R
Redoubtable
Guest
Originally posted by okinrus
We have free speech in this country and freedom from slander.
Truthfully, I think you need to remove "from" and insert "to," Okinrus.
Originally posted by guthrie
Why should heterosexual marriages get support and not homosexual ones?
Heterosxeual realtionships make babies, and, thus, are fruitful, wholesome, and laudable. Homosexual ones don't.
Originally posted by Bells
Fix what? Homosexuals are human beings.
Fix the trait that triggers and fosters a non-procreative sexual disposition. I declare, it doesn't make babies; we should fix it!
Originally posted by Mystech
So, being that homosexuals seem to be quite capable of having healthy and long lasting relationships, are you then trying to quietly state that your previous statement about homosexuality being a disease was ill conceived?
How do you know "most homosexuals" can lead healthy relationships?
It seems likely to me that their relationships would be brief and noncommital, seeing that the entire arrangement is non-generative.
Without the possbility of children, there is little material adhesive to perpetuate the bond, little need for fidelity or "true love" . . . or even, I daresay, marriage.
Seeing that all the bodily traits of a person are derived from their genes, homosexuality, to exist at the point of birth, would have to be genetic.
However, homosexuality cannot possibly be genetic, on account of the fact already presented by Mirage, the elimination of disadvantageous or unhelpful genes. Homosexuality would have been expunged by now(Unless it's a recessive gene, which isn't too sensible, as a gene that stagnates the reproduction of the species isn't practical anyhow.).
So, if one keeps Darwinism and practicality in mind, homosexuality cannot exist at birth; people cannot be born gay.
What else could it be but psychological?
Last edited by a moderator: