Natural is not subjective. The sun rising in the east and setting in the west is not subjective. Men and women being the only combination to have children is not subjective. Water will always be made from the same elements. Our planet will always rotate in the same direction.
there are lots of things we as humans can do but it doesn't make it right or natural (or the same as animals). A philosophy of "anything goes" is dangerous and currently leading the world down some dark paths.
You both seem to have a similar view but those statements are contradictory. You define something being natural as what can be observed occurring without human influence but, as humans, we can choose not to do everything that can be observed or is instinctive. There are a lot of natural events that humans find unacceptable such as mothers killing and eating their weakest offspring, animals do this frequently:
The issue of accepting or rejecting homosexuality is a decision over what people find acceptable and not what can be observed occurring without human influence.
At the end of the day, people are gay, they're not making it up. If we trace humans back through time, we've come about from mixing genes and making a whole range of varied copies and so with 7 billion or so variations, we can now see a lot of differences in race, gender, sexuality and so on. Some variations are considered defects such as hermaphroditism but if you were in their position, would you want to be thought of as a defect? It comes down to treating people with respect and saying that given that there's nothing harmful in who they are, they deserve to be treated like other human beings are treated. Rather than saying hermaphroditism, homosexuality, transgender are unnatural, it's more that they are uncommon variations in a completely natural, random, biological process.
The especially annoying bit is trying to pass off the opinion as science.
When it concerns human behaviour, there's always going to be some disagreements in what's acceptable. With age of consent for example, nature doesn't impose any fixed cutoff, people just define it. With abortion, nature doesn't set out any rules over what stage of development is a child being murdered and what is a blob of jelly.
Scientific studies seem to be reaching the conclusion that all sexualities develop in a similar way:
"Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change."
As a society, we just make decisions over which are harmful and which aren't. Homosexuality was officially considered harmful just 50-60 years ago:
This would be down to conflating different types of behaviour like criminal activity with sexuality because there weren't public examples of harmless homosexual relationships. The more that there are, the more that people grow to accept this.
if homosexual marriage is passed what's next? Marriage to an animal? Marriage to a thing? If an evolutionary model is true, how are other creatures different than us, except more or less evolved? Or why is polygamy outlawed? Let's allow mutliple wives and husbands and he shes and she hes. What's to stop marriage to be defined in those ontexts? God is the one who defines marriage, not man.
Man defines God - even if you claim to see God through observing nature, it's a human interpretation and so ultimately man defines marriage and anything else claimed to originate from God.
There are traditions in marriage that are not mandatory but implied such as consummation:
"You can annul a marriage if it wasn’t consummated - you haven’t had sex with the person you married since the wedding (doesn’t apply for same sex couples)"
This would exclude marriages to anyone or anything that society doesn't see fit for consummating it. Anti-sodomy laws that were only overturned in the last decade probably play a role in this:
"A 51-year-old lesbian has given birth to her brother's baby after IVF treatment in America. Doctors at Columbia University carried out the IVF treatment, so she could "bear a child of common ancestry to herself", it was reported in the Internet medical journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online.
The menopausal woman was successfully implanted with a donor egg conceived by her brother's sperm after a previous attempt failed, and gave birth to a healthy baby."
It has to be treated rationally. Any objection has to be justified by defining what the harmful outcomes are. Homosexual relationships have been in place for a while and they have a better outcome than not being accepted because it means people who have those sexual attractions can have a companion. Homosexual marriages have been around for a shorter time but they similarly have a positive effect:
"She had been married less than an hour and Martina Navratilova sparkled, from her gleaming smile to her silver jacket. This was one very happy woman.
I met Navratilova and her new bride Julia Lemigova in a room at the Peninsula hotel in New York, just moments after the tennis legend had said "I do". Their delight was evident.
So how does the nine-time Wimbledon winner feel a few minutes into her new role as wife? Terrified and really odd are the initial reactions and then a slightly choked, "I'm 58 years old, and I got married for the first time. It's about time, right?"
