Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[TemplarKormac]

Again, Templar.....you enjoy 'primal' and 'transcendental' marriage. You define it anyway you like.

Isn't that what you're doing?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nature...

Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.

Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.

Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology. The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus. The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.

Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations. You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.

Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as. Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions. They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy. Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether. Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!

Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.

So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.

Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.

 

[Skylar]

Again, Templar.....you enjoy 'primal' and 'transcendental' marriage. You define it anyway you like.

Isn't that what you're doing?

Your 'primal' 'transcendental' 'before there was law' marriage is utterly irrelevant to me. I care about marriage under the law.

And marriage under the law is subject to certain constitutional guarantees. If a State's marriage laws violate those guarantees, they're invalid and unenforceable.And gay marriage bans violate rights, target specific groups and serve no compelling state interest. The violating all three tenets of a valid state law under Romer V. Evans.

As for your 'primordial' marriage.....Feel free to call a druid, walk circles around a tree, hop on the back of a unicorn, or do whatever you wish with it. Its all yours.

 

[Skylar]

Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.

Unless it didn't. If 'nature' doesn't want a trait in a population, it has very effective means of weeding it out. Especially traits that result in genetic suicide. And in the case of homosexuality, the numbers are outrageously high for random chance. 1.5 to 4% of virtually *every* population group? If it were genuinely the genetic abnormality you describe that resulted in genetic suicide for those afflicted by it..... nature would have weeded it out in a few generations. Yet its persisted for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years through a thousand generations.

Homosexuality may serve the same purpose as menopause: labor providers and resource collectors that don't add mouths to feed to the mix. We've seen similar patterns in animals like Killer whales....where post-menopauseal mothers help take care of their adult male offspring. When the mother finally dies, the rate of death for her male offspring skyrocket. The existence of support workers who can't breed is an entirely plausible survival mechanism. Especially since we already see it in menopausal women and elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Bees base their entire survival strategy on the concept.

And given the outrageously high numbers for homosexuality, the fact that it is a genetic dead end, and its consistent presence in our species, the idea that its just a random oops is pretty unlikely.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.

Unless it didn't. If 'nature' doesn't want a trait in a population, it has very effective means of weeding it out. Especially traits that result in genetic suicide. And in the case of homosexuality, the numbers are outrageously high for random chance. 1.5 to 4% of virtually *every* population group? If it were genuinely the genetic abnormality you describe that resulted in genetic suicide for those afflicted by it..... nature would have weeded it out in a few generations. Yet its persisted for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years through a thousand generations.

Homosexuality may serve the same purpose as menopause: labor providers and resource collectors that don't add mouths to feed to the mix. We've seen similar patterns in animals like Killer whales....where post-menopausal mothers help take care of their adult male offspring. When the mother finally dies, the rate of death for her male offspring skyrocket. The existence of support workers who can't breed is an entirely plausible survival mechanism. Especially since we already see it in menopausal women and elsewhere in the animal kingdom

And given the outrageously high numbers for homosexuality, the fact that it is a genetic dead end, and its consistent presence in our species, the idea that its just a random oops is pretty unlikely.

Yes, but 1.5 to 4% indicates a genetic outlier, not an intended result. An evolutionary trait doesn't simply manifest and disappear in a few millennia, it takes tens of thousands, if not hundreds of millions of years to manifest itself and wear off. Just look at the evolutionary patterns of the dinosaurs. Just because homosexuality is here now, doesn't mean it will exist oh, say, in a million years.

I don't see homosexuality as a survival mechanism. It would in fact be counterproductive to survival. How would it help the person who has it with survival? I cannot possibly see any benefits. Humans and whales are completely different animals. If we can't breed, we die out. Our species continuity is dependent on reproduction. Hence my position that homosexuality is a flaw in the human genome, as it was never intended to help the breeding processes along.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your 'primal' 'transcendental' 'before there was law' marriage is utterly irrelevant to me.

Of course it is, Skylar. Marriage was defined before the law took hold. You views need a compass; a degree of certainty to justify them, the law provides such certainty. It offers a feeling of control you wouldn't have otherwise. If there is no control, you dismiss it as irrelevant.

Marriage should never be defined by law. At all. Do you agree?

 

[Skylar]

Yes, but 1.5 to 4% indicates a genetic outlier, not an intended result. An evolutionary trait doesn't simply manifest and disappear in a few millennia, it takes tens of thousands, if not hundreds of millions of years to manifest itself and wear off. Just look at the evolutionary patterns of the dinosaurs. Just because homosexuality is here now, doesn't mean it will exist oh, say, in a million years.

