Rant rant rant

"The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith," Bush said.
"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."

BULLSHIT! I can understand the common, barely educated American buying this stuff. I understand that resistance is a gut reaction. Hate and fear beget more hate and fear. It's normal. And we have self awareness. We have intelligence. We have logical minds that can overide our gut responses. Society teaches us control of our gut reactions. We choose to control our emotional responses because of the greater benefits of friendship, community and yes, strength in numbers. Yet, being human, we continue to respond on an emotional level. Look how I just ranted an entire paragraph from my gut.

Now then, the union of a man and a woman is not the most enduring human institution. It is not honored and encouraged in all cultures, or by every religious faith. Let's take a little walk through history as we know it.
Wikipedia online encyclopedia claims that marriage is generally considered to be the union of one man and one woman, i.e., husband and wife. But if you scroll down past the table of contents, you'll read this: "In most societies, marriage was polygynic, where a man could have multiple wives..."
There's a bit more to it than that. Throughout history, a person in a position of power -for example a king or queen- would take multiple husbands or wives. True, it was always someone of the opposite sex. This made sense, of course. Each new spouse was a link to another country, and a chance for the perpetuation of power. However; in nearly all ancient societies, people would reproduce with the opposite sex, but have lovers of the same sex. You would have been considered strange if you didn't have at least one same sex lover. This was especially common with conquest based cultures. again, it just made sense. Having a lover within your ranks brought a share of power, gave you a focus for your energies, created camraderie and provided a tangible hope for the future. The pain of loss could be eased by another lover, who had also experienced loss.
I can see why having same sex lovers was pushed aside during long stretches of peace. I can see where it became a less acceptable lifestyle. Women wanted babies, and they wanted all of the power (and the monetary security that came with it) to pass on to the next generation. Yet these same women had plenty of woman lovers while the men were at war. That bit of history always repeats itself. I surmise that most people are inherently bi-sexual. We long for partnership, aside from the longing to create new generations; and we will find partnership with people of either sex.
My personal preference is for men. If all the men in the world dissappeared, I would find a woman to love me. A vibrator does not -cannot- love. I even think that if all the attractive men vanished, I'd find a woman. I'm not likely to ever know. There are lots of hairy, smelly men around.

Excuse my rambling, please. Back to the subject. Several present day religious groups support multiple person marriages. Most of them say the wives should treat each other like partners. Religious writings codify how these spouses (spice) should treat each other, and even cover the reproduction issue. They discuss how to deal with one's wives preferring each other over their joint husband. I don't see those writings vilifying homosexuality. I see them acknowledging it, and still providing for the continuation of the species.

To reiterate: The union of a man and a woman is not the most enduring human institution. Bi-sexuality is. It is not honored and encouraged in all cultures or faiths. Union is honored and encouraged. Reproduction of healthy human beings is honored and encouraged. Monogamy between one man and one woman is only honored and encouraged in certain religions.

Get your facts straight, Mr. President, before you open your mouth.