Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At no time in the history of this nation has homosexuality been so accepted, even celebrated. But I suspect (but have no empirical evidence to back this up) that the incidence of teen suicides among homosexuals is higher than it's ever been. Given the weakening hold of Christian belief on the issue of homosexuality on public opinion one would expect the reverse would be true. It is unlikely, therefore, that teens are killing themselves because of Christian beliefs. More likely it is the lifestyle itself tht is killing them.
The acceptance of homosexuality in the United States varies a great deal on a regional basis. Homosexuality is NOT accepted in Salt Lake, City Utah the same way it's excepted in San Francisco, California.
Why is it that every time a person disagrees with the gay lifestyle we are automatically labeled as bigots or homophobic? Is that the liberal excuse for every time as person disagrees with them?
Because along with that disagreement comes denial of a person's civil and human rights based on their sexual orientation.
At no time in the history of this nation has homosexuality been so accepted, even celebrated. But I suspect (but have no empirical evidence to back this up) that the incidence of teen suicides among homosexuals is higher than it's ever been. Given the weakening hold of Christian belief on the issue of homosexuality on public opinion one would expect the reverse would be true. It is unlikely, therefore, that teens are killing themselves because of Christian beliefs. More likely it is the lifestyle itself tht is killing them.
What "lifestyle", exactly, is killing them, in your opinion? Simply having a same-sex relationship doesn't kill anyone. You do realize that, I hope.
I'm not nearly as intelligent as you claim to be so perhaps you can explain step-by-step and in ultra-simple language how acceptance of gay marriage will "insure [sic] the extinction of a culture".
I'm especially interested in why legalizing gay marriage will ensure extinction, but actual homosexual behavior appears to not have that same effect.
I'd also like you to use your superior intellect to explain to me what factors make our culture dependent on only male-female marriages while other cultures have thrived while allowing polygamous and homosexual marriages and other cultures have survived while having no marriages at all.
Okay, let's go slow- just for you.
We have two possibilites regarding the origins of homosexual behavior-
1. It is learned
2. It is genetically based and cannot be either fostered or prevented
If we assume possibility #2, then the sanctioning and support of gay marriage will have little impact on the "fitness" of a given culture or species. If there is a genetic predisposition one way or another, there is little that can be done to change that behavior and bring that individual into the collective gene pool.
If we assume #1 is true, then the support and promotion of gay marriage is a process by which, through new cultural norms, we are removing otherwise "fit" individuals from the collective gene pool, limiting our available genetic diversity. If homosexuality is learned, and not genetic, such an endorsement of institutional gay marriage would necessarily make that practice, and homosexuality in general, more widespread and acceptable in the general population. As an example, there were few bi-racial children in the US prior to the late 20th century, as this cultural "taboo" has essentially been removed from US culture. This issue, in contrast to gay marriage, actually increases our genetic diversity and makes us more "fit" from a Darwnian standpoint.
I have already given you all the answers to refute my arguments. You should use them, as they are better, well thought out responses.
Hawkeye must not be as smart as s/he claims to be, since s/he completely ignored my rebuttal of his/her asinine last post towards me.... Nevermind the horrible arguments being made for his/her side of the issue.
The world population is 97% heterosexual which IS the population norm. The 3% that are homosexual are a deviation from the norm in every sense of the word, and NO, homosexuality is NOT normal in every sense of that word. The homosexual doesn’t like it because it makes him sound odd and different, well too bad because that is reality. Homosexuals are different. They will always stick out like a sore thumb because they are quite literally the intentionally differently acting “odd couple”. Whether folks like it or not the mainstream is the heterosexual 97%.
All the laws, activist judges and redefinitions are never going to change the fact that not everyone is or ever will be as thrilled and excited about homosexuality as homosexuals are and there’s nothing they or anybody can do about it and this infuriates the unhappy and frustrated homosexual radicals to no end.
I think Darwin would say to be careful of what environment you raise your heterosexual children in because some repeated exposure to unhealthy factors could change their sexuality.
Darwin wouldn't say anything about it, because it's stupid.
We have two possibilites regarding the origins of homosexual behavior-
1. It is learned
2. It is genetically based and cannot be either fostered or prevented
If we assume possibility #2, then the sanctioning and support of gay marriage will have little impact on the "fitness" of a given culture or species. If there is a genetic predisposition one way or another, there is little that can be done to change that behavior and bring that individual into the collective gene pool.
If we assume #1 is true, then the support and promotion of gay marriage is a process by which, through new cultural norms, we are removing otherwise "fit" individuals from the collective gene pool, limiting our available genetic diversity. If homosexuality is learned, and not genetic, such an endorsement of institutional gay marriage would necessarily make that practice, and homosexuality in general, more widespread and acceptable in the general population. As an example, there were few bi-racial children in the US prior to the late 20th century, as this cultural "taboo" has essentially been removed from US culture. This issue, in contrast to gay marriage, actually increases our genetic diversity and makes us more "fit" from a Darwnian standpoint.
I have already given you all the answers to refute my arguments. You should use them, as they are better, well thought out responses.
None of this is relevant at all to the legal issue of whether gays should be treated equally under the law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
