I think the term I used was "community", not "person".

There is no such thing as gay rights, anymore than there is any such thing as heterosexual rights.

Maph warped my statement into a phrase I did nor use in order to support his position. There are human rights which all humans share equally, which are inseparable from them regardless of race, sex, politics religion or whatever division you care to find.

Then there are privileges granted or denied baaed on community. THESE are determined by the community, such political forces that may exist, or religious doctrine. Here we will find such separation as disparacy between heterosexual and homosexual because the sociological intent is different between the two groups.

This is also where the conflict lies. Heterosexual unions, pair bonding, whatever label you choose have evolved for one specific purpose - propagation of the species by providing offspring with the most successful environment - protective, nurturing, educating home. The most fundamental aspect of this is of course the ability to reproduce.

In all of these areas the homosexual "community" can only "mimic" the successful pair bonding of heterosexual couples. They are the sociological equivalent to biological (or genetic) "mules". They cannot breed within their pair bonding. They see the successful hetro couples raising children and desiring their own, the must adopt since they cannot reproduce. Some revert to outside "help" in order to gain "offspring", that is not true reproduction within a pair bonded couple.

So lets briefly look at the moaning of the moment - marriage. Conceived is some time before history as a religious rite to consecrate the pair pair bonding, marriage eventually became one of the hallmarks of a successful life. Another was the birth and successful rearing of children.

Marriage eventually was codified into law, becoming the recognized political union of a man and a woman to each other. And in many countries privileges were granted to these couples based on their value to that nation - the value, my friends is that they can reproduce themselves.

In all of these things, the homosexual community fails. Such pair bonding as exists cannot itself reproduce. Such pair bonding's as occur may provide an emotionally warm home for a child, there are aspects of a male/female pair bonding that a homo pair bonding cannot offer. Argue as you may, they are not the same.

In all areas of pair bonding, homo attempts to mimic hetro. but fails. The call for homo "marriage" today is no less a cry for help than the rest. The most that can be offered is a civil union since the reason for biological marriage cannot exist. But civil unions are rejected as "not being the same" - really? No kidding?

Why is this most basic level political marriage, a civil union being rejected? At most, beyond the privileges granted to hetro pair bonding's are religious in nature. The State is not responsible for that aspect of marriage and by our constitution cannot interfere with the actions of the Church.

Tthe conclusion is that most religions reject homo "marriage" as an abomination and a corruption of doctrine. Today, there are no calls in this country for the killing of those professing to be homosexuals, but that's not the case in all countries.

Duck Sr. here made a statement that was his in line religious viewpoint. He has free speech, just as his detractors do. He can express his faith and offer his interpretation of their doctrines. So, again I say he had every right to offer his opinion.