Welcome to Missouri!
- Thread starter PT
- Start date
ClaireBear said:
What is amazing is how lightly marriage is taken. "Oh, if something happens I can just get divorced". People don't take vows seriously, they seldomnly even notice them. Notice all the declarations of love & rewrites of the marriage vows scarcely contain odes to worse case scenaios (for better or worse) with to hanging tough themes nor serious proclamations of lifetime commitments (til death do us part).
Yes, heterosexuals have taken marriage & lessened it's meaning. That does by no means make what they're done right. I'vew already addressed this elsewhere. It also does not mean we shouldn't pursue a higher course. Return to a day where a persons word was his bond.
Counterfeit-whether by Liz Taylor or Brittney Spears or by & his man is still what these acts are. They diminish the real thing. The detract from the civilization building foundations created by marriage. Society is based on the family. We see the early stages of it's collapse already. No-fault divorce has moved the line to the point that marriage is nearly meaningless. Children, the only reason for marriage to exist, are not being served. Instead they are tokens on a board. Tokens that can be moved because , instead of teaching them to reach beyond themselves, we are educating them in self-righteous, self-serving, ugly selfishness.
ClaireBear
Banned
Gonz said:
Hey PT! You were right! Teaching us how to bring up our children...
kale
New Member
Do marriages without children lessen the meaning of the word? Do marriages (het or homo) with children strengthen it?
ook into the history of humankind and you'll see a constant social evolution to the point at which we currently stand. You'll notice that a mere century ago, people married and had many children such that they may tend the farm, or work the coal mine, or the sewing factory -- the children weren't quite being served then, were they? Even in the modern world, marriage in many countries isn't about love or family, but about gaining social status for the family of the bride or groom (see: arranged marriages in middle-eastern cultures). If your main beef is with the sanctity of marriage, I merely ask you to look around and see the redefined, evolved meaning of the word.
Honestly, I don't quite understand the issue. What horrors could happen if two women or two men could get married? Heaven forbid they adopt children and raise them in loving homes (instead of that dreadful Orphanarium), or pay taxes, or buy homes, or adopt a dog, or (perhaps on a more practical sense) commit to a monogamous relationship, helping to stop that terrible gay disease AIDs.
ook into the history of humankind and you'll see a constant social evolution to the point at which we currently stand. You'll notice that a mere century ago, people married and had many children such that they may tend the farm, or work the coal mine, or the sewing factory -- the children weren't quite being served then, were they? Even in the modern world, marriage in many countries isn't about love or family, but about gaining social status for the family of the bride or groom (see: arranged marriages in middle-eastern cultures). If your main beef is with the sanctity of marriage, I merely ask you to look around and see the redefined, evolved meaning of the word.
Honestly, I don't quite understand the issue. What horrors could happen if two women or two men could get married? Heaven forbid they adopt children and raise them in loving homes (instead of that dreadful Orphanarium), or pay taxes, or buy homes, or adopt a dog, or (perhaps on a more practical sense) commit to a monogamous relationship, helping to stop that terrible gay disease AIDs.
What if...? That is never ending. How about, what is.
Why would maraige be needed for that? It doesn't stop the heterosexual crowd from extramarital affairs. Historically, homosexual men are the least monogamous group around.
I also like the part abbout
damnit, I gotta go...ttfn
kale said:
Why would maraige be needed for that? It doesn't stop the heterosexual crowd from extramarital affairs. Historically, homosexual men are the least monogamous group around.
I also like the part abbout
Yes, that would be ideal. I'm all for homosexual couples adopting older, hard to place children. Infants are best served in an intact, monogamous, married heterosexual home.kale said:
damnit, I gotta go...ttfn
kale
New Member
Gonz said:
I'm just trying to match the utterly bizarre reasons you folks come up with as to why we can't get married
And heck, that's homosexual men -- they're a breed of their own. What about us homosexual women? We're more loyal than Lassie.Gonz said:
Why? Why are infants best served in an "intact, monogamous, married heterosexual home"? Replace the "hetero" with "homo" and what, the child grows up to be the next Charles Manson? Perhaps, if raised in an intact, monogamous, married homosexual home, the child will grow up with a mind open to diversity. Heaven forbid!
Of course, now we're dancing perilously close to the "homos and adoption" argument -- about which I have (surprise!) a few choice words -- but that's not the topic of this thread, now, is it?