This summer, 33 years after she came out as bisexual, Navratilova proposed to her girlfriend of six years. She did so on bended knee, in public, on camera, at the US Open.
For Navratilova, there are actually two new roles today - wife and mother - Lemigova has two daughters. Navratilova reveals that Julia's younger daughter had been badgering to propose to her mother all year. And if Martina feels anxious about becoming a mum herself at 58, she doesn't show it."
These women had children, they had been together for 6 years. Their marriage can't possibly have a negative effect.
It's irrefutable - when a story like this breaks, name calling from either side commences. As a Libertarian, I find this disgusting, and reinforcement for not belonging to either of these parties.
In many States children as young as 13 can be married if their parents consent to it as well.
The fact that the parents are required to give consent for a decision that will define the child's entire life makes that something of a nonsense if you ask me. And again, that is a nonsense that largely comes from the traditions of religion and arranged marriages, and presupposing the sin and shame of an unmarried child.
It's irrefutable - when a story like this breaks, name calling from either side commences. As a Libertarian, I find this disgusting, and reinforcement for not belonging to either of these parties.
There are plenty of Libertarians here & elsewhere that resort to name calling. Please try to be realistic.
Ahem...Do you really want to go tit for tat on some of your posts? Do you disagree with the statement I made, or are you trying to say that being a Libertarian somehow absolves that collective group from human nature?
The fact that the parents are required to give consent for a decision that will define the child's entire life makes that something of a nonsense if you ask me. And again, that is a nonsense that largely comes from the traditions of religion and arranged marriages, and presupposing the sin and shame of an unmarried child.
I was watching a show recently in which a Brazilian woman was going to marry a Norwegian man, and when asked if she loved him by one of his friends her answer was "we can't afford emotions in Brazil". I'd bet that if you looked at marriages throughout the world today, many would be about the come up, and not about love.
Those laws are old and come from a time in which large families were commonplace. If a gentleman with means took a fancy to a girl from a large family she was married off, and in many cases her survival depended on it. That's still true in much of the world.
I agree with Smurfman & Borderlines completely. Homosexuality is abhorrent to me and I'm tired of a very tiny vocal minority pushing acceptance of their 'lifestyle' agenda on the rest of us. Over thirty states have had referendums to legalizing gay marriage and it didn't pass in any of them.
Apple and others can use their resources as a bully pulpit to promote this 'lifestyle'. For my part, after buying Apple products since 1984, I will no longer buy anything made by Apple.
You both seem to have a similar view but those statements are contradictory. You define something being natural as what can be observed occurring without human influence but, as humans, we can choose not to do everything that can be observed or is instinctive. There are a lot of natural events that humans find unacceptable such as mothers killing and eating their weakest offspring, animals do this frequently:
The issue of accepting or rejecting homosexuality is a decision over what people find acceptable and not what can be observed occurring without human influence.
At the end of the day, people are gay, they're not making it up. If we trace humans back through time, we've come about from mixing genes and making a whole range of varied copies and so with 7 billion or so variations, we can now see a lot of differences in race, gender, sexuality and so on. Some variations are considered defects such as hermaphroditism but if you were in their position, would you want to be thought of as a defect? It comes down to treating people with respect and saying that given that there's nothing harmful in who they are, they deserve to be treated like other human beings are treated. Rather than saying hermaphroditism, homosexuality, transgender are unnatural, it's more that they are uncommon variations in a completely natural, random, biological process.
When it concerns human behaviour, there's always going to be some disagreements in what's acceptable. With age of consent for example, nature doesn't impose any fixed cutoff, people just define it. With abortion, nature doesn't set out any rules over what stage of development is a child being murdered and what is a blob of jelly.
Scientific studies seem to be reaching the conclusion that all sexualities develop in a similar way:
"Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change."
