California Proposition 8

[Sihouette]

Siho,
I will assume that you have an understanding of the term "barren" as it is used in the Bible (Judges 13:3 or II Kings 2:19). Your arguments are intellectually barren, you have lied on this thread, you have defamed, condemned, and taken numerous personal experiences--yours and others--and tried to apply them across the board to all people in an attempt to denigrate them and thereby justify your own inner terrors.~Mare

More armchair psychology. Too bad you haven't looked as deeply into your own psyche?

My arguments aren't barren. How do I know this? By your reaction if nothing else. But logic meshes nicely with them. Your positions are...unwieldy..odd...and devoid of personal introspection. But they do have a healthy smattering of ad hominems, attacks and playing victim when your arguments fall thin.

You sit there and type in one paragraph your obvious distaste for the male gender from bad experiences in the male world, and then tell us in the next how you've always identified with being female. It's like you cannot put the two together. Knock Knock? You identify with being female because you have an intense distaste for being male. And further, we're supposed to accept that you're coming from a position of sanity when you choose to chop off your penis instead of just going through the ten or 15 years of psychotherapy that would help you come to terms with your issues with men and being male.

Now you're disfigured, unhappy and just as mentally confused as before, only minus your penis. That's why I asked you to tell us if you considered yourself a lesbian. I wasn't being cheeky. I literally want to understand which gender you're sexually attracted to and why? Near as I can tell it's still women, only that your hatred of males caused you to play dressup and ultimately disfigure your genitals.

And you still cannot see the white elephant in the room I'll wager. It's this type of mentality that is so pervasive within the gay community. The rest of us "on the outside" of homosexual confusion can see the skew as plain as the nose on your face. It's like the residents of a mental instititution have escaped and are now pleading for manic depression to be required of the citizenry in order to "have equality". You lack sane perspective. You are dangerous in that you appear lucid at times, sensible even; but there is this glaring blind spot. Just go back and read your own story, your own description, your own words and see if you cannot ferret the white elephant in your decision-making process.

And we're supposed to allow this mental deviance into mainstream as normal? No, no, I really don't think so...

 

[Chip]

Others here have gone to great lengths to make my experience part of this thread and, unlike any of them, I am the one person here who has personal experience with transsexuality in humans and have actual education on the subject and the one whose marriage is most at risk from the anti-gay people.

Which is, of course, topically irrelevant.

The topic is not transsexuality.

the topic is gay/lesbian marriage and California's Prop 8 that denies it.

You are the one who wishes to make 6 year olds the standard of adult behavior,

No, that's your fantasy dispersion.

I have pointed out that six year-olds are most likely to tell the truth about who marriage participants are, a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE.

That's all.

so my question to you is valid in light of the fact that there are 4-6 year old children who recognize already that they have been miscast in the play of life by having an inappropriate body.

Your projection is irrelevant.

A six year-old child can see with their eyes, clearly, that the marriage they've known is between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE.

I have posted scientific reasons for the condition I and others have, I have given historical evidence, and I have been honest, open, and consistent in my presentation. This stands in stark contrast to some of the others here who have been all over the map looking for any kind of argument that might have a shred of value.

You just don't get it, do you Mare.

Your "condition" is topically irrelevant.

But it sure shows how biasedly blind you are to seeing the topic at hand clearly and separately from yourself.

If you are not lying about your credentials like some people do, then you know very well that fully male and fully female people stand at opposite ends of a spectrum

Absolutely false, Mare.

It's not about "fully".

It's about simply being both biologically and neuropsychologically male or female, and such a condition is NOT at the "opposite" ends of the spectrum, but occupies the overwhelming vast majority of the center, with the tiny amount of aberrations at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

You have it so obviously backwards ... because you can't see beyond yourself, imagining your extreme situation to be the "norm".

and that there are intersexed (the archaic term is "hermaphrodite") people who exhibit the primary and secondary characteristics of both genders,

Rare, rare, rare, rare, rare.

None of this changes the reality of the fact that the long-standing, time-honored, cross-cultural, traditional definition of marriage partners is "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".

I didn't make the rules, Mare.

I'm simply reporting them.

so the idea that there might be people spread out all across the spectrum is not only reasonable but rational and obvious.

Your sophistry is, specious.