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Wow...another same-sex union thread-on-fire that slipped past my radar...what was I thinking?
I'm reading post 74 now...soon be ready to contribute. In the interim...for those using the biological evolution arguement, please keep in mind:
1) Evolution is not positive or negative...it is experimental. If something fails, it is often removed from the equation. If it succeeds, it is often kept...if it has little or no effect...it often remains. Fail/Succeed <---as it refers to the survival and/or propogation of the species which had such a evolutionary jump or hop. The appendix has not helped our species seek food better, survive longer, or mate more effectivly...yet it remains. Likewise, homosexuality does not allow certain individuals to mate more effectivly, but it's inclusion in our genetic code hasn't hurt our ability to find food or extend our lives nor has it hampered others from finding successful mates and reproduce.
2) Many are assuming that homosexuality is not an evolutionary trait because it is not passed on sexually (stalwart homosexual relations produce no children), but this assumption is based on the assumption that homosexuality is not a recessive trait. If we even consider the possibility that homosexuality could be a biological trait (albeit, never proven nor disproven), then it could very well be a part of our evolution. Perhaps not the most successful part, but there nonetheless. If such is the case...the homosexual trait could very well be passed on sexually.
Just wanted to clear up the way that 'evolution' is being bandied about.
I'm reading post 74 now...soon be ready to contribute. In the interim...for those using the biological evolution arguement, please keep in mind:
1) Evolution is not positive or negative...it is experimental. If something fails, it is often removed from the equation. If it succeeds, it is often kept...if it has little or no effect...it often remains. Fail/Succeed <---as it refers to the survival and/or propogation of the species which had such a evolutionary jump or hop. The appendix has not helped our species seek food better, survive longer, or mate more effectivly...yet it remains. Likewise, homosexuality does not allow certain individuals to mate more effectivly, but it's inclusion in our genetic code hasn't hurt our ability to find food or extend our lives nor has it hampered others from finding successful mates and reproduce.
2) Many are assuming that homosexuality is not an evolutionary trait because it is not passed on sexually (stalwart homosexual relations produce no children), but this assumption is based on the assumption that homosexuality is not a recessive trait. If we even consider the possibility that homosexuality could be a biological trait (albeit, never proven nor disproven), then it could very well be a part of our evolution. Perhaps not the most successful part, but there nonetheless. If such is the case...the homosexual trait could very well be passed on sexually.
Just wanted to clear up the way that 'evolution' is being bandied about.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
MrBishop said:
Talking about assumptions...
If homosexuality is genetic, and homosexuality can be 'cured' by gene therapy, how would you treat homosexuals that refuse treatment, or continue their lifestyle after this hypothetical treatment? (just another log for the fire
)
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
freako104 said:
Dig a little deeper, freako. You're almost there.
kale...Welcome to the board. As for your most recent post, chances are equal. Don't believe me? One of Matthew Shepard's murderers was raised by a lesbian couple. Does tha mean that all lesbian couples will raise children that way? Certainly not...but if you answer with extremes, then the only replies you get will be extreme.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
The more I read of this thread the more I realize how little concern there is out-side of the end goal of validation.
I read these ‘fine points’ that sound great on the surface but have a complete disregard for the complexities of human social interaction and the resulting influences it has on society, the people, and the children. You have been creative about showing your emotion and opinion, however your opinion runs under the assumption that nothing has cause and effect upon each other.
You seem to believe that the only thing that will be affected by the change is that homosexuals will be able to get married, that is simply ridicules.
Why don’t we go deeper and have you explain the common aspects and delta’s of homosexuality relationships and heterosexual relationships behaviors in the realms of social, courting, and marriage, parenting, and the promotion of humanity and the species.
Then go further and explain the physiological and anatomical development that has enhanced the joys of homosexuality and heterosexuality and relate that to the human condition and the evolutionary process.
Let’s include the significance of bio-chemical factors and their purposes as it relates to human sexuality. We may also discuss the neuro-chemical and neuro-biological actions, re-actions, and differences under the different conditions.
B - I have read your post several times, I am sure you have no cryptic meaning that I missed. I see rant with hatred and emotional blather about the injustice, and yeah it sounds good. You are quite talented in villainization people as you make yourself out to be the victim. Because you can make an entertaining dialogue that blurs the issue does not mean that it a sensible concept in the realm of logical rational thinking. But if it’s the only way you know to express yourself, I suppose I will live with it.
