Something that doesn't seem to come up in discussions of same-sex marriage but I think needs to be addressed before this discussion disapears into the archives, is whether homosexuality is a geneticly unalterable state or a behavior? Some years ago (the 90's, I think) a study was announced that showed that there was one gene that some male homosexuals had in common - but not all. And while this same gene could be found in heterosexuals as well, its occurance in male (not female) homosexuals showed a statistical significance. That was all. The study was never corroborated. It didn't need to be because the media grabbed it and announced to the world that homosexuals were born that way even though the study's authors said the study didn't really prove that. Somehow we seem to have a new cultural mythology that says that homosexuality is a genetic trait, not a behavior. Does this make a difference? I think it does.

There is another theory out there (Carl Jung) that homosexuality is a stage in development that we all pass through in our pre-teen years (most of us) but some kind of get stuck in. This theory has been buried in all the excitment about the genetic theory (it, too is just a theory at this point) and obviously it does not appeal to homosexuals who don't want to be told they are stuck in a stage of development. In addition to Jung's theory there is the matter of sexual addiction and all the many complex and and often unconscious reasons someone might want to embrace a homosexual lifestyle. So how does all this make a difference in the question of same-sex marriage?

It makes a difference if we are calling this a human rights issue. A behavioral issue is a little different. Obviously the behavior is not going away. It's been around forever and will continue no matter what is said from the pulpits. But does it have to be sanctioned as equal to heterosexual marriage - which the Church considers a sacrament? If it is a behavior it can be changed though there is not question change is very difficult. If homosexuality is genetic, it can't be changed and therefore is a human rights issue. This makes a difference in this whole discussion and is a still-unanswered question.

Abomination? Church teaching? Marxists and liberal infiltration?

What does any of this have to do with the legal right of US citizens to enter into contracts?

This discussion assumes that marriage means sex (and probably procreation) and it pictures what people do when together in their own home. What of those marriages where people are celebate (straight or gay)? What of straight marriages where the woman is past childbearing age? Or those where the man has had a vasectomy? And why picture what people do behind closed doors? What business is it of our ours -- as long as both partners are consenting adults? Why get so cranked up about what others do? Pardon all the questions. But something troubles me about the tone of some respondents, those seeking to save people from themselves. We all have more than enough to do in saving ourselves. Part of that is becoming more understanding, more loving, more forgiving. Then, maybe, we can condemn. Nah, not even then. We are commanded to love. Even our political enemies.