A genetic outlier for a trait that is genetic suicide? No it isn't. Those numbers are WAY too high. By orders of magnitude. Smiilarly genetically dead end traits have a rate of occurrence closer to 1 in 1000. Like, Klinefelter syndrome. The only time you see higher numbers is when they provide protection or benefit to the population at large. Like say, Tay Sachs disease. Its a genetic dead end for homozygous carries.....which occur in effected population groups about 3 to 5% of the time. For those who are actual heterozygous carriers, the odds are 25% of homozygous, genetically dead end offspring. But the disease is though to provide powerful resistance to tuberculosis in heterozygous carriers...which are typically double the number of the homozygous carriers (the homozygous being the dead ones). And sprinkled in a population group these heterozygous carries dramatically increases that groups odds of survival.

Since homosexuality occurs so often, way, way more often than it should if it were a trait with no benefits, and nature is so effective as weeding out traits that are genetic suicide if they don't help the population at large, it bolsters the case for homosexuality being beneficial to their population group. Its entirely plausible that gays serve the same role as menopausal women. Labor providers without adding to the population. It would provide more resources for fewer children, which increases their chances for survival.

If you're willing to get speculative with me for the purpose of intellectual curiosity rather than debate, causes and purposes of homosexuality is actually a pretty interesting conversation. It seems to be a genetically linked trait most commonly manifesting in those with older brothers. As a woman carries a male child, her body reacts to it like it were an infection. The reactoin starts slow and builds over the course of the pregnancy. Usually the placenta is more than adequate to deal with such reactions and the child is born before there is any significant effect.

However.....when she gets pregnant with another male child, the auto-immune response picks up where it left off for the last male child. And continues to build. And the same for the next male child. And the next. Until after 3 or 4, the auto-immune response starts to subtly overwhelm some of the placenta's defenses. And begins to effect the child. One of the more prevalent theories is that the genetic component of homosexuality (in men specifically) is more a susceptibility to these autoimmune reactions. And that the reaction alters the brain chemistry or the brain physiology in some fashion that alters sexual orientation.

Its a pretty interesting theory for me. But it doesn't explain a thing about lesbians. They are the great shrug among geneticists. And statistically they are more prevalent than gay men. And we don't know why.

If I were to guess....I'd say its because a lack of attraction to men doesn't mean that there's necessarily a lack of desire to be a mother. And there are many, many lesbians that have given birth to some absolutely beautiful babies. Gay men on the other hand seem less inclined to father children. And more commonly adopt. So if there is a genetic component, It might be able to passed more directly in lesbians. While with gay men it would more often pass through their siblings or cousins.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Lefties are so given to that noun "force" aren't they? I think we should force castration on gays. How's that for a "force" idea?

 

[Skylar]

Of course it is, Skylar. Marriage was defined before the law took hold. You views need a compass; a degree of certainty to justify them, the law provides such certainty. It offers a feeling of control you wouldn't have otherwise. If there is no control, you dismiss it as irrelevant.

The moment it became part of the law, it became ours to do with as we please. Marriage was originally a religious ceremony. Civil marriage did away with it. The origin of marriage before law is irrelevant to its definition under law. As the legal meaning is whatever we say it is.

And in our system of laws and constitutional protections, gay marriage is as guaranteed and protected as straight marriage. If you want to step outside the law, ignore the legal definitions and get priimally transcendental, feel free. Marriage equality is a legal argument. And any paradigm beyond the legal is irrelevant to it.

As for the 'feelings of control', I'm straight. I already have all the rights in question. But my personal sense of justice and fairness motivates me to fight for gays and lesbians to have the same rights under the law. As I consider love and companionship just as valid a basis of marriage as children. And love is pretty universal.

Marriage should never be defined by law. At all. Do you agree?

Nope. I don't agree. I'm not a libertarian. And the meta discussion of if the government should be involved in marriage is moot. Government is involved. Unless you don't want it to be.

If you want a marriage that is void of any government oversight or control....you have it. Just have your religious ceremony and don't get a marriage license. You can do whatever you want, define it any way you want. The government doesn't recognize or protect the union. So is entirely yours to define.

For those who want a marriage recognized and protected under the law, that's an option as well. The law is subject to certain constitutional guarantees and must be applied fairly and equally. Where your personal 'primal' marriage can be whatever you want it to be, excluding anyone you wish.

Sounds like a win-win to me. You get what you want with no government oversight, and folks that want the recognition and protection of marriage law can have what they want.