Your rare exceptions are at the extreme ends of your spectrum.

The overwhelming vast majority are at the center, and the deviation is sudden, sharp and extreme, but very rare.

I'm really sorry that you suffered, but your condition remains irrelevant to the topic.

We speak every term to continuing ed classes of couselors and therapists and I have never met one yet that has your level of intrasigent ignorance who was not religiously driven.

Again, unprovoked ad homimens from Mare.

You continue to show you have nothing but obvious sophistry in the matter, laced with initiated ad hominems against those you disagree with.

You need to do better in presenting to the overwhelming vast majority why the definition of marriage partners is not as they know it is or why it needs to be revised.

Illogic, sophistry and ad hominems, will convince no one.

 

[Segep]

More armchair psychology. Too bad you haven't looked as deeply into your own psyche?

What the hell makes you think Mare hasn't looked deeply into her own psyche? You think making the decision to cross genders is taken lightly or without examining every possible alternative? Jeezus, how clueless can you be?

Your positions are...devoid of personal introspection.

That's just retarded. Project much?

But they do have a healthy smattering of ad hominems, attacks and playing victim when your arguments fall thin.

I call it razor sharp wit. You're just pissed because you've been on the receiving end of it.

You sit there and type in one paragraph your obvious distaste for the male gender from bad experiences in the male world, and then tell us in the next how you've always identified with being female. It's like you cannot put the two together. Knock Knock? You identify with being female because you have an intense distaste for being male. And further, we're supposed to accept that you're coming from a position of sanity when you choose to chop off your penis

STOP right there. She told you once already that's not what happens or what it's about. Your insistence on using third grade taunts shows just how little you really care about understanding what makes the queer community tick.

I literally want to understand which gender you're sexually attracted to and why?

Why don't you try some ****ing respect and maybe she'll tell you.

And you still cannot see the white elephant in the room I'll wager.

I'm willing to bet she sees more clearly than the rest of us. Intelligent cultures would have placed her in a position of high honor--the keeper of our lore and the teacher of the mysteries of the world.

It's this type of mentality that is so pervasive within the gay community.

And just what do you know about the gay community? Please enlighten us, O' privileged one.

The rest of us "on the outside" of homosexual confusion can see the skew as plain as the nose on your face.

You see shadows on the wall and think that they are reality.

 

[Segep]

I'm really sorry that you suffered

No you're not. If you did you wouldn't be such a deliberate jackass.

 

[Segep]

p.s.

a "white elephant" is a useless gift. Get your terms right.


I bet she does indeed see the white elephant in this room.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Silo, if homosexuality is learned, where was it learned from in the first place?

 

[Sihouette]

Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
"Others here have gone to great lengths to make my experience part of this thread and, unlike any of them, I am the one person here who has personal experience with transsexuality in humans and have actual education on the subject and the one whose marriage is most at risk from the anti-gay people."

Which is, of course, topically irrelevant.

The topic is not transsexuality.

the topic is gay/lesbian marriage and California's Prop 8 that denies it.~Chip

I don't know Chip. I tend to think Mare's condition is relevant. Think about it. Mare represents what is being plead to follow on the heels of lesbians and gays gaining marriage status.

You are on the one hand correct that transseexuals are not part of the argument. But Mare's and the GLBT community's petitioning for marriage inclusion is the whole thrust of my argument in a nutshell. Once gays and lesbians get marriage status, their deviant buddies will be right behind them. The fact that they include transsexuals in their milieu says that they acknowledge other types of deviances besides same-sex partnership into their hopes for the new marriage umbrella.

Overtly it is the fact that the GLBT exists, that says it all. They are pushing the limits already by including transsexuals.

And it's really a scream to hear some argue why bigamists shouldn't be included. I think it was Topgun who reiterated that the new inclusion would only be legally worded as "between two people". Why? I mean if two men are humping each other sexually in a union that could never result in children (the reason for the origins of sexual activity), why would three men humping each other in the same "union" of "love" be excluded? What possible reason? Topgun cites custody issues of children? Why could children not benefit from having three gay male or female parents instead of just two? Why not have visitation for one of the gay partners of three, two days a week and the other two the same?

