<p>
</p>
<p>You may enjoy reading Aristotle. Dive into some of the works of ancient civilization and you will realize many societies did not view homosexuality as anything different or wrong. The phenomenon that the genders are clearly defined and that sexuality must follow a strict model is a recent one. If you mean American Christian civilization, then you are correct, but that is not the same as civilization as a whole.</p>
<p>Brand - yes, homosexuality was prevelant in ancient Greece, but no one tried to get married. It was more of an extra-curricular activity, or, one that was engaged in during military time. Mostly older men and younger boys… It was also considered very bad form to be the one who was penetrated; the Greek concept of homosexuality was quite different from modern gay marriage.</p>
<p><mostly older=“” men=“” and=“” younger=“” boys…=“”>
Ah, yes.</mostly></p>
<p>But the late John Boswell at Yale cites numerous examples of marriages among gay males in the Catholic Church in Middle Ages.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps in the case of ancient Greece, but I was talking a/b history overall. Mini brings up a good point supporting my argument. I will admit I find marriage between homosexuals to be “strange,” as you do yourself, but I’ve also asked myself why I find it strange. </p>
<p>You want to know the best answer I could come up with: because that’s the way marriage has always been. </p>
<p>So I ask myself, what is the big deal? I’m unable to find the answer to that one, so please help me out if you have an idea.</p>
<p>It IS a BIG DEAL, and if you consider yourself an intelligent person, you must acknowledge that fact.</p>
<p>A man and a woman were made in a certain way to complement each other, most particularly in their anatomical parts which were designed for the procreation of the human species. This is actually a PROFOUND truth, if you want to take the time to think about it.</p>
<p>Actually, anthropologists studying cultures with high incidence of homosexuality have found that homosexuality contributes greatly to the survival of the species. It increases the ratio of adults to children, expands the number of caregivers for both children and adults, leads to greater food surpluses and food security, and makes cultures generally more adaptable to change. That is a profound truth as well. Traits like homosexuality tend not to survive unless they have considerable “survival value”.</p>
<p>And besides which, a little homosexuality is important for the survival of the species, since unimpeded population growth may otherwise cause our global demise.</p>
<p>Well, it does have to compete with global warming, avian flu, nuclear war…</p>
<p>Personally, I think gay marriage is the least of our problems, and there are significantly more pressing concerns.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You and I have a very different definition of an intelligent person then. I would think the intelligent way to approach the issue is to analyze why it is such a big deal instead of just saying it’s a big deal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what I agree with. I understand your point about biology, hereshoping. Nobody is arguing about whether male and female were meant to procreate together, as it is obviously impossible for members of the same sex to do so. The issue is this: there are people (and creatures) that prefer homosexual relationships, and we must ask ourselves why that is considered such a horrible thing. </p>
<p>If you wish to consider science, realize that the differences between the sexes are not profound, that genetics are often not “cut and dry,” and that mankind has yet to understand the workings of the human mind - while anatomy suggests that all should be heterosexuals, there is obviously something within the brain influencing some to take on alternative lifestyles.</p>
<p>. . . And I keep wondering–what would some people here have said to my neighbor boy? Would posters here feel comfortable shaming him at his admission that since the age of 13 he has found himself attracted to males? </p>
<p>I think that’s the trouble with moralistic pronouncements. They seem mean. I wonder if the posters on here have really told people they know–teenagers in their families, people they work with–that how they are is “wrong.” That they are misfits?</p>
<p>HH:
Since you have such insight into the purposefulness of human biology, perhaps you can explain something I have wondered about for a long time.