As a society, we just make decisions over which are harmful and which aren't. Homosexuality was officially considered harmful just 50-60 years ago:
This would be down to conflating different types of behaviour like criminal activity with sexuality because there weren't public examples of harmless homosexual relationships. The more that there are, the more that people grow to accept this.
Man defines God - even if you claim to see God through observing nature, it's a human interpretation and so ultimately man defines marriage and anything else claimed to originate from God.
There are traditions in marriage that are not mandatory but implied such as consummation:
"You can annul a marriage if it wasn’t consummated - you haven’t had sex with the person you married since the wedding (doesn’t apply for same sex couples)"
This would exclude marriages to anyone or anything that society doesn't see fit for consummating it. Anti-sodomy laws that were only overturned in the last decade probably play a role in this:
"A 51-year-old lesbian has given birth to her brother's baby after IVF treatment in America. Doctors at Columbia University carried out the IVF treatment, so she could "bear a child of common ancestry to herself", it was reported in the Internet medical journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online.
The menopausal woman was successfully implanted with a donor egg conceived by her brother's sperm after a previous attempt failed, and gave birth to a healthy baby."
It has to be treated rationally. Any objection has to be justified by defining what the harmful outcomes are. Homosexual relationships have been in place for a while and they have a better outcome than not being accepted because it means people who have those sexual attractions can have a companion. Homosexual marriages have been around for a shorter time but they similarly have a positive effect:
"She had been married less than an hour and Martina Navratilova sparkled, from her gleaming smile to her silver jacket. This was one very happy woman.
I met Navratilova and her new bride Julia Lemigova in a room at the Peninsula hotel in New York, just moments after the tennis legend had said "I do". Their delight was evident.
So how does the nine-time Wimbledon winner feel a few minutes into her new role as wife? Terrified and really odd are the initial reactions and then a slightly choked, "I'm 58 years old, and I got married for the first time. It's about time, right?"
This summer, 33 years after she came out as bisexual, Navratilova proposed to her girlfriend of six years. She did so on bended knee, in public, on camera, at the US Open.
For Navratilova, there are actually two new roles today - wife and mother - Lemigova has two daughters. Navratilova reveals that Julia's younger daughter had been badgering to propose to her mother all year. And if Martina feels anxious about becoming a mum herself at 58, she doesn't show it."
These women had children, they had been together for 6 years. Their marriage can't possibly have a negative effect.
In your post most of what you cite has to do with human response to certain behavior. Also the intervention of science and technology. What we deem natural and what was truly intended by nature is very different. My statement is simple yet people keep trying to complicated it because they simply do not want to accept it's fact.
Nature never intended for two of the same sex to have an attraction. This isn't even something that can be debated. For me this has nothing to do with 'God", religion, marriage or someone saying they love another person the same sex. I have no issue with gay marriage and I have no issue with equal rights for gays or for that matter anyone. What I take issue with is gays saying it's just as natural as being heterosexual.
What we as humans deem to be natural is subjective but nature isn't. The natural order is for men and women to have a sexual attraction so we can procreate and our species can survive. Survival is one of the most basic instinct of any species.
There is no argument that can trump this very simple concept. We are even getting to the point in science to prove on a genetic level being gay is nothing more then a genetic defect. I'm sorry if that hurts peoples feeling but lets face it being gay can only be one of three things, by choice, a mental illness, or a genetic defect.
There are studies that show twins one female and one male there is a high rate of the male being gay because there is excess estrogen during the gestational process. So we can debate what humans deem as natural but the basic instinct to survive isn't something that can be debated and that can only be accomplished by males and females procreating.
I believe in God I believe everyone is equal I believe everybody have a right be treated fairly if two men want to get married or two women want to get married good luck . I can love the person I want so I believe others who think differently from me should be able to love and be loved by somebody let's have a Open mind and an open heart
What we as humans deem to be natural is subjective but nature isn't. The natural order is for men and women to have a sexual attraction so we can procreate and our species can survive. Survival is one of the most basic instinct of any species.
