Because Sheep can't defend themselves.

 

Which animals are homosexual? There was a show a few years back on Discovery or one of those science channels that claimed there is no true example of homosexuality in animals. They seemed to be able to explain away any thing that appeared to be homosexuality. Pack order, Alpha male, etc.

It was a awhile ago and more studies have been done I am sure.

 

"however, think that marriage is about families (Children) and do not feel that homosexuals are being disciminated against in refusing them that. Their issues can be addressed by granting civil unions, or something similar."

So sterile couples should not be allowed to marry? What about those who marry but never have children?
Would it be discrimination to deny them the right to marry?

"I'm not too keen on the idea of adoption by homosexual couples either."

What about homosexual couples that use invitro or surragotes?
So would it be better to let children abused or abandoned by hetrosexuals live in institutions or be shuffled from one foster home to another?

 

If you only need one example, then mice. There was an experiment (Some time ago, BTW) where mice were allowed to breed uncontrolled in a limited space. Food and water were provided; but, the enclosure was never expanded. As the space inside the enclosure became too small for the population of mice, incidents of homosexuality were observed. As the population continued to grow, the percentage of incidents also grew. Have you ever wondered why large cities seem to have a larger gay population, not only by numbers, but by percentage, than rural areas?

To say people are born gay is a stretch. To say that some people are more likely to be gay based on environment 'and' genetic makeup would be more accurate.

 

original responce retracked in hindsight.

 

I did say I had a prejudice in the matter. Don't think I haven't thought of these issues you bring up. They are valid; but, not necessarily the norm.

 

Thanks Odin.

 

Please clarify. Thanks.

 

I will in fact retract that statement given that the poster could have been useing the definition of the word deviance-different behavior that is sharply different from a customary, traditional, or generally accepted standard, rather than an attempt to equate homosexuallity to behaviours such as beastiality, pedophilia, ect. which seems to be the direction that type of posting goes towards.

I apologize for my misinterpratation.

 

"I think multiple spouses is a completely valid occurence if homosexual partnership is as well."

I agree. As I said earlier,they should be allowed to make the same mistakes as everyone else.

Can you imagine what a polygimist divorce would be like?
The lawyers would get rich.

 

Imagine the murder rate if rich guys start scarfing up all the best looking women into harems.

 

LOL....what about women with multiple husbands

 

 

Ah, you got me there. I didn't read the whole thing.

a state of being united
to a person
of the same sex
in a relationship
like that of a traditional marriage

I didn't read all of it, as I should have. I don't believe that the definition is calling the state of being united, to a person of the same sex, marriage. It is saying that it is like the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship, yet it is only recognized by law in one state. Massachusetts. And the legislature didn't go through the proper process to make this a law, the courts decided that it should be law, and ordered the legislature to write it.





There is a consensus that homosexuality is a trait people are born with? The term "consensus" is being thrown around alot these days. So the people that you know, that are gay, you believe were born that way?

I don't think that anyones civil rights are being infringed. Anyone can get married. As long as you are united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship. You can't marry a dog, head of lettuce, a brick, or even a Wii.

I'm pretty damn liberal when it comes to adult relationships. I can't understand why people must change tradition, and alter our heritage. Why can't there be something different. Something new. Something for people who want to commit themselves to a member of the same sex, a dog, head of lettuce, a brick or even a Wii? Ok, just a member of the same sex.

My girl and I have been together for ten plus years. We aren't married. We've seen a lot of examples of marriages that don't work. We don't have a lot of faith in marriage. My girl has recently said that she does want to get married. She said that when she turns fifty we can get married. We've got about another twelve years to see if we want to do things that way.

This whole issue would be different if the state government had followed proceedure.

 

I apologize as well. I never meant anything offensive by my question.
Human bodies are designed (whether by nature or God, but that is a whole different argument) like jigsaw puzzles that fit perfectly together one way with the ultimate goal being reproduction. Anything else can be considered deviant. My wife and I enjoy a healthy and fun life and we are done having children so I guess we are deviating from our biological intent as well but that is still considered normal.

This post was about laws being voted on so why aren't people trying to push through laws for other sexual groups equal rights?
If biology is the deciding factor why do we wait until some age of consent when biologically speaking we are "ready" to reproduce much sooner than we may be mentally ready? Some say that homosexuality is a conscious decision.
Some say it is genetic predisposition.

Is it morality? Is it biology? Is it political? Is it the perceived right to do as we wish in the privacy of our own lives?
Should we be voting on everything we do in our private lives?
Just food for thought and no offense meant.