>>>>I never imagined that you'd say something like that.
>>>
>>>Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't consider gay marriage "progress".
>>
>>That's a different statemant that equating homosexuality with bestiality
>
>Pardom me for jumping in..
>
>Sorry but, very close, almost same.. If we analyze.. both are completely not natural..

In fact homosexuality IS natural as it is observed at 1,500 different species. Of course homosexuals do have less chance (but not completely zero, certainly not with modern artificial reproduction techniques:) ) to reproduce, but they certainly play a significant role in our society. It still not clear what exactly homosexuality means for the enduring existance of a whole population. They might have no significant role in evolution, but they might have a role in the survival of species (There is a link in this thread that makes that argument)

Some of the most creative and entertaining minds comes from homosexuals. You only have to turn on the TV and watch all those gay artists, presentators, dancers. Since they generally don't think in terms of "wife, house, car, pet" they allow themselves to fully exploit their talents.

On the same note, being a priest, kardinal, bisshop or pope is not natural as well , as they don't reproduce. I don't have to note that many of people who have chosen to withhold themselves from sex are in fact homosexual, but really suppress their feelings as they are affraid for the consequences when it comes out.

So in short, I think that stating "Homosexuality is not natural" is a very cheap shot, and requires more though before making that statement.

Walter,