There is no argument that can trump this very simple concept. We are even getting to the point in science to prove on a genetic level being gay is nothing more then a genetic defect. I'm sorry if that hurts peoples feeling but lets face it being gay can only be one of three things, by choice, a mental illness, or a genetic defect.
Please quit talking about "nature"and science like you have a clue what you're talking about. You should probably take some time to actually study ecology before you continue talking on the subject. Not all individuals of a population breed. It's generally not necessary, especially in a thriving species. And humans would certainly qualify as a thriving species. As you said earlier, a species couldn't survive if the majority of the individuals, which bares out what you see in nature, that homosexuality is a minority position.
There are plenty of species where gender itself is fluid, where individuals change genders during their lifetime. How do you define their sexuality? Some species can reproduce sexually as as well asexually through parthogenesis. Where does that fall in your narrow view of nature?
There are survival advantages to not having every member of a population vying to mate. Thus the requirement of mating for something to be natural is utter nonsense.
Nature never intended for two of the same sex to have an attraction. This isn't even something that can be debated. The natural order is for men and women to have a sexual attraction so we can procreate and our species can survive. Survival is one of the most basic instinct of any species.
Homosexuality hasn't been produced by unnatural means, it's not man-made or artificial. Unattractiveness, infertility and so on can affect reproduction but nobody would say they are unnatural.
We are even getting to the point in science to prove on a genetic level being gay is nothing more then a genetic defect. I'm sorry if that hurts peoples feeling but lets face it being gay can only be one of three things, by choice, a mental illness, or a genetic defect.
To use the label 'defect' implies that the people with the 'defect' suffer because of it. The only suffering that people have is due to prejudice. Remove that and they live perfectly happy lives. What is defective about Tim Cook? By any measure, he comes across like one of the nicest guys you could ever know and leads a happy and successful life.
the basic instinct to survive isn't something that can be debated and that can only be accomplished by males and females procreating.
Procreation is for survival of the species, not survival of the individual. Survival of the species can also be aided by gay men donating sperm or helping with child rearing, the latter of which a lot of straight people fail to do.
It is limited to male and female. A single gay man here got his mother to conceive his child:
These artificial methods of conceiving are not ideal but an infertile straight couple would do the same. I don't like artificial means of conceiving being used this way but it's the results that matter. The aim is to promote survival so if children are born healthy and raised well then it achieves that aim.
Gay people having children by artificial means is unnatural by definition. In a way this is true of straight infertile people but it's thought less of as unnatural because their bodies are designed for it. Gay people being gay is not artificial so they don't deserve to be called unnatural.
Holy shit. As if I wasn't utterly disgusted by you already. Marriage equality is tantamount to the genocide Hitler committed against the Jews? I mean, you really type that shit out with a straight face? How the **** does marriage equality take away ANY of your rights? Who the **** is forcing you into gay marriage? How is "demanding" quality defined as "intolerance"? Cause they offend your shitty little sensibilities? So I guess now anyone who advocates equality for any group is defined as "intolerant", just because you're a bigot? We know your bigoted views on gays, minorities, blacks, Muslims, etc- so I guess anyone who is against discrimination is "intolerant"?
Seriously, I can't wrap my head around how twisted and vile your views are. I'm a Muslim, and I find your Hitler line abhorrent and offensive, not to mention your stance on gay marriage. and how you pretend to be a victim when anything gets in the way of your discrimination against others. You have the right to your ass-backwards views, but not to impose them on others or define the same rights given to others as are given to you as "intolerance". A gay couple getting married has ZERO effect on your personal life or your own rights, yet you constantly celebrate and advocate policies that would make the lives of others (ie. minorities) a living hell while mocking their struggles.
How dare you compare gay marriage with the slaughter committed by the Nazis.
Now he's on Monday Note claiming that only under Cook is Apple so desperate as to have additional events. He's "conveniently" forgot Apple TV, iPhone,Mac OS, all under Jobs, had two presentations before their initial release, and yet to him that proves ?Watch is a abject failure from a fa**ot CEO. What a piece of shit!
Whatever happened to that basic conservative tenet of individual liberty? Funny how that core belief suddenly only applies to heterosexuals ... of a certain skin color ... with money ...
Whatever happened to that basic conservative tenet of individual liberty? Funny how that core belief suddenly only applies to heterosexuals ... of a certain skin color ... with money ...
Wait, that’s not even remotely close to anything but a strawman (or libel). Why not just stick to your points instead of pretending to know what others think?
Comments
You both seem to have a similar view but those statements are contradictory. You define something being natural as what can be observed occurring without human influence but, as humans, we can choose not to do everything that can be observed or is instinctive. There are a lot of natural events that humans find unacceptable such as mothers killing and eating their weakest offspring, animals do this frequently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_cannibalism
It can happen with humans because we are just another species but we reject that behaviour:
http://www.news.com.au/world/mother-tried-to-eat-her-baby-after-giving-birth-in-china/story-fndir2ev-1227145779029
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202776/Pictured-The-mother-accused-stabbing-week-old-baby-boy-death-mutilating-corpse.html
The issue of accepting or rejecting homosexuality is a decision over what people find acceptable and not what can be observed occurring without human influence.
At the end of the day, people are gay, they're not making it up. If we trace humans back through time, we've come about from mixing genes and making a whole range of varied copies and so with 7 billion or so variations, we can now see a lot of differences in race, gender, sexuality and so on. Some variations are considered defects such as hermaphroditism but if you were in their position, would you want to be thought of as a defect? It comes down to treating people with respect and saying that given that there's nothing harmful in who they are, they deserve to be treated like other human beings are treated. Rather than saying hermaphroditism, homosexuality, transgender are unnatural, it's more that they are uncommon variations in a completely natural, random, biological process.
When it concerns human behaviour, there's always going to be some disagreements in what's acceptable. With age of consent for example, nature doesn't impose any fixed cutoff, people just define it. With abortion, nature doesn't set out any rules over what stage of development is a child being murdered and what is a blob of jelly.
Scientific studies seem to be reaching the conclusion that all sexualities develop in a similar way:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115
"Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change."
As a society, we just make decisions over which are harmful and which aren't. Homosexuality was officially considered harmful just 50-60 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900–49_in_LGBT_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950s_in_LGBT_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960s_in_LGBT_rights
This would be down to conflating different types of behaviour like criminal activity with sexuality because there weren't public examples of harmless homosexual relationships. The more that there are, the more that people grow to accept this.
Man defines God - even if you claim to see God through observing nature, it's a human interpretation and so ultimately man defines marriage and anything else claimed to originate from God.
There are traditions in marriage that are not mandatory but implied such as consummation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation
Marriages can be annulled without consummation:
https://www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage/when-you-can-annul-a-marriage
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/annulment_laws/
"You can annul a marriage if it wasn’t consummated - you haven’t had sex with the person you married since the wedding (doesn’t apply for same sex couples)"
This would exclude marriages to anyone or anything that society doesn't see fit for consummating it. Anti-sodomy laws that were only overturned in the last decade probably play a role in this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/anti-sodomy-laws_n_5187895.html
That doesn't exclude polygamy but then polygamy has been legal in the past too, marriage was just redefined:
http://hkhousewife.com/china/salt-lake-meets-shanghai-polygamy-in-china/
It's understandable that people are reluctant to push forward with things that can have objectionable consequences:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1437012.stm
"A 51-year-old lesbian has given birth to her brother's baby after IVF treatment in America. Doctors at Columbia University carried out the IVF treatment, so she could "bear a child of common ancestry to herself", it was reported in the Internet medical journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online.
The menopausal woman was successfully implanted with a donor egg conceived by her brother's sperm after a previous attempt failed, and gave birth to a healthy baby."
