Except that not all of them mate with the opposite sex. If you had actually bothered to research the topic you would have known this to be a fact. Read and learn! http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/...es-are-gayest-animal-planet231014/#gs.HtVmPik - - - Updated - - - The only absurdity was your denial and deflection without a single shred of factual evidence to support your baseless allegation. - - - Updated - - - This nation practices serial, as opposed to parallel, polygamy.
People would still view homosexuality as deviant. China and Cuba were officially atheist and they still outlawed homosexuality.
Indeed. "Most zoologists would probably prefer you to say they are showing ‘same-sex attraction or behavior’, rather than label them with our words of ‘gay’, ‘bisexual’ or ‘straight’." because those are human inventions. They give top billing to giraffes who often rub necks and engage in mounting behaviors with the same sex, they still mate with the opposite sex. - - - Updated - - - Because its biology, not religion.
I didn't have a problem with tax breaks and governmental entitlements to improve the wellbeing of children that only men and women produce. I do have a problem with tax breaks and governmental entitlements so homosexuals can feel better about their homosexuality.
What about infertile couples, elderly couples or couples who do not wish to have children? Do they get tbese benefits simply because they belong to a particular group while you ignore children adopted or brought into same sex unions. Your goal has nothing to do with the wellbeing of children, only rewarding groups that you belong to and punishing groups you disagree with.
Yes, because encouraging heterosexual couples to marry reduces the number of single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers while encouraging homosexual couples to marry does not. And what a beautiful demonstration of the tortured logic of liberals used to reach the conclusions they desire. Marriage cant be limited to men and women because only they produce children, because we allow infertile couples, elderly couples or couples who do not wish to have children to marry. AND THEIR SOLUTION is to extend marriage to all homosexual couples on the of hand chance that they might choose to adopt.
Well, of course. "Homophobia" is a Darwinian adaptation. Humans which withheld resources from homosexuals were selected for because it enhanced the tribe to which they belonged. Non-reproducing members of the tribe decreased the tribe's fitness.
Im 57 years old, was married for 1 1/2 of those years. I AM in the unmarried group being punished so homosexuals can feel better about themselves.
False, letting a 90 year old couple marry in no way "reduces the number of single mothers". Absurd notion I guess tortured logic is better than no logic at all which appears to be your mainstay. You stated marriage is all about children yet go on to state that some groups should be able to marry with no ability to produce children (ex. infertile heterosexuals or elderly heterosexuals) while another group should not be able to marry even in the presence of children (ex. homosexuals who have adopted or children from a previous union). If you cared about children you would be advocating for child care credits - not methods to benefit heterosexuals on their fifth marriage with no children while discriminating against a homosexual couple with four children. Want to try again? You keep editing the reason for marriage to suit whatever argument you want to make. If it is about procreation or "single mothers (except lesbian mothers of course) then homosexuals and infertile, elderly and unwilling heterosexuals should be excluded. If it is about children then homosexuals with kids would be included. If it is about a civil legal document between consenting adults then you have absolutely no argument at all.
Are you suggesting that people get married and have children based upon the tax breaks? The increasing number of single parents has nothing to do with marriage law, or tax breaks, or gay marriage And... the undeniable fact is that a single mom is less able to raise her child than if that single mom married her lesbian lover. There is an upside to gay marriage, and there is no downside Solution?? No one is trying to solve anything... because there is NO PROBLEM WITH old or infirtile or gay couples getting married No... marriage is a legal commitment that people make to each other that MAY OR MAY NOT involve children Hey, the fact is that many animals have pair bonding without marriage. And if our church and governments simply ignored pair bonging
Regardless, it's an evolutionary dead end. I'm fine with them doing what they want to do in their bedroom, but evolutionarily, they lose. (the way you win, evolutionarily, is by passing your genes off to offspring who live to the point of passing your genes to the next generation).
since procreation isn't relevant to who can marry, you can't exclude a couple from marriage because they can't procreate. This isn't hard.
Yes you do. If a gay couple has a child through adoption or surrogacy that is a child a man and a woman produced. That's the only way children are produced. I would have a problem with that as well, but that isn't why such benefits were extended. As I pointed out above there are gay couples that adopt and care for children. You think such children should be denied stability in the home because you disapprove of their parents relationship. That is the use of government power to fulfill your emotional needs.
If seems doubtful that your logic entirely captures reality, since evolution has so far failed to eliminate homosexuality
It would seem you have no interest in fact and instead wish to make your silly comments...Have A Nice Day
Stability doesn't apply to gays. And I'm not denying that two grown adults can help with finance but to use your logic polygamists should have it off even better I said if we encourage traditional marriage (along with discouraging single parent homes and gay unions) then single parent homes and gay unions will die naturally. Meaning as far as I'm concerned there's no law outlawing same sex marriage. No it isn't. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2908515/posts https://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/ I'm not. I gave them.
Most of those are most likely from Islam. Also when you combine communism and nazism (with dictators being almost always athiest) you get 125 million. So the alternative ain't all that good either. Alright. How is it not the same thing?
Ok. http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/yes-gay-marriage-hurts-me-personally/ http://unsettledchristianity.com/15-reasons-why-homosexuality-is-wrong-and-hurts-society/ http://www.contendingfortruth.com/wp-content/uploads2/End-Time-Current-Events-5-11-14.pdf Only homosexuals even when given the chance to marry aren't faithful. What I mean by prone-ness is they are more prone the same way heroine addicts are more prone. There's a reason why homosexuals make up 80% of contractees. Africans and Indians don't have as a high of a gay population as we do and also they don't practice fidelity as well as heterosexuals in the west do or don't practice contraceptives. Read above. I don't deny that. What I'm saying is there are ways to have brother John marry sister Jane without ever needing to worry about inbred children and that is by not having children in the first place. It is close though here in the west.
