Points

Update: this whole riff on homosexuality is based on two things: 1) your comment about a preacher being a practicing gay; and 2) the idea of humans being genetically disposed to most things, perhaps all things. I'm really not trying to invoke a whole debate on homosexuality ... other than to point out that while I'll concede it may be a genetic component, it doesn't follow that one must indulge in it to its fullest extent.

I think you did miss the points I was trying to make. Or, more likely, I failed to position them correctly. They are:

• Humans are unique and in a unique way. It is a far stretch to say that humans are "just another species, one of many." We seem to be the only creatures who have mastered fire, or use tools in any meaningful way. But more importantly, we seem to be the only creatures who aspire, to dream and to create. We've covered this ground before -- the degree of separation between humans and all other forms of life is so great that it seems to defy even the remotest probability of it being "pure chance."
• The scenario between the two couples -- one hetero, one homo -- was meant to play up the fact that abstinance is an exercise of the will. So even if homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, it is possible to exercise the will and avoid homosexual activities, just as it is possible for heterosexuals to exercise the will and avoid heterosexual activities. But many gay advocates deny this ... they claim that the sexual urge cannot be denied, and indeed should not be denied. That's what I meant by sexual activity being elevated to the highest human "right." Note how my scenario did not rule out homosexual companionship.
  (Note: I believe you're thinking of Paul, who suggested that marriage is something avoided if possible, but embraced if one must. I can't recall Jesus speaking of marriage in any way other than to say it is Holy and that divorce is only warranted in cases of infidelity. Paul's comments are, I believe, often misconstrued. What he was suggesting was that marriage can be a powerful distraction from serving Christ. It doesn't have to be, but it can be. But if the choice comes down to burning with lust outside of marriage and not serving Christ, or being married and serving Christ less completely than one can being undistracted, then by all means get married. I believe that's what he was getting at.)
  
• My scenario contrasting the reserved homosexual couple against the promiscuous one was meant to point out that gays would find greater acceptance if indeed what they sought was a committed monogomous relationship. Some do, perhaps most do, but the visible advocacy element of the movement promotes something quite different. I've said several times that what the gay rights advocates seek is not mere acceptance, not something as benign as tolerance, but rather full-throated celebration of their preferred lifestyle. And that lifestyle has nothing to do with commitment and monogamy. You can disagree with my point, but I believe it to be true, based on years of observing how the movement has evolved and grown more confident with each passing year. The "gay marriage" thing is case in point -- there are already lawsuits in the pipeline to permit not just gay marriage, but "marriages" consisting of three or more people. Their aim, I believe, is to dilute the concept of marriage to such a degree that they'll be free to pursue a lifestyle of sexual abandon without suffering the burdens of societal scorn. Just my opinion. But not a completely uninformed one.
  

* * *
Steamed brocolli is God's miracle food. Hard to grow in a garden though ... the bugs love the stuff.