Why are the excretory and sexual organs placed so close together?</p>
<p>So sorry about that wild hypothesis in #286; I just don’t know what got into me there! Lost my head for a minute!</p>
<p>Designed by a civil engineer. Who else puts a waste disposal facility near a recreational area?</p>
<p>
– As opposed to the heterosexual marriages of the era, which involved same-aged partners? Oh. Apparently not. Apparently the norm was for older men to marry younger girls, a pattern which has continued in many societies over many centuries. So the ultimate point is… well - older people with more power or wealth will pair up with younger sexual partners if given the opportunity. And what else is new?</mostly></p>
<p>Ariesathena, CC absolutley has got to design a warning sign for posts which are liable to cause food and beverages to become airborne!</p>
<p>Another “proof” of the normality and perhaps evolutionary usefulness of homosexuality - is that it exists in nearly every species. <a href=“http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html[/url]”>National Geographic;
<p>
</p>
<p>LMAO…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>HH, I hope you know that I don’t intend to belittle your opinion and I want us to both try and understand where the other person is coming from. In my opinion, your statement a/b anatomy is correct, but as can be seen in nature and in humans, the mind works differently from the body. I disagree that, just because man and woman has been created so that they must come together to procreate (and the majority of humanity is heterosexual), it is forbidden or naturally unlawful for members of the same sex to express love towards each other as well.</p>
<p>“So sorry about that wild hypothesis in #286; I just don’t know what got into me there! Lost my head for a minute!”</p>
<p>Apology accepted.</p>
<p>Digging through my memory bank, men of that era married around age 28 and to women about age 14. The theory was that life goes in cycles of seven; women, completing the second cycle, were at the prime marrying age, while men, completing the fourth cycle, were prime marrying age. Whether this acknowledged the essential truth that women mature faster than men; that peak fertility is in the late teen years; or was mean to be the world’s lamest excuse for chasing girls half one’s age, I cannot tell you. </p>
<p>Kluge… moi? Huh? ::Looks angelic::</p>
<p>Evolution, folks, is not complete. Genetic disorders are a perfect example of that. If evolution were complete and we were not works in progress, hemophilia wouldn’t exist. It does, so we know that there’s non-adaptive genetic traits. </p>
<p>Also, evolution is an imperfect mechanism. Consider that anything that reduces survival beyond the childbearing years will not evolve out of the species. Consider as well that a gendered trait will survive, so long as it is more adaptive in one gender than in the other. HYPOTHETICALLY, if there is a genetic componenet to sexuality, and that genetic component, in the opposite gender, promotes fertility or reproduction, it would survive. So if a trait, carried on the x-chromosome, helped women to be fertile but caused male homosexuality, it would still survive, because every female child of the original woman would have a highly favoured trait. </p>
<p>Finally, there’s an incredibly strong social aspect to sexuality that would undermine any Darwinistic mechanisms. It wasn’t until very recently that (except for Catholics) gay men really had the option to not marry. There are legions of gay men who have married and produced kids; most of them are completely miserable. The human desire to adapt one to society is strong enough to override the negative evolutionary effects of homosexuality.</p>
<p>I’m trying to say that there are a lot of reasons why traits which should not help the survival of the species would not be bred out of the population.</p>
<p><…it is forbidden or naturally unlawful for members of the same sex to express love for each other also.></p>
<p>It is not forbidden in this country any longer, as far as I know: gay people fine, gay sex fine, gay cohabitation fine, gay legal rights fine. Gay marriage = not fine. </p>
<p>I’m not buying into the gays as victim mentality, and I never will. I also think it’s interesting that many gay-marriage supporters and many here use the black civil rights analogy to bolster their arguments, which the black community has condemned as inappropriate in this case. In fact, the black community overall is strongly anti-gay marriage. However, this does not stop progressives from continuing to use the analogy to achieve their ends, disrespecting the black community, who should above all groups be the ones given “permission” to decide if the analogy is correct. Tells me a bit about the mind-set of gay activists and other “progressives” right there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t mean forbidden in the sense that it is forbidden; more in the sense of “taboo.” Naturally unlawful does the statement more justice. Whether it is allowed or not, homosexuality continues to be something that is shunned in many areas and often serves as a scapegoat for those that don’t wish to acknowledge real problems.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? Why would the black communtiy have say of whether or not an example in history could be used to draw a correlation? The point being made is that people have been treated differently in the past based on who they are, and this is merely a continuation of that. And you should be careful to speak for the black community - you also failed to bring up the <em>women</em> example; I guess it may not have been possible to accurately say that the majority of women are against gay marriage.</p>
<p>Edit: And HH, you should know that I am not an advocate of gay marriage. The topic doesn’t have enough relevance for me to make an opinion on it. However, what I’m trying to see is why so many people devote so much time to this topic while other <em>important</em> topics go unnoticed. Massachusetts legalized gay marriage - have you noticed anything different there? Is society falling apart? No - people that wanted to got married, and nobody cared. Life goes on.</p>