Yeah I’ve heard my Muslim friends say that before as well.

I like this part the best when you wrote:

“The minute you say homosexuality is a civil rights issue, you have moved from the free-will ethics (free-will is a basic fundamental criteria of ALL ethics, regardless of religion or non-religious views)….”

For example, say that I say “My friend is left handed”, what comes to your mind? What come to your mind is both, someone who probably was born with an inclination to write with their left hand, and someone who writes with their left hand.

In other words, the attribute, ‘left handed’, is a behavioral attribute. By that I mean that its definition ‘left handed’, is directly tied to an action, ‘writes with left hand’. This is not the case with ‘gender’, ‘nationality’, or ‘race’. None of those are behavioral attributes since there is no action they are tied to.

In addition, when we are talking about behavioral attributes, while there may be two things involved, the inclination and the action (i.e., inclination to write with your left hand, and the actually writing with your left hand), it is only the action where the ethical claim comes in. For example, you can make an ethical judgment on whether it is ‘ethical’ to write with your left hand, in fact you can make an ethical judgment on whether or not it is ethical to do just about any action, having sex with someone of the same sex included.

Or to say another way, it would be absurd in ethics to make ethical judgments on inclinations alone. For example, it would be absurd to say it is unethical to have the inclination to write with your left hand, for that is something we were given at birth. In the same way, it would be absurd to say that it is unethical to have an inclination to be with someone of the same sex. But the minute you act on that inclination, the minute that action is exercised, you have moved from inclination to action, and that action, like all actions in general, is up for ethical consideration.

So, when I say homosexuality is a behavioral attribute, I mean it in the sense that it is tied to a behavior, and that behavior, like all behaviors, can be ethically judged. This is where I think the confusion comes in. When a proponent of gay marriage hears the term ‘homosexual’, I think what comes to their mind is primarily the inclination. Since inclinations are something out of ones control, they think it is absurd to make ethical claims on homosexuals. However, when opponents of gay marriage use the term ‘homosexual’, they primarily mean the behavior, not the inclination.

For example, say there were two people, Person A and Person B. Person A had the homosexual inclination since the time he could remember, he had always been attracted to members of the same sex. However, while still fully having the inclination, Person A decided to make his devoutly religious parents happy, and marry someone of the opposite sex. Person A is someone who has never exercised the inclination to be with someone of the same sex, and currently resides with his wife and kids, suppressing the inclination at every moment.

Person B, however, has always been attracted to members of the opposite sex, and claims to have never been sexually aroused by members of the same sex, however, Person B every now and than, at a club, he meets himself a very good looking man and goes home with him to have sex. While Person B claims to have no such inclination, and adamantly denies being a ‘homosexual’, he still finds himself constantly having sex with members of the same sex.

In these examples, who is the homosexual, and who is not? The opponents of gay marriage would say Person B is the homosexual, for it is the action, and only the action, one is referring to when gay marriage is involved.

Now, back to your original question, as far as whether heterosexuality is defined by its action, yes it is. When you say someone is a heterosexual, like when you say someone is left handed, like when you say someone is homosexual, you attach it to a particular action; therefore it is a behavioral attribute.

Some might say the same thing about left handed people, or masturbating, or cheating on ones spouse, etc… but I wouldn’t classify any of those as civil rights, certainly not civil rights comparable to the past.

Even if one were to conclude that homosexual acts are benign, homosexuality (the action) is still fundamentally different than religion. Again, because religion is not an ‘action’, it is more of a philosophy, and one has a right to believe in whatever philosophy one wishes, but that is different than acting on whatever philosophy one wishes. So again, the difference being an action and a non-action.

Now as far as gay marriage goes, you write,

One has to prove that the actions are not benign in order to institute laws or act in a way that violate or dimish a citizens rights and freedoms. If someone can tell me the harm caused by a consenting sexual relationship between adults then it is not a violation of their rights. It is a violation to discriminate against someone because of what they are (their physiology). It is also a violation of ones civil rights (rights as a citizen) to discriminate or diminish ones rights because of a benign act. You can not refuse to hire someone or not allow them to marry because they masturbates in private. Just as you could not refuse to hire someone because he wears a beard for religious purposes. (Except if they are selling shaving cream).(emphasis added)

This is exactly the basis for the argument against gay marriage. Leaving aside for the moment the case that allowing gays to marry does hurt society at large, there is still a comparable case to the one you mentioned - refusing to hire someone because he wears a beard for a position selling shaving cream.

The fundamental reason the government recognizes marriage has to do with children. Or as Andrew Sullivan writes,

They make a deeper commitment to one another and to society; in exchange, society extends certain benefits to them. Marriage provides an anchor, if an arbitrary and weak one, in the chaos of sex and relationships to which we are all prone. It provides a mechanism for emotional stability, economic security, and the healthy rearing of the next generation. We rig the law in its favor not because we disparage all forms of relationship other than the nucelar family, but because we recognize that not to promote marriage would be to ask too much of human virtue. In the context of the weakened family’s effect upon the poor, it might also invite social disintegration.

For example, if I am going to buy a motorcycle in a couple of months and wanted someone to teach me to ride the motorcycle, I would a priori exclude any paraplegics. Paraplegics can’t walk, and if they can’t walk they obviously can’t teach me how to properly ride a bike, with proper form and so on. So given my objective, learning to properly ride a motorcycle, a priori excluding paraplegics as suitable instructors does not make me prejudice against paraplegics, because paraplegic’s can’t satisfy the objective I am looking for. Or, to give another example, excluding blind people when I am looking for someone to teach me how to fly a plane is not being prejudice against blind people.

In the same manner, the government’s main objective for recognizing marriage always had something to do with children (which is why the government never allowed marriage between first cousins), so given that objective, since homosexual unions are inherently unable to produce children, homosexual marriages aren’t allowed.

So my objection to gay marriage has to do with marriage, not gays (I have always said that the gay marriage debate is a debate about marriage, not a debate about gays). The loving commitment of a heterosexual union, by its very nature, has the potential for children. It is the core of all families, and something that is cross cultural, it is unique, makes its mark on everyone, and is the basic building block of all societies. It has something that all other unions fall short of, whether they be first cousin unions, polygamous unions, best friends, and yes, even homosexual unions.

And any argument any other union gives to being established into law, the loving heterosexual union has that claim, and more. And therefore should always be seen seperate and above all other unions.

This is my point with homosexuality. One has to prove that the actions are not benign in order to institute laws or act in a way that violate or dimish a citizens rights and freedoms. If someone can tell me the harm caused by a consenting sexual relationship between adults then it is not a violation of their rights. It is a violation to discriminate against someone because of what they are (their physiology). It is also a violation of ones civil rights (rights as a citizen) to discriminate or diminish ones rights because of a benign act. You can not refuse to hire someone or not allow them to marry because they masturbates in private. Just as you could not refuse to hire someone because he wears a beard for religious purposes. (Except if they are selling shaving cream).

I think you are getting too caught up in the semantics and not in substance here. A civil right is there to protect someone from discrimination and unfair curtailment of their rights as citizens.

“you can’t say it is in the same category as bans against ones skin color or gender or nationality.”

I think this comparison is as futile as Jews and blacks comparing the horrors of the holocaust to the horrors of slavery. It is wrong to discriminate and as you mentioned it is wrong to pass laws that curtail benign behaviors against one group of citizens, in this case the group of people who are genetically homosexual.