Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms. Snakebite What? You've experienced it or something?
I guess I am not in a position to state how 'boring' it would be; but, if gayness and homeosexuality were a natural process, then we'd have male apes rutting with one another. THAT obviously doesn't happen with apes nor any other species. Do humans not fit in that category too? Or perhaps you also believe that humans are devine and do not have any sort of animal characteristics? And, that mating and finding mates is completely different for humans? |
Actually, we do have male apes rutting with one another. As well as other species. Look up Bonobos sometime. Or any number of marine mammals. Certain species of Whiptail lizard
only engage in homosexual behavior. Some are all-female species, no males whatsoever. They reproduce through parthenogenesis, but sexual contact is still needed to start the process. Now, with no males, it's limited to homosexual contact.
Yet ... homosexuality isn't natural? I fail to see how that logic holds up when it happens, often,
in nature.
I also fail to see why "civil unions" should be allowed but "marriage" shouldn't be. Semantics cannot be that important. Marriage isn't a law of physics or something that has to have an exact meaning. It's just a
word. People against gay marriage might find it offensive, but there are a lot of things in life that are offensive. I mean, I'm pretty offended that gay marriage hasn't been legal for years.
As for religion, that argument has no legal standing. Separation of church and state is a fact, not a guideline that should be tailored to whatever fits at the time. I find it ridiculous that people think gay marriage shouldn't be protected under this.
And the biggest point? Is it really,
really hurting
anybody if gays are allowed to marry? 'Cause I'm not seeing it.