I am not sure the existance of a trait means it bestows an advantage.
Many traits have died out because they didn't bestow an advantage,
True, a trait (or rather a section of genetic code) will become corrupt over time if it isn't selected for, but that takes time.
But since we see homsexuality in animals very far removed from us in evolutionary terms (birds for example), either the genetic portion that contributes to it has been around for a looooong time, or it's evolved separately in different lineages (which isn't unreasonable, eyes and flight are just two examples of things that have evolved many times over separately).
I fight intolerance by not giving it the attention it craves.
If that makes me ignorant, then I wear the badge proudly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
The definition of idiocy. Truly. You have no idea how pathetic this stance really is.
The book was also written by a prominent, extremely gay, American academic in response to the fusillade of pro-marriage books by prominent homosexual writers, such as Andrew Sullivan.
See, I know way more about the discussion of the issue than you do.
I don't need the opinion of a "prominent, extremely gay, American academic" to try and sway my conclusion that denying a homosexual couple the same right to marry as a heterosexual couple is wrong. I can think for myself, and I need only personal life experience to proclaim that ANY inequality in a land of "sophisticates" is a travesty and an injustice.
I'm sure if given enough time and resources, people could come up with convincing arguments intent on shattering society's views on a myriad of controversial topics. For example:
- Eugenics
- Ethnic Cleansing
- Pederasty
- Zoophilia/Bestiality
- Vigilantism
- Abortion
- Racism
- Sexism
- Fluoride
At some point, one has to put their foot down and say 'no farther, we will not hear any more on this topic. We've made our decision and that's final.'
On the topic of same-sex marriage, that point needs to be now. Homosexuals deserve to have every single privilege that heterosexuals do in terms of matrimonial partnerships.
Last edited by HeartsOfFire; 03-23-2011 at 03:25 PM.
To everyone stating the separate but equal claim, I think this needs to be posted one more time:
Anyone who thinks any differently is not only mistaken but ignorant. Marriage, before the inception of the Catholic church, has never been a religious institution.
And I am disgusted by all of you who stated that same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt on the basis of potential stigmatization by school yard bullies. Lets blame the victims, perfect argument; why not attack the attitudes that cause the discrimination against these children instead of demonizing a couples desire for a family.
In short, besides a very vocal minority, this thread has done nothing but give me hope for a much better future.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cole436 For This Useful Post:
Ok, I might be confused because I'm not scientifically minded. But how does sex between same sex benefit and evolutionary advantage since there's no continuation of the species involved, which means in a pure homosexual society for example it wouldn't exist long enough to evolve in the purest sense?
Your right there would be no genetic corruption, because there would be no reproduction and adaptation.
And to further that question, wouldn't it be logical to assume that if Homosexuality was a purely genetic condition that it will eventually die out due to the inability to breed without outside assistance (sperm donation etc)?
So the current question that comes to mind, is homosexuality something thats inherant in all of us as a recessive condition, and in I guess a minority of the species it comes to the forefront based on whatever condition fires it?
Just curious
My 2 posts with videos even covered all those questions
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
