Now..if this holds true, I leave my question to you all. “Give a SECULAR” reason against homosexual marriage.

As far as Christianity goes, i believe in it but i’m not a zealot. Though due to certain times in my life, my faith wont ever disappear. This is hard for many Atheists to understand as they desperately try again and again to prove this and that as for some odd reason they cant possibly accept the fact not everyone believes in evolution, ((get over it.. honestly.. no ones here to convert you [except the annoying ones].. so stop trying what is in effect the Atheist equivalent of attempted converting. just because you cant understand why we believe doesn’t mean you have to be an asshole about it , learn respect)). i suppose i’ve been ranting a bit here but dont we all? this was my opinion and im sticking to it.

No study has found any population on earth to have an incidence of more than 4.8% homosexuality (that means about one in twenty people is gay, globally). Furthermore, that incidence crops up in almost every study - including places where you might expect a higher incidence, such as, say, Thailand or Brazil, famous for their ‘ladyboys’, etc.) or where you might expect it to be lower (macho Australia, for example) So, even though the culture is different there, the number of gay people is actually just the same as in the US, UK or any other country: people do not CHOOSE to be gay. Their sexual drive, hardwired from birth, occurs naturally.

This has been proven by denying foetus’s certain waves of hormones which most foetuses usually receive during their time in the womb. It has been found that foetuses which do not receive the second wave (of eight) hormone waves are born homosexual. This missing wave is not an aberration; it has the potential to occur to any foetus, born anywhere in the world one twentieth of the time. The other foetuses get a different combination of hormone waves which decide their gender (i.e. straight male or female) for the other 47.5% each.

Studies in to animal sexuality show that homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom as well, and in many cases has a complex, distinct, active role in the habits of species.

A gay man, as a result of his differing hormonal legacy, has -among other things- a more enlarged hypothalamus (the central section of the brain near the stem) which is also true of women. The hypothalamus is responsible for -among other things- communication and spatial awareness: a gay man literally has a more female brain than a heterosexual man. The result for him is a different perspective on the world: on the one hand, he is more feminine-minded, on the other, he is capable of all the usual testosterone-derived aggression that a heterosexual male body also has. Throughout history, many cultures have had appreciation for this unique perspective. In our own time it has been maligned be exponents of religions which derive from similar or shared ancient texts (Christianity, Judaism and Islam, for example) which describe homosexuality as a perversion.

You should bear in mind that these original texts were as much social documents as they were religious ones. They were written by patriarchal (man-led) primitive (aggressive, tribal, fearful) cultures. They reflect the primitive instinct in all people; namely to fear what is unknown or unusual (a deep, useful instinct… the unknown may be dangerous!). An affinity for the familiar is a similar instinct; human beings are social animals which have always banded together, at first to survive, then to watch football matches in order to feel ‘part of a whole’ etc.

Identifying difference, and especially weakness, is part of Man’s primitive heritage with which he struggles to this day. The process is as visible today in our playgrounds as ever, and the mental scars which children receive for being different (be it being short, fat, red-haired, slow, glasses-wearing, gay, god-bothering, stupid etc.) effect their lives and decisions well into adulthood. Often the cycle of ‘attack others before they get a chance to attack you’ goes from parent to child.

Further, the instinct for highlighting difference allows us to band together: to draw lines in the sand beyond which others shall not pass. To build borders. To have wars. The next world war will see the end of the human race as we know it.

You should read more, so that you know enough about the Bible to really discern the important truths in it, rather than dwelling on the primitive testosterone driven fear mongering and priestly laws designed to control populations.

You might meditate on the question of whether, since homosexuality is naturally occurring, God might actually have nothing against gays, and loves them just as much as every other creature in his creation. And that a human being wrote the sections of text to which you are clinging.

To learn about the links between faith’s origins, a fascinating place to start is Wikipedia’s entry for Adam and Eve, followed by, say, Lilith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Also, yes, that’d be a radically different world–for one thing, I’d like to be the guy who gets the revenue from those tickets.