In one breath they cry "oppression from the bigots!"; and in the next they casually remark that only two people can unite in "love". Why? What moral compunction are the citing to limit it to two? Why not five gay men romping in the sack? Why not 8 lesbian women raising children together. Maybe splinter groups from the original 8 could coop custody visitation?

Sure, why not? Once the precident of "outside one man and one woman" has been set, there will be no sticking legal argument barring other non-traditional, non-biologically-adhering descriptions of condoned sexual partnerships between two consenting adults.

Poor NAMBLA, they'll have to wait until, like with other gays who lust 18 year olds, their unions with the ones they "love" have become pervasive enough in a community like San Francisco's Gay Area, generationally born from the original frustraion of all-male communities spawning a gay movement, in order to petition for their legal marriage to young boys.

No you say? The only thing standing between that illegality and it's overturning is a few decades perhaps. Remember. Gay sex of consenting adults was illegal once too. Decades later they're on the threshold of acheiving marriage status by guilt-tripping society and screaming "descrimination" whenever society pushes back. Perhaps NAMBLA can reach a compromise with society wherein the legal age of "consent" will be lowered to boys as young as 12? But by that age the boys are getting a little old to be sexually attractive to NAMBLA men, so they really are in a pickle. Maybe if they get the 18 year olds to do a body wax and speak in a high voice? That might do the trick..

This far and no farther.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Silo, if homosexuality is learned, where was it learned from in the first place?

 

[Chip]

No you're not. If you did you wouldn't be such a deliberate jackass.

Erroneous and irrelevant ... and another unprovoked ad hominem initiated from Segep sans relevant topical content.

It is quite possible you are again projecting.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Chip, if homosexuality is learned, where was it learned from in the first place?

 

[Sihouette]

Where homosexuality is learned from is a complicated question. There are many factors. I will tell you what I personally have observed working with herds of animals and from reading literature on the matter.

My theory is that it is a complex combination of both physical and psychological factors spawned from environmental conditions.

Animals have certain sexual behaviors evident not long after birth. Quickly-maturing as many farm mammals are, they can be seen mock-mounting each other as soon as a week after they are born. Same-sex mountings are not uncommon. They have the basic instincts in place, but haven't grounded their preference, mounting both sexes alternately with the emphasis seeming more on domination than reproduction. It is often how they establish their pecking orders in the herd.

When puberty starts arriving, the males will mount but will also begin to thrust with purpose. The females come into heat cycles and if no male is present, they will pace the fence near where they can see or smell him and even mount each other if they cannot get to him as the heat progresses to its most intense point, just before or at ovulation.

One billy goat I was saving to mate to prize doe I had that was too young to breed, I kept him in with other males until some months would pass. He was frustrated and paced the fence to get to her and her doemates. As the days passed he became more and more frustrated and finally began mounting his pen mates. After that his interest in does began to falter and instead he would mount his buddies to vent his sexual urges. I got one or two breedings out of him to does after I noticed the problem. But ever after he just lost interest in them and simply wouldn't mount them anymore.

I lost some money on that deal...

So frustration at a critical hormone-surge/puberty threshold was the cause of that homosexuality.

Other times it can be aversion to the opposite gender from negative experiences. Mammals particularly learn from conditioning. If they experience rewards from a situation they will continue to prefer the behavior they exhibited just prior to the reward. Conversely, if they experience a punishment just after a given behavior, they will tend to avoid that particular behavior in the future. One stallion I worked with was in with a horribly abusive mare just at the onset of his puberty. Her nastiness, kicking, squealing and biting at his approaches made him very leery of mounting other mares in the future. Luckily I pulled him out of that situation just in time. Eventually with kinder, more submissive mares, he regained his confidence. I never had a chance to see what he would do with his natural sexual desires in a bachelor herd if he had a learned aversion to mares ingrained; but it doesn't take a genius to postulate where those sexual drives would send him...mounting his buddies.

Sometimes with mammals homosexuality can arise from early and repeated contact from an older animal who is homosexual. Since on ranches, homosexual animals are usually culled to prevent disturbing normal sexual behavior in the other members of the herd, it's hard to come across a situation where an adult homosexual is in regular contact with a youngster.

However, with humans the conditions are rife for situations where homosexuals have repeated contact with youngsters in their custody. Humans do not "cull" homosexual adults.

for many homosexuals, this same-sex attraction to minors may stem from their own sexual experiences. Research shows that very often homosexuals had their own initial same-sex encounter with an adult while children. (See AFA Journal, May 1999.)