In actuality there is one aggressor attempting to effect change in social norms, the opposition is defending, hence states and defining marriage as a man and woman in a rush. Nobody is being denied any rights as the right are the same; the social, physical, and emotional relationship relationships are markedly different when looked at as a whole so different definition is warranted. The terms Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid represent the 3 type of people. Although we are all people, the definition represents difference that cannot be ignored. (and don’t try to use this anatomical fact to equivocate to a social issue)
Whereas you may be very reasonable people on most subject you are truly blinded by your sexuality on sexuality related issues.
What would I do if a homosexual was in my charge? I would hope that I could assist them to improve their quality of life, everytime.
I read these ‘fine points’ that sound great on the surface but have a complete disregard for the complexities of human social interaction and the resulting influences it has on society, the people, and the children. You have been creative about showing your emotion and opinion, however your opinion runs under the assumption that nothing has cause and effect upon each other.
You seem to believe that the only thing that will be affected by the change is that homosexuals will be able to get married, that is simply ridicules.
Why don’t we go deeper and have you explain the common aspects and delta’s of homosexuality relationships and heterosexual relationships behaviors in the realms of social, courting, and marriage, parenting, and the promotion of humanity and the species.
Then go further and explain the physiological and anatomical development that has enhanced the joys of homosexuality and heterosexuality and relate that to the human condition and the evolutionary process.
Let’s include the significance of bio-chemical factors and their purposes as it relates to human sexuality. We may also discuss the neuro-chemical and neuro-biological actions, re-actions, and differences under the different conditions.
B - I have read your post several times, I am sure you have no cryptic meaning that I missed. I see rant with hatred and emotional blather about the injustice, and yeah it sounds good. You are quite talented in villainization people as you make yourself out to be the victim. Because you can make an entertaining dialogue that blurs the issue does not mean that it a sensible concept in the realm of logical rational thinking. But if it’s the only way you know to express yourself, I suppose I will live with it.
In actuality there is one aggressor attempting to effect change in social norms, the opposition is defending, hence states and defining marriage as a man and woman in a rush. Nobody is being denied any rights as the right are the same; the social, physical, and emotional relationship relationships are markedly different when looked at as a whole so different definition is warranted. The terms Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid represent the 3 type of people. Although we are all people, the definition represents difference that cannot be ignored. (and don’t try to use this anatomical fact to equivocate to a social issue)
Whereas you may be very reasonable people on most subject you are truly blinded by your sexuality on sexuality related issues.
What would I do if a homosexual was in my charge? I would hope that I could assist them to improve their quality of life, everytime.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Gato_Solo said:Talking about assumptions...
If homosexuality is genetic, and homosexuality can be 'cured' by gene therapy, how would you treat homosexuals that refuse treatment, or continue their lifestyle after this hypothetical treatment? (just another log for the fire
It wasn't an assumption..just a warning to those who use the term "Evolution" as if all evolution is progressive, positive or even useful.
Race is genetic, and being black can be cured with gene therapy. You're always talking about DWB...I'm assuming that if you were offered, you would gladly accept becomming white, or a woman, or left handed, or have blue eyes, or be taller, or be...they're all genetic. Get it?
Just cause it can be changed, doesn't mean that it should.
![[b]](/data/avatars/m/0/144.jpg?1334500048){kind=avatar}
[b]
New Member
I harbor no hate or ill will towards anyone, either on this board or in real life. If I am blinded by my sexuality or beliefs than I don't believe it is to any more of a degree then you are blinded by your own sexuality or beliefs.
I have made no attempt to make myself out to be a victim. I am not a victim. And as far as marriage goes, I will never be married by the state, or by any god, as my own personal beliefs in marriage go beyond what either of those two institutions can provide. I was simply acting as a voice for those who aren't here to defend themselves.
For what it's worth, I was not brought in here to "bring you down". Don't flatter yourself. Though it concerns me that you think that anyone here would go to such lengths to get rid of you...
As it's obvious that you don't think I'm on a level to debate this subject with you, I don't see the point in wasting my time to convince you otherwise. You're simply not worth the effort. I'd found much more entertaining debates with Gonz and Gato_Solo, and they didn't tend to have their feelings hurt so much. I apologize that I've offended you or hurt you in anyway.
