loving that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

alternatively, you could eat shit and bark at the moon-your call.

The case was about other than One Man & One Woman?... And our very existence and survival has what to do with Homosexual coupling?...



peace...

You continually and willfully misinterpret that phrase. Our fundamental existence and survival as a country depends on our right to pursue happiness.

Choke on it.

Is being as Dishonest as you are Painful?... Or is this Stupidity on your part?...



peace...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The right to marry has been well established as a fundamental right, which are protected by the constitution. No state can deny you a fundamental right without due process.

And marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a union between one man and one woman.

No it hasn't....unless you want to prove your statement with a link.

More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1985)

And it has also been defined as a union between one man and one woman in the Defense Of Marriage Act, which I've posted below.

104th CONGRESS 2D SESSION

H.R. 3396

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms. MYRICK, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BRYANT, and Mr. EMERSON) introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on_____________

A BILL

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: "1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof."

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'."

"Defense Of Marriage Act" 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis

 

[del]

And marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a union between one man and one woman.

No it hasn't....unless you want to prove your statement with a link.

More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1985)

And it has also been defined as a union between one man and one woman in the Defense Of Marriage Act, which I've posted below.

104th CONGRESS 2D SESSION

H.R. 3396

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms. MYRICK, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BRYANT, and Mr. EMERSON) introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on_____________

A BILL

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: "1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof."

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'."

"Defense Of Marriage Act" 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis

DOMA will be overturned the first time it's challenged in court.

more than a century ago, segragated schools were allowed. times change.

sucks to be you, i guess.

 

[Douger]

Gay Marriage is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival.".

Cool...so why do homophobes give a shit if homos get married or not?

I could understand their concern if homosexuality WAS fundamental to our very existence and survival. But it's not. So who cares? Oh, that's right, homophobes and people who would deny basic civil rights to their fellow human beings. Oh, and religious fundamentalist whackjobs...

Exactly. As long as the fruits don't consummate it on the hood of my car it's all good.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No it hasn't....unless you want to prove your statement with a link.

More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1985)

And it has also been defined as a union between one man and one woman in the Defense Of Marriage Act, which I've posted below.

104th CONGRESS 2D SESSION

H.R. 3396

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms. MYRICK, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BRYANT, and Mr. EMERSON) introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on_____________

A BILL

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: "1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof."

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'."

"Defense Of Marriage Act" 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis

DOMA will be overturned the first time it's challenged in court.

more than a century ago, segragated schools were allowed. times change.

sucks to be you, i guess.

No it won't be overturned.

Sucks to be you.

Guess you homosexuals will just have to keep trying to validate your abomidable lifestyle.

 

[del]

More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1985)

And it has also been defined as a union between one man and one woman in the Defense Of Marriage Act, which I've posted below.

104th CONGRESS 2D SESSION

H.R. 3396

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms. MYRICK, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BRYANT, and Mr. EMERSON) introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on_____________

A BILL

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: "1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof."

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'."

"Defense Of Marriage Act" 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis

DOMA will be overturned the first time it's challenged in court.

more than a century ago, segragated schools were allowed. times change.

sucks to be you, i guess.

No it won't be overturned.

Sucks to be you.

Guess you homosexuals will just have to keep trying to validate your abomidable lifestyle.

oh, i'm sorry, but i'm not gay, just american.

still sucks to be you, huh, homer?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

DOMA will be overturned the first time it's challenged in court.

more than a century ago, segragated schools were allowed. times change.

sucks to be you, i guess.

No it won't be overturned.

Sucks to be you.

Guess you homosexuals will just have to keep trying to validate your abomidable lifestyle.

oh, i'm sorry, but i'm not gay, just american.

still sucks to be you, huh, homer?

Sure your not.

No it still sucks to be you Nancy.

 

[Sky Dancer]

More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1985)

And it has also been defined as a union between one man and one woman in the Defense Of Marriage Act, which I've posted below.

104th CONGRESS 2D SESSION

H.R. 3396

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms. MYRICK, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BRYANT, and Mr. EMERSON) introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on_____________

A BILL

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: "1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof."

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'."