Writing in The Advocate, a magazine for homosexuals, Carl Maves agreed. “How many gay men, I wonder, would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience – one that initiated them into their sexuality – if it weren’t for so-called molestation?” he said.

Source: http://www.afajournal.org/archives/23060000011.asp

So with homosexuality it appears that it can arise from
1. Frustration of the sexual drive/ inability to access the opposite gender, as is the case with my billy goat and the homosexual movement spawned in San Francisco from mostly-male community having no female access.

2. Learned-aversion to the opposite gender. As is the case with many homosexuals I've spoken with, particularly lesbians, but not always. And was almost the case with a stallion I worked with. In the case with transsexuals, learned-aversion explains rather nicely when applied to the transsexual's own gender...as is the case with Mare.

3. Early-imprinting via repetition. As is the case with association of sexual climax associated with a same gender partner who forces contact at an inappropriate and impressionable age.

**

In all three cases, homosexuality is a learned behavior via conditioning. With frustration, the pleasure experienced by mounting same sex (the only one availible or approachable) "trained" the individual to get reward from same-sex preference. With aversion, the pain associated with opposite gender contact trained the individual to seek reward from same sex. With imprinting, the training was repeated association with pleasurable release with the same gender.

I hope this answers your questions dawk?

 

[vyo476]

There's learned and then there's learned.

Let's set up a little experiment to demonstrate:

The atomic weight of cobalt is 59.3. When you just read that statement, you learned something. You're aware of having learned it because your brain is sufficiently well-developed to understand the concept of "learning." Furthermore, while the knowledge of the atomic weight of cobalt is now part of the larger pool of knowledge you possess, learning that individual fact has not had a radical or profound effect on your psyche, because, as an adult, your psyche has finished forming its basic structure and won't be altered save for an enormous, Earth-shattering event or revelation.

That is conscious learning.

Then there is subconscious learning during childhood, which is what establishes much of a human being's behavioral patterns. That type of learning occurs before the brain has developed the capacity to understand what "learning" is. It also occurs while the psyche is still forming - and is therefore still exceptionally malleable (just FYI, most studies have shown that individual personality doesn't even begin to emerge until a child is about 18 months old). At this time in a child's development, even seemingly simple stimuli can have a profound effect on the psyche. Boiled down a ton, this means that stimuli in early childhood shapes on a very basic level who a person is going to be, at least in terms of personal preferences across a wide range of topics - aesthetics among them.

This, so far as I know, is the best explanation for homosexuality - that some form of early childhood stimuli results in the formation of certain aspects of the child's psyche in some way that will eventually lead to that child growing up to be homosexual. While the aspects of the psyche exist throughout the child's early life, they wouldn't manifest until around puberty - at the same point at which heterosexuality begins to rear its head in developing children.

Exactly what types of behavioral stimuli result in the formation of homosexuality are, presently, unknown. While it is entirely possible - plausible, even - that observation of homosexuality by young children could act as the required stimuli, is quite obviously not the only catalyst - as an entire generation of homosexuals who were raised by heterosexual parents in heterosexual environments are more than ample evidence that something else triggers the formation of homosexuality.

Please note that what I have written here pertains to homosexuality as a dispositional behavioral preference. There is a difference, in this sense, between "being a homosexual" and "engaging in homosexual activities." Just as many heterosexuals choose not to engage in heterosexual activity (this runs the gamut from those who take vows of chastity to those who simply don't date, for whatever reason) some homosexuals choose not to engage in homosexual activities, for just as wide (if not wider) a selection of reasons.

The baseline question here, though, must be: is homosexuality "wrong?" I must still answer that "no," it is not wrong, nor is "unnatural" in the purely psychological sense.

In terms of "right" and "wrong," I consider only actions or activities that are non-consensual and/or do harm to others to be wrong. Homosexuality is, intrinsically, neither of those things.

In terms of "natural" vs. "unnatural," the subjectivity of human experience must be taken into account. Every one of us experiences the world in a different way - granted, some more so than others. These differences of experience occur on very basic levels - think of how communication works. Person A says something that Person B thinks is perfectly clear and Person C must struggle to understand, but when asked for their interpretations, it turns out that Person A says that Person C understood what was said better. Person B is confused - he thought he understood perfectly - but according to Person A, in whom the statement originated, he got it wrong. It is entirely possible that, from Person B's perspective, he was right - and even though Person A tells him that he is not correct, he will go on believing that, because it would take a larger cataclysm than simply being told he is wrong to shake Person B's worldview. Furthermore, Person B is not "wrong" in any absolute sense - all he has is his perception of the world - that is existence to him - and his concept of existence is no less valid than Person A's simply because Person B is reacting to something Person A said. The extent to which these fundamental disagreements occur is entirely subjective as well, but that's a matter for another discussion.

What I'm trying to convey with this analogy is that what is "natural" for one person can be entirely different from what is "natural" for another person. Just as there is a disagreement on the conscious level between Person A and Person B, there is a fundamental difference on the psychological level between the two men that has caused them to disagree so virulently. It is "natural," then, in Person B's eyes to be what is considered "wrong" in Person A's eyes. You see, what is "natural" is entirely a matter of perception. Being a homosexual can be completely "natural" for a homosexual, given the necessary perception.

So you see - homosexuality is neither "wrong" nor is "unnatural."

 

[Sihouette]

Homosexuality isn't "wrong" per se. However its ability to impress itself on subsequent generations is unpalitable to majority of voters...Let's revisit that link above for some further introspecion into the learned-homosexual subject..

Perhaps the most notorious group advocating adult-child sex is the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). An unashamedly pedophile organization, NAMBLA wants society to appreciate, rather than deplore, intergen-erational sex, and to abolish laws banning sex between adults and minors.

While most homosexual activist groups publicly denounce NAMBLA and its agenda, the pedophile group is still allowed to march in “gay” pride parades in New York, San Francisco and Boston under its own NAMBLA banner.

Furthermore, some suggest that public disavowal of NAMBLA by homosexual groups is a smokescreen. David Thorstad, a founding member of NAMBLA and former president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance, says homosexual activists have supressed pedophilia in order “to sanitize the image of homosexuality to facilitate its entrance into the social mainstream.”

I tend to agree, and have said so in this thread repeatedly.

A more accurate assessment, however, would compare ratios of population size to incidences of involvement in pedophilia. In this regard, according to the National Association on Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), in proportion to their numbers, homosexual men are more likely to engage in sex with a minor.

Citing a study (Freund and Watson, 1992) which was reported in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, NARTH found that homosexual males were “three times more likely than straight men to engage in adult-child sexual relations.”

Cameron’s own research shows even higher rates of homosexual molestation. In the Nebraska Medical Journal Cameron said that when data from both genders are combined, homosexuals are at least 8-12 times more likely to molest children than are heterosexuals.

In the face of such overwhelming evidence, homosexual activists resort to a circular argument: since true homosexuals only desire sex with another adult, then pedophiles cannot be homosexual. In effect, activists have simply defined homosexual molestation of children out of existence.

But the words of homosexuals themselves betray them. Writing in the homosexual magazine Out, columnist Dan Savage mentioned that he lives near a park where some local high school soccer teams practice. “Some of the boys are really something else, and during practice they play shirts and skins. Any gay man who tells you he can walk by a boy’s soccer team without looking is a liar…,” Savage said.

There is no magic age of attraction if men lust after 18 year old boys, 15 year olds will elicit the same attraction...and so on..

When pedophiles strike, the results are often disastrous. A recent review (Holmes and Slap, 1998) of the research on the molestation of boys, published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association showed that adolescent boys who were abused by men were up to seven times more likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

Furthermore, research also shows a strong link between the sexual abuse of a child and that child’s later pedophilia as an adult. At the Connecticut Correctional Institution, for example, clinical psychologist A. Nicholas Groth, director of the sex offender program, said 85% of the pedophiles were themselves sexually assaulted as youths.

This all goes back to conditioned preference. Learned homosexuality.. Learned sexual-preference. And with humans the most promiscuous social-learners of all mammals..

What will research show in ten years? Twenty years? Will we discover that we have handed over an entire generation, only to discover that homosexuality in this nation has doubled or tripled?

If it is true, as evidence suggests, that children can be recruited into the homosexual lifestyle, what will history say about a generation of adults that swallowed – hook, line and sinker – the lies fabricated by the very ones who abused their children?

