Perhaps its depressing to have so many people like your ilk condemning them as evil, deviant, mentally diseased, abhorred, despised ... .
To argue that homosexuality does not deviate from the standard of normality established by human physiology is nothing short of delusional.
Deviating from the standard of normality and 'evil, abhorred, despised, immoral, etc.' aren't the same thing. Its the value judgments that you apply that are arbitrary clap trap. That serve no logical purpose, that have no rational reason to exist other than your personal opinion and subjective prejudices.
But you can't give us a valid reason why such value judgments should even exist outside your personal, subjective beliefs.
Nature has designed marriage through its design of the human being, therefore:
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
Nature didn't design marriage. Nature designed copulation and reproduction.
We designed marriage. And it is whatever we say it is. In many cultures, its one man and many women. In our culture its one man and one woman or the joining of one man and one man or one woman and one woman in 36 of 50 States. You can ignore this fact. But your willful ignorance of reality doesn't change all the gay people getting married.
We are not animals and what we do has a moral component as well. Homosexuality is a sin, not unlike any other sin that consigns us to debt that only the grace of God can cover.
Says who? And whose God? According to which interpretations? The puritans executed folks for adultery and sodomy. The founders, only sodomy. Modern Christians, neither.
So which subjective interpretation are you referring to?
You argument is circular: homosexuality is immoral because its immoral. Your evidence and your conclusion are the exact same thing.
This goes beyond what Charles Darwin characterized as an evolutionary dead end, therefore of no value in perpetuating any species.
And whatever doesn't perpetuate the species is *immoral*, evil, despised, and abhorred? So are you going to tell grammy and pop-pop that their Tuesday nooner is an abomination, or should I? And where is the outrage over say, masturbation, which produces as many children as homosexuality? How about oral sex... immoral as it doesn't produce children? How about celibacy? It doesn't produce kids either....so its evil?
Why is unproductive sexual behavior morally wrong?
Worse, if you're basing your morality on sexual productivity, does that mean whatever could produce offspring is morally right and good? So...if rape, adultery, or sex with children who can biologically reproduce can result in children, it would be 'good' on your 'value in perpetuating the species' moral system?
If not, why not?
So you hear somebody call homosexuality abhorred, despised, etc, that doesn't mean that conservatives all agree on this.
I'm not plucking conservatives out of the sky.
I'm quoting those that are participating in this thread. And remember, for most of the history of Christianity, you folks killed gays. The founders still did when our nation was founded. Putting the 'harsh language' standard of description on the back burner in comparison to the 'we're going to ******* kill you' standard used by God fearing Christians for centuries.
We consider all sin to be equal in it's capacity to separate reprobate man from a holy God. The adulterer is in no less danger of perdition because the nature of his sin is heterosexual, nor the fornicator, nor the prostitute.
But what if someone doesn't subscribe to your religious interpretations? You are using your faith as the basis of your assessment of immorality. And faith is about as subjective as it comes. And of course, religion is ridiculously subjective. You speak of the harm of adultery.......the Puritans killed adulterers and those committing sodomy. The founders only killed for sodomy. Modern day Christians in the US don't kill either.
So who is right? Did God's law change over the last 500 years? Or did the interpretations change? Or is it possible that you *all* got it wrong? And these are merely changes in the same faith, in the same cultural tradition, in the same general area, using the same language and the same religious texts.....separated merely by time.
If you go between cultures, between religions, between regions, between languages, between texts, you get even more radically diverse differences.
And almost all religions are mutually exclusive. It can't be BOTH Jesus and the Greek Pantheon of Gods. Which means that only one can of these mutually exclusive religions can be right. Which in turn means that ALL others are wrong.
Which means that by default, almost all religion is wrong by the very logic of theism.
And its so much worse than that: there's nothing that mandates that ANY religion got it right. And even if one managed it, religion is subject to time, personal interpretation, culture, society and personal context.
So how do you know that your interpretations and beliefs are correct? Especially when there are equally devout people that claim to speak for God (or Gods) that contradict you? You can't all be right. And there's nothing that requires that any of your are.
Which is why your 'God said so' basis of the immorality of homosexuality is so uselessly subjective. If I don't accept that you speak for God......you've got nothing. And I don't accept that you speak for God.
So why would homosexuality be immoral barring your Appeal to Authority?