It has to be treated rationally. Any objection has to be justified by defining what the harmful outcomes are. Homosexual relationships have been in place for a while and they have a better outcome than not being accepted because it means people who have those sexual attractions can have a companion. Homosexual marriages have been around for a shorter time but they similarly have a positive effect:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30490513
"She had been married less than an hour and Martina Navratilova sparkled, from her gleaming smile to her silver jacket. This was one very happy woman.
I met Navratilova and her new bride Julia Lemigova in a room at the Peninsula hotel in New York, just moments after the tennis legend had said "I do". Their delight was evident.
So how does the nine-time Wimbledon winner feel a few minutes into her new role as wife? Terrified and really odd are the initial reactions and then a slightly choked, "I'm 58 years old, and I got married for the first time. It's about time, right?"
This summer, 33 years after she came out as bisexual, Navratilova proposed to her girlfriend of six years. She did so on bended knee, in public, on camera, at the US Open.
For Navratilova, there are actually two new roles today - wife and mother - Lemigova has two daughters. Navratilova reveals that Julia's younger daughter had been badgering to propose to her mother all year. And if Martina feels anxious about becoming a mum herself at 58, she doesn't show it."
These women had children, they had been together for 6 years. Their marriage can't possibly have a negative effect.
In many States children as young as 13 can be married if their parents consent to it as well.
It's irrefutable - when a story like this breaks, name calling from either side commences. As a Libertarian, I find this disgusting, and reinforcement for not belonging to either of these parties.
In many States children as young as 13 can be married if their parents consent to it as well.
The fact that the parents are required to give consent for a decision that will define the child's entire life makes that something of a nonsense if you ask me. And again, that is a nonsense that largely comes from the traditions of religion and arranged marriages, and presupposing the sin and shame of an unmarried child.
It's irrefutable - when a story like this breaks, name calling from either side commences. As a Libertarian, I find this disgusting, and reinforcement for not belonging to either of these parties.
There are plenty of Libertarians here & elsewhere that resort to name calling. Please try to be realistic.
There are plenty of Libertarians here & elsewhere that resort to name calling. Please try to be realistic.
Ahem...Just a few gems:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/184460/apple-ceo-tim-cook-doubled-pay-to-9-2m-in-2014-angela-ahrendts-led-execs-with-73-3m/40#post_2665585
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/184040/sony-renting-the-interview-for-6-on-youtube-google-play-xbox-crackle-but-not-itunes/40#post_2654843
Ahem...Just a few gems:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/184460/apple-ceo-tim-cook-doubled-pay-to-9-2m-in-2014-angela-ahrendts-led-execs-with-73-3m/40#post_2665585
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/184040/sony-renting-the-interview-for-6-on-youtube-google-play-xbox-crackle-but-not-itunes/40#post_2654843
Ahem...Do you really want to go tit for tat on some of your posts? Do you disagree with the statement I made, or are you trying to say that being a Libertarian somehow absolves that collective group from human nature?
I was watching a show recently in which a Brazilian woman was going to marry a Norwegian man, and when asked if she loved him by one of his friends her answer was "we can't afford emotions in Brazil". I'd bet that if you looked at marriages throughout the world today, many would be about the come up, and not about love.
Those laws are old and come from a time in which large families were commonplace. If a gentleman with means took a fancy to a girl from a large family she was married off, and in many cases her survival depended on it. That's still true in much of the world.
Apple and others can use their resources as a bully pulpit to promote this 'lifestyle'. For my part, after buying Apple products since 1984, I will no longer buy anything made by Apple.
You both seem to have a similar view but those statements are contradictory. You define something being natural as what can be observed occurring without human influence but, as humans, we can choose not to do everything that can be observed or is instinctive. There are a lot of natural events that humans find unacceptable such as mothers killing and eating their weakest offspring, animals do this frequently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_cannibalism
It can happen with humans because we are just another species but we reject that behaviour:
http://www.news.com.au/world/mother-tried-to-eat-her-baby-after-giving-birth-in-china/story-fndir2ev-1227145779029
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202776/Pictured-The-mother-accused-stabbing-week-old-baby-boy-death-mutilating-corpse.html
The issue of accepting or rejecting homosexuality is a decision over what people find acceptable and not what can be observed occurring without human influence.