"Defense Of Marriage Act" 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis

DOMA will be overturned the first time it's challenged in court.

more than a century ago, segragated schools were allowed. times change.

sucks to be you, i guess.

No it won't be overturned.

Sucks to be you.

Guess you homosexuals will just have to keep trying to validate your abomidable lifestyle.

Tell me about this 'abomindable lifestyle'. My wife and I both work, pay taxes, support charities, practice meditation with our local sangha, maintain a household etc etc.

We've done so for 25 years. Now we're married. What's the problem? How is it any of YOUR business?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No it hasn't....unless you want to prove your statement with a link.

More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1985)

And it has also been defined as a union between one man and one woman in the Defense Of Marriage Act, which I've posted below.

104th CONGRESS 2D SESSION

H.R. 3396

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms. MYRICK, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BRYANT, and Mr. EMERSON) introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on_____________

A BILL

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: "1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof."

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'."

"Defense Of Marriage Act" 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis

DOMA will be overturned the first time it's challenged in court.

more than a century ago, segragated schools were allowed. times change.

sucks to be you, i guess.

Always interesting how leftists blather about the sanctity of precedent, unless it's a precedent they don't like.

 

[bodecea]

DOMA will be overturned the first time it's challenged in court.

more than a century ago, segragated schools were allowed. times change.

sucks to be you, i guess.

No it won't be overturned.

Sucks to be you.

Guess you homosexuals will just have to keep trying to validate your abomidable lifestyle.

Tell me about this 'abomindable lifestyle'. My wife and I both work, pay taxes, support charities, practice meditation with our local sangha, maintain a household etc etc.

We've done so for 25 years. Now we're married. What's the problem? How is it any of YOUR business?

Horrible...simply horrible! You are destroying Lonestar's marriage as we speak!

 

[mal]

No it hasn't....unless you want to prove your statement with a link.

More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1985)

And it has also been defined as a union between one man and one woman in the Defense Of Marriage Act, which I've posted below.

104th CONGRESS 2D SESSION

H.R. 3396

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms. MYRICK, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BRYANT, and Mr. EMERSON) introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on_____________

A BILL

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: "1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof."

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'."

"Defense Of Marriage Act" 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis

DOMA will be overturned the first time it's challenged in court.

more than a century ago, segragated schools were allowed. times change.

sucks to be you, i guess.

Race and Sexually Deviant Choices are NOT Analagous...

Stop Molesting an Honest Civil Rights Movement.



peace...

 

[Ravi]

The case was about other than One Man & One Woman?... And our very existence and survival has what to do with Homosexual coupling?...



peace...

You continually and willfully misinterpret that phrase. Our fundamental existence and survival as a country depends on our right to pursue happiness.

Choke on it.

Is being as Dishonest as you are Painful?... Or is this Stupidity on your part?...



peace...

The one being dishonest on this post is you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

DOMA will be overturned the first time it's challenged in court.

more than a century ago, segragated schools were allowed. times change.

sucks to be you, i guess.

No it won't be overturned.

Sucks to be you.

Guess you homosexuals will just have to keep trying to validate your abomidable lifestyle.

Tell me about this 'abomindable lifestyle'. My wife and I both work, pay taxes, support charities, practice meditation with our local sangha, maintain a household etc etc.

We've done so for 25 years. Now we're married. What's the problem? How is it any of YOUR business?

Shall I define abominable for you? Surely you jest, Fact is homosexuality is unnatural, but of course you will disagree and point to two dogs of the same sex attempting to mate and that's fine and dandy, if you wish to compare homosexuals to animals that do not possess rational thought and act on instinct.

The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:

There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.
The Animal Homosexuality Myth

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No it won't be overturned.

Sucks to be you.

Guess you homosexuals will just have to keep trying to validate your abomidable lifestyle.

Tell me about this 'abomindable lifestyle'. My wife and I both work, pay taxes, support charities, practice meditation with our local sangha, maintain a household etc etc.

We've done so for 25 years. Now we're married. What's the problem? How is it any of YOUR business?

Horrible...simply horrible! You are destroying Lonestar's marriage as we speak!

Yea right it's destroying my marriage.