Homosexual marriages- against the natures law?

Below, I quote from: http://gallup.com/poll/focus/sr040127.asp

This is a Gallup poll. Gallup is regarded as one of the most reliable polling services in the United States. When you claim facts on controversial subjects, you should back them up with references. I can present more data points and compare the numbers if this one is unsatisfactory.

QUOTE:

"Forty-nine percent of Americans say homosexual relations between consenting adults should not be legal, compared with 46% who say they should be. These results, obtained in the Jan. 9-11 poll, have changed dramatically over the past year. In early May 2003, 60% of Americans said homosexual relations should be legal. This percentage dropped to 50% in mid-July, following the Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas sodomy law. The public has been evenly divided on this issue since the court's ruling."

Even if this poll had an uncertainty of +/- 10% (unlikely for a survey of thousands of respondents), this hardly constitutes a "vast majority". I don't claim this means homosexuality is "right" or "wrong" (whatever that means). I DO claim it means your assertion is invalid. Based on the above data, the opinion is split right down the middle. Moral arguments hinging on public opinion are flawed to begin with. I'm sure the Polish, Dutch, and French civilians of the late 1930's would disagree that the public of Nazi Germany knew the difference between right and wrong when the Reich decided it needed "breathing room."

Re: "FACT - etc." : The vast majority of people are disgusted by raw sewage. Does this make relieving yourself morally wrong? Many people find pickled herring revolting. My dad loves them. Should I denouce him as a social deviant? Non sequitur (it doesn't follow).

As for the argument that homosexuality is a misuse of body parts, have you considered that homosexuality may have played an important evolutionary role in animal populations? As just one example, it can provide an outlet for sexual aggression without the burden of additional offspring. This relief of sexual tension might be vital for social cohesiveness in "clan" primates, such as gorillas. This argument also simply doesn't follow. By the same reasoning, you can object to chewing gum as a misuse of teeth.

If your views on homosexuality are religiously driven or stem from personal preference, I can understand and respect your opinion. But don't assume the support of the masses when easily obtained data contradicts your assertion.

Chameleon, you have made yet another very well written post that fails to 'compare apples with apples' and worse still, distorts and misrepresents what others have said.

I made no reference to whether or not people believe that homosexual relations should be legal or not. So, your figures from the gallup poll are quite irrelevant! Sorry. Whilst on that subject it should be noted that those in favour are still in the minority. Fortunately for homosexuals, a reasonable percentage of people are prepared to grant legality to homosexual acts, but this should not be confused with accepting them or approving of them - it is merely a reflection of people's tolerance of the lifestyles of others. You are quite right, many people are disgusted by many different things. Let's all be gratefull that human nature IS so tolerant.

You claim that homosexuality may have played an important evolutionary role. This is totally and utterly preposterous and quite absurd! I don't consider such a claim even worthy of response.

I understand you may have passionate feelings on homosexuality, but please remain rational, and when purporting to quote others and their opinions please try to be accurate and not create distortions to support your personal views.

On a more positive tone, we are lucky to live in countries that permit such dialog. In some countries such discussion is not permitted, let alone the perverse behaviour we are discussing.

If they are happy with that then let them marry. Its better to ignore them if we cannot legalise.
Any way I am against this.

Let me insert here something about debating, whatever the topic is.

When debating about some specific theme, let's say, experimentation with rabits to obtain a new make-up product , if that person argues against that experimentation that doens't mean that s/he is a rabit, or that the person has passionate feelings about rabits, but that s/he has an opinion about the theme. If someone discuss in favour of stopping contamination the atmosphere, that doesn't mean that person is one of the gases that comform the atmosphere.

In the same way, is someone is giving data or opinions about ///// that doen's mean that s/he is has "passionate feelings" about the theme but that s/he is debating.

This regarding what Conus says :"I understand you may have passionate feelings about homosexuality".

Conus, I think it is easy to resort to that way, but it destroy the debate.....I think.

Very well. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/gss4.html

This is also a gallup poll (1996).

This still does not constitute a "vast" majority (unless you define "vast" as a 14% difference in opinion) You'll also note that public opinion has been becoming more tolerant for the last 10+ years. Also, you might want to review some material on poll taking. A 49%/46% poll can tell you little to nothing about majorities and minorities depending on the sample size.

I am still waiting for any data demonstrating any of your points conus. Just saying "no you're wrong" doesn't hold any weight. I would not have objected to your claim if you had simply made a statement of personal belief. But when you make declarative statements about subjective material, you should at least argue your point.

As for the evolutionary argument, how do you know it's preposterous? Did you do any background research? If my claim is so absurd, it should be easy for you to show that.

You entirely dismiss my argument that your logic is flawed. I wasn't claiming that people tolerate the eating of herring and the act of taking a dump. I was saying that people think it's disgusting. This is completely analogous to your argument that homosexuality is disgusting, ergo, it's morally wrong. If I am confusing what you said, I think you should make a clearer distinction between what is disgusting and what is morally wrong and what the interrelationship of these two categories is (or is not).

My "passionate feelings" for homosexuality? All I have tried to do is demonstrate that your data and your logic are inadequate to the argument you're making. First you made a claim that homosexuality is disgusting and morally wrong. This is a personal preference. Then you extended that claim to the general population with no data. Am I missing something here?

I think you should note that I haven't made any claims about how I personally feel about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality (thanks Elena, for your post). That's because my personal opinion is irrelovant to the conversation.