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.
Why did nature create a non-reproductive segment in essential every animals species?
Why do we see "homosexual" couples in nature raising orphaned, abandoned, and stolen young (as we do in many bird species)?
Your understanding of homosexuality isn't an attempt to understand it at all - is simply a starting point (and apparently ending point) assumption that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural.
Homosexuality is an aberration of nature rather than being wrong. I'm also one of those who believes that people are wired a certain way, and I arrived at this conclusion after much thought, despite those around me who claimed it was a choice.
I've also seen homosexuals try to change to fit the norm--and it never works. God help the poor heterosexual who winds up being married to a closeted homosexual! I have seen this in RL with people I went to school with. Back in the late 1960s and early 70s, being openly homosexual could be a death sentence.
In nature, many species separate into male and female other than during mating season. The females often raise the young in groups, as with lionesses. Has nothing to do with homosexuality. It's a survival tactic.
I don't hate gays. I would prefer to see people as individuals, but it doesn't always work that way. As far as the workplace goes, why does orientation even have to be an issue?
Well said. They apparently demonstrate intolerance of the Golden Rule - “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
The golden rule is my number one rule. So, if those with strong religious beliefs were to truly follow the Golden Rule, they would not subject others not of their religion to obey its tenets through enacted laws.
See, that's just it. You have made the automatic assumption that I hate gays. I do NOT hate gays.
In my case, religion has nothing at all to do with anything. I was raised Christian, but am not particularly religious, at least not in the organized religion sense.
It's just nature. Nature designed male and female parts to complement each other. You don't need Biblical and religious admonitions to see this very simple fact.
You are quite correct that respect works both ways. Were I to meet you on the street, I would extend to you the same civility and courtesy I do any one else--until they give me a reason not to do so.
Nature also designed some people to be gay as well. Marriage isn't a part of nature though, it's a human created institution to handle legal issues that result due to inheritance laws.
That may be what will end up making gay marriage legal in all 50 states. At this point in time, Texas and a few other states have laws against it. It stands until the lower courts decide what to do. Funny how the SCOTUS kicked the can back to the states. Why didn't they just rule that it's legal anywhere?
Oh, they will, as they did in 1967 with the ending of interracial bans by deciding Loving verses the state of Virginia. At that time 17 states still banned interracial marriages between any race, not just blacks and white. At that time a marriage between and Asian and a white was not legal in all 50 states and if they crossed the border as the Loving couple, a black and white couple did, they were arrested in their home state of Virginia for breaking the state law forbidding the marriage of two races. Their decision will be immanent .
Who is denying gays housing, work--or anything else?
You can go to a state that allows and recognizes gay marriage--and get married there.
Texas has an amendment to their constitution, VOTED on (2005) by the MAJORITY of the residents as defining marriage between a man and a woman. Now we're being told that it's unconstitutional, and that the will of individual states is not worth squat.
You have every right to live your own life free of persecution and fear of physical harm, as long as it hurts no one else, and isn't illegal.
But getting militant and nasty (not necessarily you, but others) towards those who don't embrace gay marriage and such--does not advance your cause.
The will of the majority does not trump the constitutions protection of the minorities however. I fail to grasp why people on the right have such a hard time understanding that concept. Just because the majority votes on a law doesn't mean it is supposed to stand for all time.
That's a serious question, and I'm not trying to be funny.
I believe that homosexuals should be left alone to go about their lives. I don't wish them to be tied to fenceposts and beaten because of their orientation.
How is that hateful?
What do you mean by being left alone to go about our lives? Does that mean being allowed those 1049 federal rights, or not fearing being fired for being gay? Are those part of being left alone, or are those things we have to tolerate from the majority who seem to not want to tolerate us or leave us alone?
The general public easily sees through the misdirection like that and wonders why the homosexual resorts to lies, trickery and deceit. When voters get overturned that is a failure, not a victory. For example suppose those who voted for a leader they wanted instead had their voices silenced, erased, overturned and decided by a court? Why even bother letting the people speak via their votes at all if a handful of individuals eventually gets to decide what is to be or not to be applied for all? This is not a good precedent to set.
The Courts job is to decide if a law is Constitutional or not, that is why they exist. People can vote for whatever laws they want as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.
Homosexuality is an aberration of nature rather than being wrong. I'm also one of those who believes that people are wired a certain way, and I arrived at this conclusion after much thought, despite those around me who claimed it was a choice.
I've also seen homosexuals try to change to fit the norm--and it never works. God help the poor heterosexual who winds up being married to a closeted homosexual! I have seen this in RL with people I went to school with. Back in the late 1960s and early 70s, being openly homosexual could be a death sentence.
In nature, many species separate into male and female other than during mating season. The females often raise the young in groups, as with lionesses. Has nothing to do with homosexuality. It's a survival tactic.
I don't understand why you believe that gay people are wired that way while at the same time say it's an aberration of nature. That makes no sense at all.
Homosexuality has been selected for and maintained in basically every higher animal species generation after generation for millions of years. The question isn't, "it it natural?" - the question is "why is it natural?".
Answering that question is harder in some species that others (and the answer in some species very well might be that it's vestigial). Black Swans is an easy one. Roughly 25% of male black swans form lifelong, "monogamous" male/male mating pairs. They nest together for life - they never sexually reproduce with females. These male/male pairings raise orphaned chicks, and even more often than that they steal eggs from male/female pairings (which are then replaced by the laying of a new egg) and then hatch and raise that chick. The swans raised by the "gay" couples survive to adulthood about twice as often as those raised in "traditional" nests. It's in interesting example of homosexuality directly aiding in the propagation of a species.
Who is denying gays housing, work--or anything else?
You can go to a state that allows and recognizes gay marriage--and get married there.
Texas has an amendment to their constitution, VOTED on (2005) by the MAJORITY of the residents as defining marriage between a man and a woman. Now we're being told that it's unconstitutional, and that the will of individual states is not worth squat.
You have every right to live your own life free of persecution and fear of physical harm, as long as it hurts no one else, and isn't illegal.
But getting militant and nasty (not necessarily you, but others) towards those who don't embrace gay marriage and such--does not advance your cause.
Should laws that barred blacks and whites from marrying stayed in place until enough people in those states felt that it should be legal and agreed with it?? Should it have remained illegal in those states if it was put up for a vote and the vote was to ban it?
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.
