Homosexual marriages- against the natures law?

Interesting qustion. I do believe we have to establish ethics that we all agree to live by.

The question is what shoudl our ethics be here. The question most often being asked is whether or same sex marriage is against natural law. Well, marriage is a man made institution, so not natural. However, as some have pointed out, homosexual activitity occurs in nature, so it is natural by definition.

I suspect if we are going to say in a free society that this group of people can't marry, we should present a reason as to why not. I don't think it should be religious because we are free in this country not to believe (though I question whether God has an objection or not), and I don't think tradition is enough (tradition was against inner racial marriage). But we should have a reason.

I can't think of a logical objection to same sex marriage; therefore, ethically, I'd have to support it.

I myself have no problem with gay marriage and voted against the bill in my state banning gay marriage.

I totally think Homosexual ANYTHING is against natures law. I don't have any fancy answers, I just know that it's not suppose to be that way. Man was not created to be with another man, that would end all human reproduction, the same goes for women, with that I am totally againt same sex marriage, most of the gay men can't seem to stay faithful to each other, and they just further spread disease amongst each other, and maybe the occasional female they want to "experiment" with. I think the whole homosexual lifestyle is depressing, most of them are so angry, and spend most of their life defending themselves from family and friends, I don't know why anyone would choose that type of lifestyle for themselves.

I'm not guessing: you are afraid of them.

Your pointless statements only reveal a degree insecurity in yourself.

Try as you might, you or anyone else will never be able to find anything wrong* with homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The makeshift 'undoing moral fibre'** argument serves only to invite ridicule, as social solidarity (and hence moral solidarity) is only held together when all threads (to continue the textiles theme) have equal and uninfringing liberties. I fail to see how same-sex marriage will infringe on the other kind, or how practising homosexuals infringe on the practises of heterosexuals.

*I mean wrong in all possible senses: morally, sexually, economically, politically, religiously... and even 'naturally', because as bratannia pointed out, the laws of nature refer to the laws of physics, and as it is impossible for something to violate the laws of physics, the idea of homosexuality being against the law of nature is inherently flawed, as it follows that homosexuals could not possibly exist in the first place. Speaking of Nature's law (u.c. is to give relgious personification to something abstract) law is irrelevant and a contradiction in terms, as universal law transcends religion (that is why Buttiglione was dismissed). If you mean against 'law of human nature' you are implying that homosexuals are not human, which is also an impossibility in the moral and physical senses of the word 'human'.

**To use the 'moral fibre' metaphor in written and spoken English will get you sneered at. The phrase has associations with antediluvian beliefs and ideas about collective morality in society.

And when using the stock excuse of having 'religious reasons' for your beliefs, keep in mind the aphorism that more men have died in the name of religion (especially for Roman Catholic dogma and Moslem theocracy) than for any other reason on earth.