Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: I\'m not going to get into a religious debate, but I can appreciate someone taking a religious stance against it. Why do I think it is wrong? I think its wrong in the sense that it is treated as equal to heterosexualty. Its not, it cannot be, and that is no ones fault but natures. Nature doesn\'t allow homosexual sex to create life, to reproduce, and though humans use sex as entertainment, it obviously was meant for a greater purpose. Biology shows us we need both male and female to create life, that male and male doesn\'t create life, that indivdual gratification doesn\'t create life. If you want to attach relgious or philosophical significance to sex you may at this juncture. That is why I think it is wrong. Humanity wouldn\'t be around if homosexuality were the standard, homosexuals wouldn\'t exist without heterosexuals. You may be looking for a more fundamental "morality" to my basis. I choose to validate my beliefs on science and years of living proof of heterosexualitie\'s superiority, and when I mean hetero superiority I mean strict hetero adhearance, no socially unacceptable behavior being thrown in like "cheating" or "rape".
Response: No, I wasn't looking for religious morality, I was looking for general morality, so your argument was the kind I wanted to debate. Anyway, what is with people thinking that an activity that creates children is neccesarily a good thing? There are already a lot of people in the world, and too many more will end up using up all the food, and then there will no people, because we will all die an agonizing death of starvation. Heterosexuality is good, without any reproduction we would die out as well, but homosexuality is also very good and important because without enough non reproductive couples, the population would increase even more.\n
0.0