[QUOTE="peter1191"]
Lol how so? The only reason it is acceptable is the simple fact that society has lived with it, so our horror towards such behavior has diminished to acceptance. Really, there is no difference. All of it is unnatural. Most ppl use religious arguements to substantiate their views. Ok, I agree. But what about evolutionary agruements? Is it possible that humans would be sexually attracted to their own gender? Doesn't this inhibit reproduction? Isn't this a "flaw" of human nature, if it is innate (aka born w/homosexuality) rather than developed? Just some things to contemplate as society slips into ever increasing acceptance of insanity.
Dark_Knight6
If that's the case, aren't heterosexual couples who are unable to birth a child just as unnatural. And last I checked, they were allowed to marry one another.
Good your smart. I expected some sorry reply like: "we're all equal anyway, forget the logic, its love!" Heterosexual couples who can't give birth are nonetheless "natural" if we want to go down this Darwinistic route (which by the way I don't like to use, but I was just putting it out there for thought) because it is not that they lack the "tools" to create children, it is merely the fact their "tools" are unable to function. THey can still provide a natural home for the development of youth, who can grow up and be able to reproduce themselves. Homosexuals are not "impared," they are incompatible by nature (for making children). They do not provide the optimum enviornment for raising future generations (lack of male or female figure, depending on the case) if adoption was a sought after course. Biologically there is a great difference between imparity and incompatability. Now, I ask you: can we make such an arguement for father-daughters or mother-sons? No. THink about it. As our society accepts innuendos as "equal" these arguements will lose clout as the one I have posted above. DONT LET YOUR COMPLACENCY BE THE REASON FOR CASUAL INSANITY
Log in to comment