Saying homosexuals can't be allowed to marry because they would only have homosexual kids and would be "recruting" Sounding like they are makign an army or something.

Especially given that gay couples are biologically incapable of reproducing. Last I checked, men can't get pregnant, and women can't donate semen.

BTW, that's a pretty powerful argument against any genetic factor in homosexuality; since homosexual acts cannot produce offspring, any genetic predisposition to homosexuality will naturally select itself out of the gene pool over time, because it is passed on to offspring much more rarely (only in the case of bisexuals, and even then there's a ~50% chance it wouldn't be passed on) than a "straight" gene would be. A "gay" gene will select itself out of the gene pool just the same as any other gene that caused sterility.

Well, you're forgetting the adoption and surrogacy options, and the fact that there are many gay people who have children from previous heterosexual relationships.

And adopted children have nothing to do with their adoptive parents genetically, you can only get genes from biological parents not adoptive parents, so that part of your objection is meaningless. Surrogacy and artificial insemination is quite new; neither have been around long enough to keep a "gay gene" propagated in the gene pool.

As I stated before, a genetic predisposition to homosexuality can only be propagated to offspring by bisexuals, and given that most children with bisexual parent(s) are still heterosexual, even that proposition is pretty doubtful. If homosexuality was genetic, it would be on the decline ever since it was introduced into the gene pool, because heterosexual people are more likely to successfully reproduce than homosexuals, and the reproductive probability differential between the two groups could be used to predict the number of generations required for the "gay gene" to die out completely.

You're still not addressing the fact that any gay gene could be transfered by gay parents who married members of the opposite sex and had children with them. Keep in mind, there would have been a lot of pressure on gay people in past times to conform to social norms. Ours is the first generation where gay people don't have to hide their orientation, and so fewer are denying their orientation and marrying people of the opposite sex. So the gay gene will still be alive today, in people born of secretly gay parents in less accepting times.

Though perhaps not quite as common today, people have gotten married with no reason other than money, or alliances(in ye olde times).

I would say it's even more common today.

Personally, I don't see why people get offended by homosexuality. It's not like people are being forced to be homosexual or anything. And as for marriage, the whole "homosexuality ruins the sanctity of marriage" thing is a load of bull. Technically, doesn't divorce ruin the "sanctity of marriage?" Though perhaps not quite as common today, people have gotten married with no reason other than money, or alliances(in ye olde times). Doesn't that ruin the "sanctity of marriage?" Indeed it does. I see no legally, or indeed, even morally justifiable reason why people of the same sex may not be married.

Even if there was a "gay gene" that was a recessive carrier gene, it would still tend to select itself out of existence because homosexuality significantly reduces the odds of someone having biological children, while hemophilia and other similar recessive genetic conditions generally do not significantly affect one's probability of reproduction to prevent their existenc from being passed on to offspring. You'll notice that there aren't too many genetic conditions out there that cause sterility; they automatically prevent themselves from being passed on to offspring.



Actually, I have, twice now. In the first place, not every gay person marries and has biological children; most do not. In less accepting times, they tended not to marry at all. Of those who do marry and have biological children, not every child will get the "gay gene", as evidenced by the fact that most children with a gay parent are still heterosexual. Depending on the number of actual genes theoretically involved, the odds will vary, but the probability of passing the characteristic to individual offspring in some form would average 50%. So while your scenario would certainly prolong the existence of a "gay gene", it wouldn't necessarily be enough of a factor to prevent the "gay gene" from gradually becoming less and less common with each subsequent generation, and eventually dying out completely.

I think homosexuality is natural and have no objections. And religious arguments do nothing for me, seeing as I can't stand religion.

So you can't stand religion, but you will lecture others on not being accepting of homosexuality?

If you want my opinion, homosexuality isn't hurting anyone, so why should we care? Honestly, isn't there a more important issue to be worried about?

If you want my opinion, homosexuality isn't hurting anyone, so why should we care? Honestly, isn't there a more important issue to be worried about?

There are lots of indications that the exepting of homosexuality has come with a moral breakdown of society in general.

You don't really know that homosexuality isn't hurting anyone though, do you? You just assume that homosexuality isn't hurting anyone because you don't think that it is hurting you.

There are all sorts of externalities involved with all behaviors. To say that it doesn't effect you is a bit naive.

There are lots of indications that the exepting of homosexuality has come with a moral breakdown of society in general. And if it is, then it is a very important issue.

In fact I would say that protecting and building up the morals of society is the single most important issue.

Oh? Such as? Correlation does not equal causation, but I'm sure I don't need to tell you that. And where's this "moral breakdown" you're talking about?

That's the real problem, isn't it? Moral breakdown is pretty subjective.

It is quite obvious to me that there is a serious breakdown of morals in general in society.

Your references to the general acceptance of homosexuality in many of the top psychiatric associations in the world is a big blinking red light to me, but obviously not so much to you.

In my most humble opinion, there is a huge breakdown that is evident everywhere. Corporations don't care about anything but the bottom line,

I can't listen to my local public radio for a half hour without someone blaring some sort of LGBT stuff down my throat.

I still think you're making an assumption not based on evidence.

There are lots of indications that the exepting of homosexuality has come with a moral breakdown of society in general.

What?