On that note, I'm through with this thread...
I have made no attempt to make myself out to be a victim. I am not a victim. And as far as marriage goes, I will never be married by the state, or by any god, as my own personal beliefs in marriage go beyond what either of those two institutions can provide. I was simply acting as a voice for those who aren't here to defend themselves.
For what it's worth, I was not brought in here to "bring you down". Don't flatter yourself. Though it concerns me that you think that anyone here would go to such lengths to get rid of you...
As it's obvious that you don't think I'm on a level to debate this subject with you, I don't see the point in wasting my time to convince you otherwise. You're simply not worth the effort. I'd found much more entertaining debates with Gonz and Gato_Solo, and they didn't tend to have their feelings hurt so much. I apologize that I've offended you or hurt you in anyway.
On that note, I'm through with this thread...
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
B, I agree the debate was fun for about ~3-4 days last month, since then it has become more of pain.
I whole-heartedly agree with you that you are not speaking for yourself; you’re a mouthpiece for the cause, as you work from the pale of spoon-fed propagandistics ad nausium. You even stated you do not want any part of marriage.
I am not blinded by my sexuality; I see the wreckage being a janitor of society I get to clean up the mess from all kinds of issues including many pertaining to homosexuals. My opinion places the burden on the much larger picture of society’s dynamic equalibrium rather then the wishes of few.
You have not hurt my wittle feeewings, you have frustrated me by rehashing the basic arguments based on different but equal and progressive ideology’s.
I will again restate a few things I have already said, you are witty and I am sure you charming most of the time, I even see the fun in your volleys with me.
You said yourself you were called back by several people to be the ‘gay-super-hero’. So obviously someone or two went to that length now didn’t they? (did you notice the (us) hiding in my statement that you reference, I notice you didn’t quote it)
Ok I’ll give you an inch here; the difference is in the fact that your perception of marriage is a progressive definition of marriage and not the traditional one that holds true today man+woman (=children).
Thulsa used to threaten me with facts too.
Well that may or may not ever happen. Like a diabetic or someone with heart disease homosexuals are a high risk group and very expensive to maintain. Private insurance may not accept homosexual spouses with out paying additional fees, once you change the definition of marriage the rules of private business will follow. Like getting earthquake or hurricane insurance in CA or FL respectively.
Well since Roe vs. Wade shattered the federalist ideal I would call that liberal hypocrisy and matter of convience.
So you agree that polygamy should be OK, I see this very close to the NAMBLA argument that you deny as being anything close to gay-marriage agenda.
So the bastardization of children should be promoted as well in the new progressive world, Wonderful. The no-fault divorce of consequence-free living has done wonders to weaken the institution of marriage and created a whole new world of latch-key, dual home children and has caused for many women to have join the work force to make ends meet whether or not wanted to. Yeah both of those little social changes didn’t have any impact on society did it? (The militant woman’s movement{that has far out lived its usefulness} and liberal divorce) now most women are not afforded the choice of being a housewife to raise their children’s as many would like to ahve that option. (check your statistics long and hard before you run with that one)
As a gay relationship has a zero natural potential of procreation from with-in the relationship I would have great concerns as to the ability to meet the natural balance of developmental needs of the child with-out causing a number of confusions. If we can disregard natural balance in this then we surely can disregard the natural balance of the environment too as homeostasis is simple nonsense.
I don’t believe that you consummate marriage by cock-fighting and no, it was not rhetorical question. How to gay men consummate mate marriage under traditional means or does this need to become progressive also.
I know you don’t see it, the traditional family values that were prevalent up to the early 1960’s have been reduced over the years in a number of ways in the name of social liberalism (not just the gays). This is the single most prevalent factor in the decay of society that we see today. Not to say we shouldn’t evolve, but many of the forced changes of norms really didn’t help society as 'they' promised they would.
Check your demographics, the more “tradtional-living” geographic locations are the ones with less crime and more wholesome communty living as opposed to large cities where crime is higher and community is geographic area rather then individual people that live there. Progressive Liberals tend to come from the large populations centers where people are less likely to know all the people that live on the street.
