Gays deserve some kind of recognition under the law. Many gays are more civic-minded and do more for their rewspective communities than many 'straights'. The problem comes when you attempt to label these unions under the heading of marriage, which many see as being sanctioned by God..

Ralph,

I agree that everyone (even a deformed infant in a vegetative state) deserves some kind of recognition under the law...

But obviously, repeat sex offenders - e.g. rapists and paedophiles - receive recognition of a different kind, and this is by and large appropriate.

Which brings me to the question of homosexuality.

What is it, but a condition obviously resulting from some kind of abnormal sexual development and the failure to mature normally, as ("Mother") Nature so obviously intended?

And how wide is the crack between a person whose abnormal (immature) sexual development has produced a paedophile, and someone whose abnormal (immature?) sexual development has lead to them being attracted to the inappropriate gender?

I say inappropriate because, obviously, homosexual acts never result in progeny, which means it's a complete failure in survival terms, and therefore, the attraction, as determined by Nature, IS to the inappropriate gender.

Again, taking (Mother) Nature as the final arbiter of such questions, how often does homosexuality occur naturally, in the wild?  The only example I can think of where homosexuality appears is in domestic livestock - where young bulls, as they develop through puberty, display homosexual activities, though whether this is simply because they are invariably confined away from females and therefore resort to the only available alternative, I can't say.  Alternatively, it may be that they "practise" on one another (and would do so naturally in the wild) simply because they are members of a completely alpha-male dominated species, where a single dominant male "owns" his whole harem, and any hopeful interlopers and juveniles are "seen off" (in a ferocious battle if necessary), and accordingly, the only opportunity to practise the mating act is mutually, in preparation for the time one of them will become the local dominant male.


As for this statement:

Quote:


Does this sentence actually MEAN  If so, what?

To clarify, many cows lactate for the benefit of human survival, while many sheep produce wool.

Alternatively, many are more civic-minded and do more for their respective communities than many '' - though I'm sure that doesn't really illuminate the point I'm making....


And I'm afraid I don't understand the last statement at all...

Quote:


There's that 'many' word again...  But what is "the problem"?