padib said:
hsrob said:
Frank, Frank, Frank.......
The capacity to have children is not a requisite for heterosexual marriage so suggesting it should be for homosexual marriage is a blatant double standard. The incidence of homosexuality is strikingly similar across all cultures which is a strong argument for it being part of human nature. Something does not have to be the majority attribute in order to be part of human nature. Furthermore, what marriage has to do with nature, when it's a relatively modern construct, is beyond me.
Hygiene and safety have no part in this discussion, homosexuals don't to my knowledge have a plan to destroy the human race (of which they are a part) and the 'principles' which brought around the origins of the universe had little 'thought' for humans, let alone gender orientation.
You really need to think long and hard about this train wreck of a post, particularly before calling others out for nonsense. Your position has everything to do with your prejudice, pure and simple, and nothing to do with nature or human nature, which you evidently have little understanding of.
|
Don't judge him, because I don't think you are perfectly right either.
A heterosexual couple, in general, has the potential for children to form a family in the model father, mother, children. Though some couples can't have children, they are a minority. In the case of homosexual couples, without external aid (the aid of technology or some form of adoption or surrogate parent), there is no potential for that family model father, father, children or mother, mother, children.
Therefore naturally speaking he is mostly right in that aspect.
|
What's unnatural about adoption?
And if the "aid of technology" is so inherently evil, why are you using a computer, a thoroughly unnatural device? Besides which, you do realize the aid of technology is also crucial in helping many straight couple have kids, right?
