But nature has produced homosexuality, so it's certainly not contrary to nature.
Nature has produced murder, alcoholism, suicide, unfaithfulness and a host of other things contrary to human character and existence. We must leave such productions to nature. We have neither reason nor right to celebrate and use the might of law to force their affirmation upon anyone.
Tolerance is seemingly an essential human quality for society to thrive in all its complex social manifestations.
“Tolerance” is just an empty-headed leftist term now commonly used to give empty-headed leftists warm fuzzy feelings about that which is intuitively contrary to nature. No natural basis exists to force this “tolerance,” especially not tolerance of that which is contrary to human identity.
And with specialization, it may well benefit us to have a certain percentage of non-procreators built in to the gene pool.
This is not a matter of “specialization.” It is a matter of speculation – pure speculation. By such vapid criteria we may as well giddily claim a benefit from having a certain percentage of murderers in the gene pool. (dear me, playa...)
Evolution is about the survival of the species which in our case may well involve (snip)…
Pure religion. “May well”, “probably”, “could be.” I'm Sorry. I simply am not interested in such shaman mumbo jumbo.
Your psuedo-scientific case against homosexuality is merely your own opinion with no basis in science.
It is no mere opinion. The evidence is in your own body. Without sexual heterogeneity, you literally cannot exist. That is what you are and no atheist religion can militate against this objective fact. All subsequent definitions flow from there.
It is no different than creationism in that you're trying to pitch your religious views as science, trying to cast a wider net as it were.
No religion here at all. I refer to your own, most fundamental existence. The nature of that existence logically compels the conclusion. |
