Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: gururu2
Originally posted by: Craig234
You don't deserve to be taken seriously at all, with your level of ignorance on the biology.
Can you even define the word 'naturally' in a biological context at all? Can you apply it to homosexuals in any meaningful way? Of course not.
I'll fix your quote:
IMO, the rightful debate is how we decide to act on our bigoted instincts. if we follow them, we deny incorporating gay partnerships into society. if we suppress them, we allow it.
you take things very personally. its hard to maintain an objective viewpoint IMO when you write and think angrily.
males don't have vaginas. can the use of the word 'natural' be any simpler?
It's not about taking things personally - don't hide from the issue behind that. There's no lack of objectivity in my views.
So, males don't have vaginas.
Now, can you actually reason that out to be relevant? I have my doubts, but let me try to help.
So, *any marriage* which is not about pro-creating, is not a legitimate marriage, right? The only meaning relevant to your men and vaginas fact (putting aside the small number of people who are mismatched with their bodies by gender) would be the issue that the lack of a vagina prevents their conceiving children.
So, of what relevance is the vagina of a 70 year old woman who can't conceive? Of a 30 year old woman who had a hysterectomy and can't conceive? No marriages for them?
And what part of, say, about 5% of the human race being born different on sexual orientation being *natural* is hard for you? The word is simple - but you get it wrong.
It is a *natural* occurance that people are born that way. How they are treated by society - burned alive, banned from marriage, jailed - that's not 'natural'. Homosexuality is natural.
If it's not natural, why don't you point me to the man-made cause of it? To the evidence that the millions of gay people who say they did not choose it are lying? To the evidence contradicting the countless studies, such as those which find that certain characteristics in 5 year olds have an extremely accurate of predicting homosexuality?
Give me a break, you are not having any rational interaction in this thread, just spewing ignorance.