Here you are drawing parallel as being the victim (as a gay man) that you deny. You’re also trying to compare it to a civil rights issue of which it is not since no one is being denied and rights unequitabley.
You’re useing pity as a substitue for evidence. But WTF is sounds good doesn’t it.
You created an entire paragraph (and most of the post) of ad hominem attack which is when I fully realized that you have little to offer then anicdotal evidence, which is not evidence.
Science, history, and society have looked at this already and disagree with your new progressive wisdom.
I beg your pardon
Since this a social morality issue let discuss several of the key points of why most people will accept homosexuality as someone’s choice but do not condone it as a healthy normal behavior.
I know I can be an ass (no pun intended) but the only real point I see you coming back to is that 'its new, progressive, and it will be better'. It's not new and let me give you three words on that point Argumentum ad Novitatem
Personally, I have no ill will against gay people or couples at a personal level; I am friends with more then a few. I do not condone the choice any more then I do for friends that smoke dope or hunt out of season. The fact that they’re gay has little to do with our interactions as I pick my friends carefully.
My position on this issue is from a social point of view, I think marriage should be protected more than it has has been the last 35 years.
Never in the history of the world has society changed so much so fast, we are not as prepared for it as we think we are.
I whole-heartedly agree with you that you are not speaking for yourself; you’re a mouthpiece for the cause, as you work from the pale of spoon-fed propagandistics ad nausium. You even stated you do not want any part of marriage.
I am not blinded by my sexuality; I see the wreckage being a janitor of society I get to clean up the mess from all kinds of issues including many pertaining to homosexuals. My opinion places the burden on the much larger picture of society’s dynamic equalibrium rather then the wishes of few.
You have not hurt my wittle feeewings, you have frustrated me by rehashing the basic arguments based on different but equal and progressive ideology’s.
I will again restate a few things I have already said, you are witty and I am sure you charming most of the time, I even see the fun in your volleys with me.
You said yourself you were called back by several people to be the ‘gay-super-hero’. So obviously someone or two went to that length now didn’t they? (did you notice the (us) hiding in my statement that you reference, I notice you didn’t quote it)
Ok I’ll give you an inch here; the difference is in the fact that your perception of marriage is a progressive definition of marriage and not the traditional one that holds true today man+woman (=children).
Thulsa used to threaten me with facts too.
Well that may or may not ever happen. Like a diabetic or someone with heart disease homosexuals are a high risk group and very expensive to maintain. Private insurance may not accept homosexual spouses with out paying additional fees, once you change the definition of marriage the rules of private business will follow. Like getting earthquake or hurricane insurance in CA or FL respectively.
Well since Roe vs. Wade shattered the federalist ideal I would call that liberal hypocrisy and matter of convience.
So you agree that polygamy should be OK, I see this very close to the NAMBLA argument that you deny as being anything close to gay-marriage agenda.
So the bastardization of children should be promoted as well in the new progressive world, Wonderful. The no-fault divorce of consequence-free living has done wonders to weaken the institution of marriage and created a whole new world of latch-key, dual home children and has caused for many women to have join the work force to make ends meet whether or not wanted to. Yeah both of those little social changes didn’t have any impact on society did it? (The militant woman’s movement{that has far out lived its usefulness} and liberal divorce) now most women are not afforded the choice of being a housewife to raise their children’s as many would like to ahve that option. (check your statistics long and hard before you run with that one)
As a gay relationship has a zero natural potential of procreation from with-in the relationship I would have great concerns as to the ability to meet the natural balance of developmental needs of the child with-out causing a number of confusions. If we can disregard natural balance in this then we surely can disregard the natural balance of the environment too as homeostasis is simple nonsense.
I don’t believe that you consummate marriage by cock-fighting and no, it was not rhetorical question. How to gay men consummate mate marriage under traditional means or does this need to become progressive also.
I know you don’t see it, the traditional family values that were prevalent up to the early 1960’s have been reduced over the years in a number of ways in the name of social liberalism (not just the gays). This is the single most prevalent factor in the decay of society that we see today. Not to say we shouldn’t evolve, but many of the forced changes of norms really didn’t help society as 'they' promised they would.
Check your demographics, the more “tradtional-living” geographic locations are the ones with less crime and more wholesome communty living as opposed to large cities where crime is higher and community is geographic area rather then individual people that live there. Progressive Liberals tend to come from the large populations centers where people are less likely to know all the people that live on the street.
