Legislation for gay marriage is approved in the UK House of Commons!

[Tiberius]

I'm basing 'natural' and 'normal' in this instance on the physical anatomy. God / nature / evolution, your preference, did not equip our bodies for same gender sex. I.E., the rectum is not designed for anal sex or to receive foreign objects. Continued 'rectal sexual trauma' can lead to various colo-rectal diseases and conditions like prolapse, infections, bowel perforations, and in more extreme cases, rectal cancer. On the otherhand, nature has provided our bodies with the proper and natural organs for male / female sex...male / female sex is natural and normal. Gay and lesbian sex is not....The link below isn't critical of the gay / lesbian lifestyle, but it does give some insights to health issues pertaining to unnatural gay sex....
http://www.nursingtimes.net/management-o...50.article

Ok, it's interesting that you define normal relationships on a purely physical level. I would argue it's a slippery argument, given the amount of things that our bodies are not designed for, but which we do anyway because they are fun. I mean, our feet aren't designed to kick balls around, and various traumas can occur from doing it, but it's a perfectly "normal" thing to do.

So, whilst I might concede that on a natural level, gay sex isn't designed for, I'd argue that equating natural with normal just doesn't work.

If you're talking about some guys getting together for a few beers over the weekend to watch the big game, for example, no. There's nothing wrong with that. I also believe that people can still be friends and have relationships and bonds despite their deep and striking differences in opinions. All I'm saying is that gay / lesbian sex is neither natural or normal...

Ok, but my question was really in line with romantic relationships, rather than just friends. Do you accept that people can have romantic relationships which are not based on sex? Furthermore, would you support same-sex relationships that were strictly celibate, or would you still find them wrong / unnatural?

I imagine that it would have always been a cultural thing...A rational thinking culture would realize that gay / lesbian sex and relationships are unnatural and would rather legitimize the natural relationship between a man and a woman.

I'm not sure I understand your logic. If marriage is defined by culture, then rationality has nothing to do with it; it's purely democratic...how people feel at the time. It wouldn't matter if people found gay relationships unnatural, it would only matter if they thought that people who were gay deserved the right to marry each other. So I'm not sure how you can switch between saying marriage is defined by culture, and then say that it is somehow dependent on rationality. It seems to suggest that you actually think marriage is set in stone, and that if the culture redefined it, you would disagree. So I don't think you've really answered the question; who do you think marriage is defined by? That is to say, who could stand up and say "gay marriage is perfectly normal" and you would have no choice but to agree with them?

Interracial marriage between a man and a woman can't be considered a perversion of real marriage. Both the male and female are anatomically correct for each other and they can produce off-spring. Let gays and lesbians do that one. The definition of marriage hasn't changed for everybody...If there were more of a debate about this issue I believe a lot more people would decide against gay marriage.

But...from your answer in (3) you state that marriage is defined by culture. The culture at the time was that marriage was only between men and women of the same race. So, how can't interracial marriage be considered a perversion of real marriage in those terms?

Again, I think this is confused by your answer in (3), which doesn't seem to accurately reflect your beliefs here. You claim culture defines marriage, but you consistently argue from a position which seems to place nature higher than culture.