At the end of the day, people are gay, they're not making it up. If we trace humans back through time, we've come about from mixing genes and making a whole range of varied copies and so with 7 billion or so variations, we can now see a lot of differences in race, gender, sexuality and so on. Some variations are considered defects such as hermaphroditism but if you were in their position, would you want to be thought of as a defect? It comes down to treating people with respect and saying that given that there's nothing harmful in who they are, they deserve to be treated like other human beings are treated. Rather than saying hermaphroditism, homosexuality, transgender are unnatural, it's more that they are uncommon variations in a completely natural, random, biological process.
When it concerns human behaviour, there's always going to be some disagreements in what's acceptable. With age of consent for example, nature doesn't impose any fixed cutoff, people just define it. With abortion, nature doesn't set out any rules over what stage of development is a child being murdered and what is a blob of jelly.
Scientific studies seem to be reaching the conclusion that all sexualities develop in a similar way:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115
"Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change."
As a society, we just make decisions over which are harmful and which aren't. Homosexuality was officially considered harmful just 50-60 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900–49_in_LGBT_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950s_in_LGBT_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960s_in_LGBT_rights
This would be down to conflating different types of behaviour like criminal activity with sexuality because there weren't public examples of harmless homosexual relationships. The more that there are, the more that people grow to accept this.
Man defines God - even if you claim to see God through observing nature, it's a human interpretation and so ultimately man defines marriage and anything else claimed to originate from God.
There are traditions in marriage that are not mandatory but implied such as consummation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation
Marriages can be annulled without consummation:
https://www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage/when-you-can-annul-a-marriage
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/annulment_laws/
"You can annul a marriage if it wasn’t consummated - you haven’t had sex with the person you married since the wedding (doesn’t apply for same sex couples)"
This would exclude marriages to anyone or anything that society doesn't see fit for consummating it. Anti-sodomy laws that were only overturned in the last decade probably play a role in this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/anti-sodomy-laws_n_5187895.html
That doesn't exclude polygamy but then polygamy has been legal in the past too, marriage was just redefined:
http://hkhousewife.com/china/salt-lake-meets-shanghai-polygamy-in-china/
It's understandable that people are reluctant to push forward with things that can have objectionable consequences:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1437012.stm
"A 51-year-old lesbian has given birth to her brother's baby after IVF treatment in America. Doctors at Columbia University carried out the IVF treatment, so she could "bear a child of common ancestry to herself", it was reported in the Internet medical journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online.
The menopausal woman was successfully implanted with a donor egg conceived by her brother's sperm after a previous attempt failed, and gave birth to a healthy baby."
It has to be treated rationally. Any objection has to be justified by defining what the harmful outcomes are. Homosexual relationships have been in place for a while and they have a better outcome than not being accepted because it means people who have those sexual attractions can have a companion. Homosexual marriages have been around for a shorter time but they similarly have a positive effect:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30490513
"She had been married less than an hour and Martina Navratilova sparkled, from her gleaming smile to her silver jacket. This was one very happy woman.
I met Navratilova and her new bride Julia Lemigova in a room at the Peninsula hotel in New York, just moments after the tennis legend had said "I do". Their delight was evident.
So how does the nine-time Wimbledon winner feel a few minutes into her new role as wife? Terrified and really odd are the initial reactions and then a slightly choked, "I'm 58 years old, and I got married for the first time. It's about time, right?"
This summer, 33 years after she came out as bisexual, Navratilova proposed to her girlfriend of six years. She did so on bended knee, in public, on camera, at the US Open.
For Navratilova, there are actually two new roles today - wife and mother - Lemigova has two daughters. Navratilova reveals that Julia's younger daughter had been badgering to propose to her mother all year. And if Martina feels anxious about becoming a mum herself at 58, she doesn't show it."