Here you are drawing parallel as being the victim (as a gay man) that you deny. You’re also trying to compare it to a civil rights issue of which it is not since no one is being denied and rights unequitabley.
You’re useing pity as a substitue for evidence. But WTF is sounds good doesn’t it.
You created an entire paragraph (and most of the post) of ad hominem attack which is when I fully realized that you have little to offer then anicdotal evidence, which is not evidence.
Science, history, and society have looked at this already and disagree with your new progressive wisdom.
I beg your pardon
Since this a social morality issue let discuss several of the key points of why most people will accept homosexuality as someone’s choice but do not condone it as a healthy normal behavior.
- Let’s discuss what happened in Scandinavia from the late 80’s to present day and look at the trends that are a result of gay marriage.
- Lets look at the extremely hi-rate of disease and morbidity that is caused by homosexual acts and the rate of infections.
- Let’s discuss the far higher rate of chronic mental illness in homosexuals
- Let discuss the promiscuity rates of the two lifestyles.
- Let’s discuss the role the sex plays in the different social arenas.
- Let also mention HIV, which was touted for ten years as not being a homosexual disease which it later was shown to be. Did you know, I am sure you do, that AIDS has its own special laws as to medical privacy that no other conditions has? That is has been the best funded medical research that has ever been attempted. Special rights, exuberant funding, that’s one hell-of’a lobby you got there.
- Lets talk about pheromones; what they are, what the do, and how they do it.
- Let’s talk about the natural occurrence of gay relationships the instinctive animal world and how that represents the parallel to the cognitive behavior in the human world.
- Let’s talk about the development of the penis the functions it does and why it does them, let carry that over to the anus and the vagina and all its supporting plumbing.
- Let’s talk about nature and evolution and how humans developed.
I know I can be an ass (no pun intended) but the only real point I see you coming back to is that 'its new, progressive, and it will be better'. It's not new and let me give you three words on that point Argumentum ad Novitatem
Personally, I have no ill will against gay people or couples at a personal level; I am friends with more then a few. I do not condone the choice any more then I do for friends that smoke dope or hunt out of season. The fact that they’re gay has little to do with our interactions as I pick my friends carefully.
My position on this issue is from a social point of view, I think marriage should be protected more than it has has been the last 35 years.
Never in the history of the world has society changed so much so fast, we are not as prepared for it as we think we are.
kale
New Member
ResearchMonkey said:
Ok, let's. I already know what you're going to say, and rather than fight it point-by-point over the next few pages of the thread, here's a link that does it for me: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document.asp?doc_id=1443
Why don't we just look at the extremely high rate of STDs among the youth of America? Homosexuals spread disease -- ok, I can deal with that -- but only if you acknowledge that *any* penetrating sex can spread disease, be it homo, hetero, or, heck, bestial, necro, whatever.
The cause of such inflated rates have not yet been determined, and a large group of analysts suggest it is because of the social stigma of such a lifestyle, and the reactions of people to the lifestyle.
There are always extremes. I'm quite certain they balance out.
Y'know why? Because for *years* in the 80s, HIV/AIDs was seen as a "gay" disease, sent by God to wipe out the terrible, terrible homos. When straight people started getting the disease, public opinion started to shift a bit, prompting more research into the disease. By the way, here's a link from the National Institute of Health stating that the rate of infection of HIV among gay men has dropped 50% over the past few years, while it's jumped over 60% among black females. http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun98/nci-16.htm
It's not the pheromones -- it's the receptors! "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and the stink of your musk is in the olfactory glands of the sniffer. My alarms go off when a hot chick goes by, [ b ]'s goes off pretty much non-stop when there's a man around. Guess a switch got mixed up or something, damn genes...
We can't ignore our animal instincts, y'know. Besides, here's a great article relating homosexuality and nature to the current gay marriage debate -- how poignant! http://www.backyardnature.net/j/o/homosex.htm
The rest of your post is just nitpicking and FUD. I'll skip it and pretend this is a rational discussion
kale said:
In one fell swoop, all the arguments from that side are simply washed away in the interest of simple facts.
Homosexuality is, as I've contended for some time, natural but nor normal, a genetic defect, a biological error. With that knowledge it thus becomes choice. The whole is not intended to run on the whims of a few.