 

[Skylar]

Lefties are so given to that adjective "force" aren't they? I think we should force castration on gays. How's that for a "force" idea?

Pretty awful.

 

[Seawytch]

Sure...I'm still legally married. [emoji13]

LOL! "Legally"? ROFL! Then that means that you're working under ILLEGITIMATE LAW. This of course, because Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and this without regard to the perverse pretenses to the contrary.

(It should be noted that the fundamental trait of relativism is the rejection of objectivity.

Objectivity is the essential element of 'truth'. Truth is the essential element of Trust.

Objectivity, truth and trust are the essential elements of a soundly reasoned morality.

And all of those are the essential elements of Justice.

Now folks, take a moment and note the total disregard of ANYTHING remotely akin to a moral component, by a person who flatly rejects any sense of the intrinsic truth that homosexuality is the INVERSE of the human sexuality standard, that the choice to respond to the cravings born of that deviant sexuality, demonstrates a deviant character..., this as a result of the inability to trust in the cultural standards which recognize the principles in nature which prohibit viability in those who make the choice to engage in such behavior, along with the total disregard for any sense of justice, wherein the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of states refuse to accept the lowering of Marriage standard to include circumstances which nature itself rejects.

Setting their own personal needs, wants and desires over the good of everyone else. So bereft of objectivity, these people need only to point toward the COLOR of LAW, wherein a handful of illicit judicial decisions temporarily set aside THE LAW, established by the due processes common to The LAW.

And most importantly, unable to merely accept the temporary judicial win, they come to publicly profess that they're enjoying 'POPULAR SUPPORT in 30 of 50 States'. Which is false, and they know its false. Such represents a deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence YOU, the public, who they believe are ignorant of the truth... They consider you to be fools.

Now with regard to fools and the vacuous leaning on of 'LEGALITIES'... imagine how comforting that species of reasoning was to those who were LEGALLY stripping innocent people of their property and lives.

I expect that the comfort dried up pretty quick when it was determined that such was IMMORAL and because of that, millions of people who felt that way decided to stop it.

And guess what happened THEN! All those people who were engaged in IMMORAL behavior, were forced to stop. And not one fuck was given about how THE LAW that provided them with the means to FEEL REAL IMPORTANT... and not a single one of those immoral cranks was 'GRANDFATHERED IN'.

Funny, despite your opinion on the matter, I'm still legally married (with all the perks that go along with it). That just eats you up doesn't it? Good.

 

[Seawytch]

Lefties are so given to that noun "force" aren't they? I think we should force castration on gays. How's that for a "force" idea?

How you gonna castrate the lesbians, freak?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sure...I'm still legally married. [emoji13]

LOL! "Legally"? ROFL! Then that means that you're working under ILLEGITIMATE LAW. This of course, because Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and this without regard to the perverse pretenses to the contrary.

(It should be noted that the fundamental trait of relativism is the rejection of objectivity.

Objectivity is the essential element of 'truth'. Truth is the essential element of Trust.

Objectivity, truth and trust are the essential elements of a soundly reasoned morality.

And all of those are the essential elements of Justice.

Now folks, take a moment and note the total disregard of ANYTHING remotely akin to a moral component, by a person who flatly rejects any sense of the intrinsic truth that homosexuality is the INVERSE of the human sexuality standard, that the choice to respond to the cravings born of that deviant sexuality, demonstrates a deviant character..., this as a result of the inability to trust in the cultural standards which recognize the principles in nature which prohibit viability in those who make the choice to engage in such behavior, along with the total disregard for any sense of justice, wherein the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of states refuse to accept the lowering of Marriage standard to include circumstances which nature itself rejects.

Setting their own personal needs, wants and desires over the good of everyone else. So bereft of objectivity, these people need only to point toward the COLOR of LAW, wherein a handful of illicit judicial decisions temporarily set aside THE LAW, established by the due processes common to The LAW.

And most importantly, unable to merely accept the temporary judicial win, they come to publicly profess that they're enjoying 'POPULAR SUPPORT in 30 of 50 States'. Which is false, and they know its false. Such represents a deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence YOU, the public, who they believe are ignorant of the truth... They consider you to be fools.

Now with regard to fools and the vacuous leaning on of 'LEGALITIES'... imagine how comforting that species of reasoning was to those who were LEGALLY stripping innocent people of their property and lives.

I expect that the comfort dried up pretty quick when it was determined that such was IMMORAL and because of that, millions of people who felt that way decided to stop it.

