Quote:
Originally Posted by mr dave
the problem with homosexuality is that it runs counter to the only real method of survival for the species.
you can paint it up any other way you want but ultimately homosexual relationships are means to an end rather than means to a future (at least from anything besides an emotional perspective).
they can scream all they want about their 'love' and how it's just as 'real' as the love felt in hetero couples but the point continues to be missed. a life long love shouldn't be about satisfying the immediate individuals, it should be about establishing a love that will survive beyond themselves, to combine themselves within another being that will carry and live out their love throughout their own existence. it's physically, biologically, and genetically impossible for homosexuals to do this.
|
Some recent research claims that it does serve some biological purpose (
clickety click). In any case, even if mother nature continuously and for no apparent reason seems to screw up, the fact remains that homosexuality exists and will continue to indefinitely.
Now, what might possibly be inferred from your post is that either homosexuality is a choice (do we need to go down that route?) or that homosexuals should, in the interest of propagating the species, choose to live heterosexual lives to give
some meaning to their existence, which, I'm sure you realize, would lead to a lifetime of unhappiness.
Also, as veg and nine point out, there's the tricky issue of all those heterosexual infertile couples.
So, the question remains, seeing as how such people serve no apparent purpose (if we assume our only purpose is to reproduce which to be frank, seems like an incredibly depressing though, whether you're ga
y or not), what do we do with the unfortunate hand density has dealt us? Commit mass suicide?
Quote:
|
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.
|
I agree, and I think most lgbtq activists do too, which is why no one is asking religious institutions to recognize g
ay marriages. What they're asking for is equal rights
under the law. :\
Quote:
|
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.
|
I think the most important issue with g
ay couples raising children should be whether or not they can provide a safe and loving environment to their children, perpetuating social concepts of gender roles should be the least of anyone's concern (not to mention that I fail to see any actual benefit from having parents of different sexes. If you could name some I'd be much grateful).