canpakes wrote:1. What evidence can you give that heterosexuality is an innate characteristic?
subgenius wrote:First - I did not claim that it was, did I? Second - It is an easy claim to make. The theory of evolution requires heterosexual activity, does it not?
So, if we believe that the will to survive, or that a species fundamentally reproduces, is an "innate characteristic" then heterosexual activity is natural....innate.
'Will to survive' and 'reproduces' are not synonyms, nor do they limit sexual activity itself to a particular standard. So, we can toss aside use of the word, 'innate', as an argument for or against gay behavior
canpakes wrote:2. What evidence can you give that The Gay Agenda causes many non-human species to display examples of homosexual behaviour?
subgenius wrote:Psychological defects and minority occurrences of defective behavior is not a sole human characteristic. Other animals murder each other, other animals commit infanticide, other animals are born blind, other animals are even born with severe behavioral abnormalities....none of that merits their condition as being virtuous, preferred, desirable, etc.
Interesting list. I must admit to not seeing a lot of animal murder
occur except when one eats another (the Way Things Are). They generally
don't get their jollies out of simply killing each other, like we do. Same for animal infanticide. Regardless, either - along with blindness and other abnormalities - may not be virtuous, preferred or desirable
see it, but this is a personal judgement, is it not? Perhaps you'd like to argue with the lion after killing the antelope for his meal that he was not virtuous
in doing so. He may beg to differ. But we digress.
subgenius wrote:However, among humans...
the New Family Structures Study, which is famous and controversial-because-it-contradicts-HRC-money-message, led by Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas at Austin, found that children raised by homosexual parents are dramatically more likely than peers raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from a host of social problems. Among them are strong tendencies, as adults, to exhibit poor impulse control; suffer from depression and thoughts of suicide; need mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.
1. The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families
comes to a completely different conclusion. How do you reconcile this?
2. Regardless, this paragraph concerns children raised within G/L-partner households. This would have no bearing on s/s marriages
themselves, should that be the question.
subgenius wrote:Nevertheless, the idea that because a behavior or characteristic is found within another animal must surely make that behavior or characteristic natural among humans is absurd.
As the behavior is found within so many higher-order critters, it is a natural
occurrence. Perhaps not the predominant mode of coupling, but not unnatural
is defined as, "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind". Use of the word, 'natural', as some kind of argument against s/s relationships therefore fails at the outset. Methinks that the term is being conflated for 'preferred', or 'typical', or somesuch.
subgenius wrote:if a human was born today and a full ivory tusk was protruding from its nose no one would be blamed for considering that "unnatural"....and no one would argue that since the rhinoceros has one, it must be considered natural. Chances are, doctors would examine it and try to "correct" the situation - even it only posed a cosmetic challenge to the human in question.
It would still be a natural
occurrence... not necessarily preferred by our own standards of beauty, practicality or normality, but one that occurred naturally
nonetheless. See previous paragraph.
subgenius wrote:Even more to the point is recognizing that marriage, as a legal contract, is bound to sexual activity - so obviously society legislates sexual activity and raises some sexual activity to the level of being more virtuous, more natural, and more worthy than other sexual activity. Currently I have not seen, heard, nor read any argument that elevates same sex activity to that level.....
1. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that requires
that marriage must be bound to sexual activity of any type to be allowed; i.e., one cannot be married unless one engages in sexual activity?
2. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that requires
that all sexual activity between two individuals in a marriage is limited to the purpose of procreation?
3. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that denies
marriage between two people based solely on the fact that they cannot or may not choose to have sexual relations for the sole purpose of creating children?
subgenius wrote:and certainly the idea that SSM should be permitted because a small minority of monkeys are caught is homosexual activity after throwing their poo at zoo visitors is not convincing on any level.
I don't think that I've seen this argument of 'poo flinging = allow s/s marriage
' from anyone, ever. Can you elaborate?