And guess what happened THEN! All those people who were engaged in IMMORAL behavior, were forced to stop. And not one fuck was given about how THE LAW that provided them with the means to FEEL REAL IMPORTANT... and not a single one of those immoral cranks was 'GRANDFATHERED IN'.

Funny, despite your opinion on the matter, I'm still legally married (with all the perks that go along with it). That just eats you up doesn't it? Good.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.

Unless it didn't. If 'nature' doesn't want a trait in a population, it has very effective means of weeding it out. Especially traits that result in genetic suicide. And in the case of homosexuality, the numbers are outrageously high for random chance. 1.5 to 4% of virtually *every* population group? If it were genuinely the genetic abnormality you describe that resulted in genetic suicide for those afflicted by it..... nature would have weeded it out in a few generations. Yet its persisted for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years through a thousand generations.

Homosexuality may serve the same purpose as menopause: labor providers and resource collectors that don't add mouths to feed to the mix. We've seen similar patterns in animals like Killer whales....where post-menopausal mothers help take care of their adult male offspring. When the mother finally dies, the rate of death for her male offspring skyrocket. The existence of support workers who can't breed is an entirely plausible survival mechanism. Especially since we already see it in menopausal women and elsewhere in the animal kingdom

And given the outrageously high numbers for homosexuality, the fact that it is a genetic dead end, and its consistent presence in our species, the idea that its just a random oops is pretty unlikely.

Yes, but 1.5 to 4% indicates a genetic outlier, not an intended result. An evolutionary trait doesn't simply manifest and disappear in a few millennia, it takes tens of thousands, if not hundreds of millions of years to manifest itself and wear off. Just look at the evolutionary patterns of the dinosaurs. Just because homosexuality is here now, doesn't mean it will exist oh, say, in a million years.

I don't see homosexuality as a survival mechanism. It would in fact be counterproductive to survival. How would it help the person who has it with survival? I cannot possibly see any benefits. Humans and whales are completely different animals. If we can't breed, we die out. Our species continuity is dependent on reproduction. Hence my position that homosexuality is a flaw in the human genome, as it was never intended to help the breeding processes along.

Homosexuality is likely a manifestation of the harbinger variety. It is not designed to provide safety or to promote the survival of the individual homo-, it is designed to provide a warning to others.

"It" (the presence of the abundance of homosexuals) is a sign of 'The Dead Canary' variety, which says: "GET OUT OF HERE!"

Naturally... to the Ideological Left... it says: "OH! LOOK! It's a parade, EVERYONE should be gay!" which, granted, is pretty much the same sign, but I thought it should be noted.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sure...I'm still legally married. [emoji13]

LOL! "Legally"? ROFL! Then that means that you're working under ILLEGITIMATE LAW. This of course, because Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman and this without regard to the perverse pretenses to the contrary.

(It should be noted that the fundamental trait of relativism is the rejection of objectivity.

Objectivity is the essential element of 'truth'. Truth is the essential element of Trust.

Objectivity, truth and trust are the essential elements of a soundly reasoned morality.

And all of those are the essential elements of Justice.

Now folks, take a moment and note the total disregard of ANYTHING remotely akin to a moral component, by a person who flatly rejects any sense of the intrinsic truth that homosexuality is the INVERSE of the human sexuality standard, that the choice to respond to the cravings born of that deviant sexuality, demonstrates a deviant character..., this as a result of the inability to trust in the cultural standards which recognize the principles in nature which prohibit viability in those who make the choice to engage in such behavior, along with the total disregard for any sense of justice, wherein the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of states refuse to accept the lowering of Marriage standard to include circumstances which nature itself rejects.

Setting their own personal needs, wants and desires over the good of everyone else. So bereft of objectivity, these people need only to point toward the COLOR of LAW, wherein a handful of illicit judicial decisions temporarily set aside THE LAW, established by the due processes common to The LAW.

And most importantly, unable to merely accept the temporary judicial win, they come to publicly profess that they're enjoying 'POPULAR SUPPORT in 30 of 50 States'. Which is false, and they know its false. Such represents a deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence YOU, the public, who they believe are ignorant of the truth... They consider you to be fools.

Now with regard to fools and the vacuous leaning on of 'LEGALITIES'... imagine how comforting that species of reasoning was to those who were LEGALLY stripping innocent people of their property and lives.

I expect that the comfort dried up pretty quick when it was determined that such was IMMORAL and because of that, millions of people who felt that way decided to stop it.

