@old europe,
oe, the primary objection I have with legitimizing a behavior as a civil right, a behavior that is viewed as wrong by a good many people, this opens the door to the government making sure that organizations and businesses sanction this behavior. Churches for example, will they be required to approve of the behavior? Will they be prohibited from teaching that homosexual acts are wrong? Will schools be required to teach this behavior as normal, with our tax dollars, to our children, against our will? These and many more questions are pertinent.
Also, we don't know if its nature or nurture, or a combination of both, but we do know that behavior is a choice, that much we know. I am opposed to discrimination against anyone as a person, but I am opposed to forcing people to sanction every behavior as if it is equivalent to a civil right. Thats what the whole gay marriage thing is about, it is about more than just the marriage issue, it is about much more.
Back to the indians, the two spirit reference was interesting, but that isn't talking about the behavior, so if you can cite for me a tribe that allowed homosexual activity going on in the tepees or dwellings on a regular basis, please cite for me the evidence.
You talk about the impact of religion on laws, that is exactly correct. In fact, we would have no laws whatsoever if we did not have a moral code deriving from a religious tradition. To deny this is just silly, but many liberals do just that. All you have to do is read the old Testament law, and you will recognize many of the principles embodied in our laws.
And would you please knock off the "phobia" references. That term is utterly ridiculous, although it has made it into common usage. Nevertheless, it is a total and absolute misnomer, not proper usage of the term.