These women had children, they had been together for 6 years. Their marriage can't possibly have a negative effect.
In your post most of what you cite has to do with human response to certain behavior. Also the intervention of science and technology. What we deem natural and what was truly intended by nature is very different. My statement is simple yet people keep trying to complicated it because they simply do not want to accept it's fact.
Nature never intended for two of the same sex to have an attraction. This isn't even something that can be debated. For me this has nothing to do with 'God", religion, marriage or someone saying they love another person the same sex. I have no issue with gay marriage and I have no issue with equal rights for gays or for that matter anyone. What I take issue with is gays saying it's just as natural as being heterosexual.
What we as humans deem to be natural is subjective but nature isn't. The natural order is for men and women to have a sexual attraction so we can procreate and our species can survive. Survival is one of the most basic instinct of any species.
There is no argument that can trump this very simple concept. We are even getting to the point in science to prove on a genetic level being gay is nothing more then a genetic defect. I'm sorry if that hurts peoples feeling but lets face it being gay can only be one of three things, by choice, a mental illness, or a genetic defect.
There are studies that show twins one female and one male there is a high rate of the male being gay because there is excess estrogen during the gestational process. So we can debate what humans deem as natural but the basic instinct to survive isn't something that can be debated and that can only be accomplished by males and females procreating.
. I can love the person I want so I believe others who think differently from me should be able to love and be loved by somebody let's have a Open mind and an open heart
Please quit talking about "nature"and science like you have a clue what you're talking about. You should probably take some time to actually study ecology before you continue talking on the subject. Not all individuals of a population breed. It's generally not necessary, especially in a thriving species. And humans would certainly qualify as a thriving species. As you said earlier, a species couldn't survive if the majority of the individuals, which bares out what you see in nature, that homosexuality is a minority position.
There are plenty of species where gender itself is fluid, where individuals change genders during their lifetime. How do you define their sexuality? Some species can reproduce sexually as as well asexually through parthogenesis. Where does that fall in your narrow view of nature?
There are survival advantages to not having every member of a population vying to mate. Thus the requirement of mating for something to be natural is utter nonsense.
Homosexuality hasn't been produced by unnatural means, it's not man-made or artificial. Unattractiveness, infertility and so on can affect reproduction but nobody would say they are unnatural.
To use the label 'defect' implies that the people with the 'defect' suffer because of it. The only suffering that people have is due to prejudice. Remove that and they live perfectly happy lives. What is defective about Tim Cook? By any measure, he comes across like one of the nicest guys you could ever know and leads a happy and successful life.
Procreation is for survival of the species, not survival of the individual. Survival of the species can also be aided by gay men donating sperm or helping with child rearing, the latter of which a lot of straight people fail to do.
It is limited to male and female. A single gay man here got his mother to conceive his child:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2985590/I-don-t-care-people-think-baby-s-loved-m-happy-matters-extraordinary-story-divided-Britain-single-gay-man-mother-gave-birth-surrogate-baby.html
These artificial methods of conceiving are not ideal but an infertile straight couple would do the same. I don't like artificial means of conceiving being used this way but it's the results that matter. The aim is to promote survival so if children are born healthy and raised well then it achieves that aim.
Gay people having children by artificial means is unnatural by definition. In a way this is true of straight infertile people but it's thought less of as unnatural because their bodies are designed for it. Gay people being gay is not artificial so they don't deserve to be called unnatural.
Now he's on Monday Note claiming that only under Cook is Apple so desperate as to have additional events. He's "conveniently" forgot Apple TV, iPhone,Mac OS, all under Jobs, had two presentations before their initial release, and yet to him that proves ?Watch is a abject failure from a fa**ot CEO. What a piece of shit!
Wait, that’s not even remotely close to anything but a strawman (or libel). Why not just stick to your points instead of pretending to know what others think?