Wordleymaster1
[
Replying to Wootah]
If evolution is true then it is a disadvantage/disability to not desire the opposite sex.
There is a connection between homosexuality and evolution, but it's not likely as you seem to say here if I understand correctly.
Evolution is not here to promote any one species over another - it simply "IS".
Attributing a reason to something like evolution is the begining of a poor understanding of the thing discussed.
Evolution, as a process, certainly discounts homosexual behavior as parting of the moving on to improvement of a species doesn't it? There is no species that "evolves" into another one through homosexuality. Homosexuality is aberrant behavior in evolutionary process. Evolution does not see human rights campaigns, it simply is.
If what you say is true, then there is a disadvantage to anything that seems 'negative': disease, mosquitoes, pain, etc.
Mosquitoes do not get to evolve through homosexual couplings. Disease and pain strengthens a species. Homosexuality does not. The behavior exists outside of "natural" selection to a species evolving to becoming another one.
That is not the case. Things exist in evolution because they fit the model evolution itself is molding. Once something stops benefitting the model, it dies out or disappears.
Homosexuals disappear naturally. And always as an individual since by the very act of homosexuality, they do not breed.
Evolution is not a 'thing' with a though process as your statement seems to indicate.
Evolution does not think. It simply is a process by which a species improves through natural selection. Natural selection discounts homosexual behavior as something outside of it.
Marriage is law for men and women. Create something else for women and women. Ultimately these laws that disqualify us are wisdom issues.
Laws can be, and are, changed as society changes. Why create something else for another group that one group may not like? Why didn't we create a different law for people who marry outside their race?
The "races" exist within the same species. Female and male human beings.
Why not create a different law for someone that marries someone else 20 years their senior? Why not create a different law for a Christian marriage vs. a Mormon marriage vs. a atheist marriage?
Why not just recognize natural law? There is no "mate" of the same gender.
Besides that silliness, there are those who oppose ANY rights to certain sets of people no matter what you 'call' the law.
Like the rights of others to oppose the redefinition of human marriage as haters, homophobes, bigots and committing a hate crime?
Maybe this is one reason why we SHOULDN'T create specific laws for different groups that want the same thing IE marriage?
A man being the "husband" of another man is NOT equal to a man being the husband of his wife. Um, er, his female wife.
What does 2 women getting married do to the marriage of a man & a woman?
Why the need to demand that marriage be redefined? A woman is not a husband of another woman and a wife is the spouse a husband. Um er, a man/husband. Why such intolerance towards marriage?
Does it harm a straight marriage? If so, how? If not, then what's the problem? Personal taste?
It redefines marriage. That is an insult and an affront to many, many, many, many, many, many people, peoples and cultures. Why can't homosexuals just invent another classification or definition? That is the reality of their pairings. Unless, of course, this is about promoting homosexuality and not just marriage.
There are no rights, that is all illusion.
Show this claim to be true and factual
The fact of evolution.