And guess what happened THEN! All those people who were engaged in IMMORAL behavior, were forced to stop. And not one fuck was given about how THE LAW that provided them with the means to FEEL REAL IMPORTANT... and not a single one of those immoral cranks was 'GRANDFATHERED IN'.

Funny, despite your opinion on the matter, I'm still legally married (with all the perks that go along with it). That just eats you up doesn't it? Good.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

No that's heterosexual sex.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature...

Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.

Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.

Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology. The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus. The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.

Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations. You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.

Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as. Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions. They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy. Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether. Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!

Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.

So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.

Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.

Homosexuality is not a 'mistake'... it is a response to one's environment. And a manifestation produced by the weakest of characters. The first and most likely is the environmental trigger common to another homosexual having sexually abused an infant or more likely a toddler.

The act is not violent, but playful... the child sees such as a game, with someone they trust and the game is enjoyable and endears them to the adult. This prematurely triggers the child's own physiological network, imprinting the sex response to the gender which first aroused it.

My guess is that this is the primary generator responsible for producing homosexuals. Seconded by social pressures such as levels of competition for mates of the distinct gender, etc...

The homosexuals chronically deny this... but such would likely and purposefully occur in the very early stages of development, before the child is able to communicate verbally. Thus prior to the point when one's brain begins 'writing' long term, conscious memory.

This then sets in the subconscious and manifest sooner in some than others... all of which likely stems from any number of other considerations, such as the influence of the Father or the lack of same, perhaps inadequate male guidance during the formative years... and of course the level of competition for mates of the distinct gender and social pressure. A pressure which is less today than it has ever been in the US and we have seen a stark increase in children who 'claim' to be homosexual... of course they claim it on tuesday, deny it on wednesday and repeat it as their need for 'speciality' ebbs and flows, but the component is identified there nonetheless.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only the law rules in this case, not where r my key's feelings.

 

[Syriusly]

Lefties are so given to that noun "force" aren't they? I think we should force castration on gays. How's that for a "force" idea?

Not a surprise from the guy who likes the idea of homosexuals being killed.

Sick, sick, sick.

 

[Syriusly]

Nature...

Oh, you say you're quoting 'nature', but nature didn't invent marriage.

Yes... In fact Nature did invent marriage.

Ya see, Nature provides for every aspect of marriage... First it gives the life, this established through the design intrinsic to human physiology. The hormonal drive to engage in behavior that promotes procreation through the joining with a male through coitus. The requirement for the male to procreate, the the defenseless nature of the female during gestation, thus the need of the female for the protection of the male... further nature provides for the distinct traits inherent in the personalities of the respective genders, which are applied throughout the raising of children, nurtured by the female, trained by the male.

Now I realize that you 'feel' that marriage is a legal contract, which serves to acquire stuff and temporal federal privileges and considerations. You should be advised that such is what is actually known as 'incorporation', wherein any group of individuals join toward whatever purpose they choose, without regard to the number of people or the genders of any individuals at issue.

Of course, such in no way offers any sense of legitimacy, and in no way would produce a popular inference that people of illegitimate nature are anything but what their provides establishes them as. Which means that those of illegitimate nature will natural eschew such otherwise appropriate institutions. They will prefer instead to attempt to establish the elusive legitimacy they crave, through deceit, fraud and ignorance, glomming onto and forcing themselves into institutions which through their established standards enjoy intrinsic legitimacy. Which sadly, given their intellectual limitations, and their sociopathic tendencies, they'll possess no means to recognize that the instant the institution drops the standard that precludes them, the legitimacy otherwise inherent in such evaporates into the ether. Leaving the institution without meaning of purpose and the purpose it served, unserved and the culture that depended upon that service: TOTALLY BONED!

Of course, a spike in socialism and homosexuality is a harbinger of catastrophic societal collapse, which inevitably results in the near extinction of all homosexuals and their most species socialist comrades.

So... I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

Nature created homosexuality...which makes your entire diatribe moot.

Yes it did, but human biology indicates that nature made a mistake. All in the genes. There's a reason why homosexuality is the recessive sexual trait in human beings in the first place. Normally such a thing is not the intended result of our evolutionary progression.

Homosexuality is not a 'mistake'... it is a response to one's environment.s.

Christianity is not a mistake....it is a response to one's environment.

 

[Syriusly]

Lefties are so given to that noun "force" aren't they? I think we should force castration on gays. How's that for a "force" idea?

How you gonna castrate the lesbians, freak?

I think he is willing to try.