Quote:
Originally Posted by bannister
Well, if you put it that way, then being homosexual could be argued to be another form of naturally-occuring population control, like disease, famine, etc.
Which, in my opinion, is fan-****in'-tastic. Bring on the sodomites. There are far too many neglected, unintelligent, and flat-out bratty children being born to heterosexual couples every day.
(Excuse me if I'm opening a huge can of worms. I've had a really ****e day and I feel like unleashing it somewhere.)
|
yeah i wanted to avoid the worm cans too but whatever. hahahaha
now while i do agree with what you've said, here's where i really pull worms out. the angle on procreation i brought up earlier are the same reasons i don't think organized religions need to recognize homosexual partnerships in the same way as heterosexual marriages. i see absolutely no reason why any couple can't be seen in the same way under legal, social, educational, health etc environments. but where the fundamentals of all religions seems to be revolving around life and death, and the survival of the species, i don't see why religious organizations need to be forced to bend to political correctness to view a union between two individuals that runs completely opposite to the physical procreation and ultimately, the prolonged survival of humanity.
it's not that i think homosexuals can't or shouldn't raise children. it's that, at least one of those partners will always be a surrogate. you'll never actually have a physically transcendent union between two homosexuals the same way that traditionally happens with a hetero couple. it's not that one is better or more right than the other, only that they're different. i think most religions recognize that difference and see it as a big deal, and it seems that most homosexual groups recognize the difference as well but see it as a small deal. as for me, i think neither side has really figured out how to actually respect that difference properly yet.