Yet, I think our concept of how Christ did things–and expects us to do things–has a large influence on what we think of it. Often we picture a very placid man, who slowly extends his hand to touch a person and say (in the flattest tone possible), “Grace be with ye, my child.” I’d go nuts if I had to duplicate that every day. Instead, if we think of a man who laughs with the “Sons of Thunder”, enjoys a cook meal under the stars, and knows how to fare the rough seas with a bunch of roudy fishermen…just without the sinful acts…we get a really cool guy. Just think of witty, kind-hearted person, who yet has the capacity to be serious and finds use for His wrath (without acting unseemly)–you have a general picture of Christ the man.

Of course, add in the miracles and divine ability to forgive men without being considered insane by all who heard, then you have those elements that are supraman–superman. Yet, we find Jesus promising to enable us to do those same tasks (not just the morality)…then we find ourselves promised to live really cool lives that draw comments like, “He’s a nice guy, but I think he’s TOO good…”; “Wow! He’s hillarious, and I haven’t heard a joke with a cuss word yet…”; “Did you see that?! He just prayed over that guy and he’s standing again…didn’t I see that (praying) dude laughing and having FUN at the coffee shop last night?”

See, we dichotomize the issue into either head-long pleasure seeking or heavy rituals. Often we swing from both as we find ourselves frustrated in the fruitless results, slowly finding our faith undermined by our failure, not God’s. We say, “If I can’t raise the dead today, then God doesn’t do miracles anymore”…totally, taking the context of what He was telling us. Actually, we’re just following Simon the Sorcerer, hoping to bribe God for His gifts (Acts 8:20-24).

Sadly, this is too often the direction I wander…

May the Lord lend us grace to empower us in our weakness. “My grace is sufficient for you; in weakness I (the Lord) am made strong.”

Now, if I seek to do such things in myself to myself for the sake of myself, where did I develop this concept? Or, to rephrase it, where did I engender and cultivate this sense of morality? Did I spontaneously generate a list of strictures to restrain the base characteristics of my nature? Or, were these genetic imprints arising within me? Yet…if this was the indelible imprint on my genome, then why do I have that conflict–is my body fighting a virus? If so, then, where does this virus originate, especially since (according to the statement that its genetic imprint) it would be my genes attacking themselves?

Could it be Someone–some Maker—crafted this desire to combat and keep myself pure of something outside of general caretaking? If so, then wouldn’t this same desire sprout up around the world? And, if that is also true, wouldn’t that exemplify itself in the moral question, where other (yes, I’ve expanding my microcosm now) people battle this same issue, devoid of much of the genome and conditions I have? Isn’t this the very thing we are doing now–combatting the issue of morality, that desire to make oneself better than mere beast? Indeed, the very fact that the moral question spans back farther than global communications, displaying a general consensus that rape is awful, murder is heinous, and lying is unkind–along with many other sins–gives merit to a Higher Power, outside genes, conditions, and personal opinion. Now, yes, the fine tuning has been disagreed upon, but in a realm where the bestial and humane battle, where good and bad are often muddled in a death grip…like trying to dissect a raging tornado…this is understandable. Yet, there seems to be a cresendo of support from each cardinal direction that morality–in the most primal sense–is real and necessary. We wouldn’t have many of our laws and disputes if that wasn’t so.

As to Christianity and Judaism’s claim to summa prima morales…again, go back and look at the source. Here seems to be a highly composite collection of the “moral laws” (or “Natural laws”, as Aquinas would put it) displayed in every squabble, such as a man stealing a person’s wallet; a person squeezing into a chair, though someone else was already beginning to sit; or someone shouting an insult. Most of these (except the theft) are outside the judicial system, yet everyone seems to be appeal to some ruling system (”That’s mine!…”, “I saw the chair first…”, or “You shouldn’t say that!”). If there is such a system, carrying a heavy adherance that we all are probably going to call on it sometime today, then who wrote it? This Lawgiver would be above mere man, since the rules allude to a state of living higher than what we are now. We wouldn’t have a conflict with it, unless we were outside the Moral Absolute. For the idea to be conceived, some concept–or some example–would be needed, else the image is shoddy. We think of flying because we see a bird in the air…This moral Lawgiver instilled in man what He Himself lived: Moral Perfect.

Yes, this grew out into a macrocosm…but, Morality itself is a macrocosm, surrounding the entire existence of “I” and humanity as I whole. So, it would quite be a difficult task to keep to singular and microscopic terms and ideas. However, this is a good question to talk on. Thanks for stirring the brain.