When did I moved the goalposts? True homosexuals in the sense that they choose to only mate with the same sex. So no hypocrisy. Right. No it doesn't as explained above. It's you who attributed the fruit flies as homosexuals. Already did.
Why does stability "not apply to gays"? There is zero evidence that these relationships will dissolve if we ignore them - the opposite actually A "study" from a religious source from 2012 and another from unwed couples in 2010 - neither of these studies look at marriage. No, you really didn't - but if that's all you have I accept your concession.
Because it wasn't his religion that he used to justify this. To me there is no difference in killing people for religion or being deemed an enemy of mussolini's state. At best that puts religion equal to communism and fascism it's just another justification.
You need to post the argument he makes against homosexuality. Glenn Beck is a good speaker but he takes forever to get to the point. If you want to use his opinion to prop up your argument you need to get to it. And post that. I could rip this article to logical shreads had it not been based on a flawed supposition. I see no point. The reason why this supposition is flawed it's because it's talking about a sex act when that occurs between heterosexual couples. If you could get your mind out of the gutter for a millisecond you might have seen the flaw. I won't download pdf files. Copy and paste what is pertinent. Why try trickery? Just be honest. Why is that so hard? I'm in a homosexual marriage and we've both been faithful to each other. So your statement is a lie, I know it's a lie and the more you lie the less credibility you have. Further to puff up religious horse(*)(*)(*)(*) to me like you believe any of it and then in the very next breath you break a commandment, really drives that adage about casting the first stone home doesn't it? I know what you said. Making another broken analogy doesn't change what I said. In one population but not others? Yes it's culture, I already said that. You're admitting it's a cultural issue. If it's only in the west, we aren't a different species than Africans or Indians the difference is culture. Further how can you say there are fewer gay people in those cultures? The only way you know people are gay is if they tell you, and their cultures adhere to backward religious ideologues. So how can you get an accurate estimate of who is gay or not there? Than you understand the flaw in your argument? Your analogy is flawed. This is irrelevant. you are referencing a cultural difference again.
Please prove this without religious horse(*)(*)(*)(*) please. Here we are after thousands of years of doing that. Really? You mean that vague article from Glenn Beck or The flawed supposition that homosexuality revolves around a sex act largely practiced by heterosexuals? That doesn't indicate benefit the banning of homosexual openness. It indicates religious objection, last i checked we live in a constitutional republic and the respecting of any religious doctrine by our government is a clear violation of the first amendment.
This isn't really about homosexuals, it's about infertile people. Further a fertile homosexual can reproduce. There is no requirement that people be attracted to the opposite sex to impregnate or be impregnated by them.
They were/are officially COMMUNIST! FTR China repealed their antigay laws 20 years ago. The antigay laws in Cuba were a hangover from the Catholic antipathy towards homosexuals prior to the revolution. In the 1990's Cuba repealed those laws and started embracing gays into their society and allowing them to serve in the military. However the repression has continued and it still has more to do with religion than communism.
The faux atheist denying science again because that is what theists do when confronted with scientific facts they cannot refute?
Ironic coming from someone who only posts tortured logic to support his hatred of gays. So let's put that to the test. Infertile heterosexual couples can adopt children and obtain the benefits of marriage but according to the faux atheist it is "tortured logic" for a gay couple to adopt children and obtain the benefits of marriage.
Having additional non-reproducing males to hunt and defend the tribe would have INCREASED their chances of survival. Having additional non-reproducing females to gather food for the tribe would have INCREASED their chances of survival. According to evolution homosexuals would have been a positive for the survival of the tribe as a whole.
You feel "punished" because gays are allowed to marry the consenting adult of their choice and have the benefits that everyone else does who manages to have a successful long term relationship? Since I have been married for 40 years I must have been "punishing" you too, right? So much for accepting individual responsibility for oneself!
You are disingenuously conflating mourning with rituals. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mourning http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ritual?s=t There are no "sacred rites or procedures" being performed for the dead. There is only evidence of mourning. All sentient animals are capable of mourning. There is ample evidence of pets mourning the loss of their owners but no one seriously calls that a "ritual".
Obviously you fail to see the glaring fallacy in your own illogical claims. Are you seriously claiming that fruitflies are making a CHOICE to be homosexual?
No, I was just mirroring his use of the word "punish". Marriage by design is discrimination against the unmarried. I am among the unmarried.
Silly, the issue being dealt with is single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Because two parents is better than one. If two gay guys adopt a child there is no issue.
Why don't you copy and paste a post of mine you think best demonstrates this "hate" you allege so we can all see that what you mean by hate of homosexuals, is in fact nothing more than opposition to gay marriage. - - - Updated - - - Actually I was quoting your "science". "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." You just want us to selectively adopt your science.
interesting it was you who introduced that other anmals engage in gay sex as if it's justification for deviant sexual behavior among humans. I simply pointed out another behavior among animals in order to highlight the absurdity of your attempted justification
THATS why I specified that 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. As opposed to encouraging 90 year old couples to marry.
Im simply mirroring his language. NO LAW EVER excluded gays from the benefits of marriage while denial to the unmarried is by design in the law
Nope. We were discussing why government encouraged traditional marriage. Why they licensed and regulated the process.
Yes, they were communist and officially atheist. There is still much antipathy to homosexuals in China. Antipathy to homosexuals is a part of human nature and so became a part of religion which reflects human nature more than it modifies it. Every religion frowns on homosexuality.
What part don't you understand? Unmarried gay men engaging in sex doesn't lead to single parents on their own with an absent or unknown 2nd parent. Unmarried heterosexual men and women engaging in sex frequently leads to single parents on their own with an absent or unknown 2nd parent.
