I didn't change the subject; you're just avoiding my uncomfortable point.
There is no uncomfortable point. That is my point.
Is murder and cannibalism natural?
Yes. Both occur within nature, therefore both are natural.
Are they wrong?
Yes.
Is it natural to have multiple partners?
Again, yes. Occurs within nature, therefore natural.
Is it wrong?
Matter of opinion, on that one. I personally don't understand the appeal of it -- I couldn't imagine trying to devote myself to more than one spouse -- but I cannot think of a reason to universally condemn it (I can find specific instances of it where it can be condemned, but that's not the same things).
If not, then why not sanction polygamy?
Why sanction polygamy? And in what way would it be sanctioned? What benefits, rights and obligations would be granted by such a sanctioning and how would they be granted?
Your only argument for gay marriage is "because I like it." That opens the door to anything.
No, that isn't my only argument for same-sex marriage.
I happen to like the TV series "Angel", but I'm not about to ask the government to step in and stop the WB from cancelling it.
Back to the "natural" issue, if it is so natural, why don't gays and lesbians have body parts and physiological systems that match their desires?
Er, without getting into any messy details, I'm pretty sure that most do have body parts and physiological systems that match their desires.
Why can't lesbians have intercourse?
You're really going to have to explain what you mean by this. If you don't want to go into the details of it, I will understand. It might actually be better for us all if you didn't.
Why do they ovulate? Menstruate?
That's a question for biology. It has nothing to do with their sexual orientation and everything to do with human physiology.
Why do gay men have sperm?
Again, a matter of human biology, not sexual orientation.
There is nothing actually "natural" about their behavior.
Occurs within nature, therefore natural. You're apparently using a different definition of the word natural. Perhaps you could point out which
definition of the word that you are using?
By the way, should nudity be legal?
It already is legal. There are restrictions on it, but I am certainly not required to wear clothing when I shower.
It's certainly natural.
Yes, it is. But I never said that natural = should be legal.
Who does it offend. Or, WHAT does it offend other than the moral sense of the public?
You tell me.
What do you mean by "biologically natural"? It occurs within biological life forms in nature, therefore it is natural. Or are you using a different definition of "natural" than the commonly accepted one? Homosexuality does not occur in nature.
Homosexuality is more than the bare act of sodomy: what is it we are constantly told--it's a "lifestyle"? So drawing a parallel between it and, say, a male wolf mounting another male wolf, is a total perversion of the term.
Homosexuality is a pair-bond relationship between two men or women that includes sexual intercourse. Basically, it is supposedly everything that marriage is, just with same-sex partners.
So if you want to find a true animal equivalent of human homosexuality you have to find me a MATING pair-bond relationship between two male or two female animals. Where two male wolves, foxes, birds, or anything else, go off and live alone together AND mate while doing so. This occurs precisely nowhere in the animal kingdom that I know of.