What I mean is this - and I'll give examples..

What is the "unnatural act"?

Is it the homosexual sex act? Well, that has nothing to do with marriage.

Is it a man falling in love with another man? I certainly didn't have control over which women I fell in love with. That's just my orientation.

Is it not being able to have children "naturally"?

There are people who want to deny marriage to gays because of the term I've heard - the "unnatural act". But every definition I've ever heard of "unnatural act" just doesn't hold water.

Marriage isn't about sex. It's about love. It isn't about "tradition" because we've changed that tradition DRASTICALLY over the years. We as a society have "evolved" marriage into something better and better (ok, that's MY opinion - but would we be doing that if it wasn't what people wanted?) as time went on.

People confronted me on the issue before I changed my mind. WHY didn't I think gay marriage was ok? Well, the only thing I could come up with is the "yuck" factor. Once I saw that, I realized it was no reason for denying someone the right to get married. It would be like me saying to someone who's unattractive "You have no right to get married because I find you ugly".

I'm trying to drill down into the "why" of it all.

MARRIAGE is about LOVE?; seriously. Untold numbers of marriages have been arranged, or agreed to, and performed without the ingredient of LOVE in the equation.

MARRIAGE is about procreation, and building family units to better support the livelihoods of all involved. It's about empire building and heirs to carry the family forward.

Let's not get totally sappy about this. I think you've just lived in a free society so long, you've lost track of traditional marriages in history.

The only reason to even consider the "marriage" of same sex couples is because of all the laws that have automatically conferred societal privileges to marriages of heterosexual couples, that homosexual couples covet.

I guess you do need something spelled out. The unnatural act of which you seem confused about is indeed a physical act. An act performed in a way that the body was not designed for. If you need more info than that, I guess I might be persuaded to get into greater detail. Is that really necessary?

To quote Tina Turner (whats love got to do with it)

Richie - I respect you coming up and actually answering the question.

Yes, untold numbers of marriages have been done without love. So the "sanctity" of marriage is in property and wealth transfers and alliances?

Procreation? So marriage should be denied those who can't (or won't) procreate? I can't have kids anymore and neither can my wife - but we married less than 2 years ago.

I have NOT lost sight of "traditional marriages in history" - THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT. The concept of romantic marriage IS a relatively recent development. But if you told someone you were "marrying for money" in this day and age, you'd be looked down upon.

You said it yourself:

YES! You *do* "get it".

It's not about sex, it's about *all* the rights and privileges that "being married" conveys.

"Traditionally", at various times in history, you couldn't get married if you were poor (no dowry), the wrong race, the wrong religion the wrong sex (women couldn't pick a mate) or even the PARTICIPANT (since if you were getting married, your parents or a matchmaker had picked your mate).

That's why the "tradition" argument holds no water for me. We've redefinged marriage CONSTANTLY since the days of Solomon having hundreds of wives. Today, one's the limit (much to the contrary of Mitt Romney's grandfather's experience).

If you are married, your wife may take issue with that quote.