It's hard to believe I read this article after I've been arguing here for weeks these exact same points..

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

VYO I am not sure that that explains if or how homosexuality is 'learned'

I am still waiting for those who dogmatically state that homosexuality is learned to give a coherent justification for how that started.

You see I think it is perfectly coherent to say that evolution favours a certain % of homosexuals in the population say as population control/

And the success of the human gene pool with homosexuality bears that out.

It isn't great news for religious bigots who are struggling with their sexuality but it would be if they opened their eyes to the truth and their ass to their boyfriend

 

[Sihouette]

Dawk, were you unable to read my post? I notice you only responded to VYO. I gave you three very compelling reasons to see how homosexuality is learned.

The reason for The Slippery Slope argument...

Homosexuality and pedophila

It should be said from the outset that a homosexual orientation does not automatically lead to pedophilia, and most homosexuals do not abuse children. Moreover, most homosexual activist groups publicly denounce pedophilia.

But that is not the end of the story. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover says in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth that there is a “substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia.”

One reason for this may be that the homosexual movement is based on the rather simple ethic of individual sexual freedom. In the activist magazine Gayme, writer Bill Andriette said, “The only standard for moral sex…is that it be freely and equally consented to by the persons involved.”

From that sexual ethic to one which includes intergenerational sex is but a short leap. Andriette said, “There is no question that blacks, whites, women, men, children, and adolescents can consent to sex …. If we want really to respect the authenticity of individuals we have to let people take risks, explore different values, and recognize that we will be challenged and threatened by what they discover.” (Emphasis added.)

This homosexual perspective was in full view nearly three decades ago, with the release of the 1972 Gay Rights Platform. Activists in Chicago, representing the fledgling homosexual movement, demanded the “[r]epeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons,” and the “[r]epeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.”

Such homosexuals see society’s disapproval of adult-child sex as the transgression, rather than the adult-child sex itself. In The Age Taboo: Gay Male Sexuality, Power and Consent, lesbian author Pat Califia said, “Boy lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers…are not child molesters. The child abusers are priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody.”

Source: same as above posts

Gays and lesbians are already quite deeply enmeshed in recruiting and justifying recruitment. I've said before that this whole marriage thing is a covert-recruitment drive via, as the author said, "sanitizing" homosexuality as mainstream...knowing full well that homosexuality is learned and that humans learn socially.

The woefully low numbers of partners to "cruise" is lamented in the article The Ten Reasons Gays Chase Straights. While it is true that some gays don't have recruitment on their minds when they fantasize being "married" to their same sex sexual partner, many gays who are pushing for legal marraige status are doing so in full knowledge and uncontained glee that homosexuality has the real potential to be generationally and cumulatively a learned behavior.

Increasing the ranks...increasing the selection.

So instead of addressing the sources of homosexuality and keeping it a deviance, they want us to ignore the sources of homosexuality (environmentally learned) and instead make it mainstream. That is akin to rapists wanting to normalize forced sexual contact of women as acceptible, because it conforms with their earliest memories of their "natural" urges.

Just because someone has uncontrollable urges for a certain behavior, doesn't mean we should include that behavior into the social description of mainstream. We decide, as a majority society, what we wish to make mainstream. Homosexuals are fully aware that once their tweak takes hold, they will be mainstream after a few generations. And hey, when you don't want to repair your own house, just ruin everyone else's house in the neighborhood so yours looks better. Society would be better served enacting mandatory regressive therapy for homosexuals than including them in the mainstream via marriage..

Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. Homosexual contact negates the very implied purpose of sexual contact: to beget offspring.

We shun people who abuse their lungs to take in nicotine, instead of to breathe fresh air. We shun people who abuse their anuses to copulate instead of to defecate. We do so rightly, because it is sane and healthy to shun those activities. They are unnatural.

Unnatural behaviors will always exist however. But it is our duty to be custodians of natural and healthy behaviors in order to preserve the very sanity of our collective society. Remember how weird human societies can get once a tweak takes hold? Nazi Germany is a case that illustrates this quite clearly. It became mainstream to exterminate jews. If that can happen within a population of otherwise sane people, then anything is possible once it acheives the stamp of "normalcy".