That's a damned silly argument, pete!

----

The Judeo-Christian prejudice against homosexuality has less to do with "inherent immorality" than it does with procreation. The big mantra in Biblical times was to increase the tribe, and it wasn't just same sex relationships that were declared a "sin."   One incident in the Bible was warped way to hell-and-gone out of its original meaning to include masturbation.

When Onan's brother died, according to tribal custom, Onan was supposed to father children with his dead brother's widow. He tried, then had second thoughts at the last minute, withdrew, and "spilt it upon the ground." God slew him, because he had disobeyed tribal custom.

Subsequently, the term "Onanism" has been used as a synonym for masturbation—when in actuality, it should refer to "coitus interruptus"—and has been used to wag a finger at young teenage boys and tell them that if they masturbate they will go to Hell.

The main injunctions against non-procreative sex in Biblical times was that it didn't increase the tribe.

Considering the current general overpopulation of the world and its concomitant problems, I'd think that anything that allowed sexual expression without increasing the size of the "tribe" would be a good thing. And legalizing same-sex marriage certainly isn't going to do the job, considering the small percentage of the population who are same-sex oriented. Fears of severely reduced future populations as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage are just plain silly!

Lest anybody draw any inferences about me from my position on this matter, I am heterosexual and have been married—to a woman—for nearly forty years.

Friends Paul and Phil got married a couple of years ago, but what they get up to in the privacy of their own apartment is nobody's business but their own. Not ours, nor anybody else's.   

Don Firth