You said:

"Goddess forbid that two consenting adults that are attracted to each other be able to live out their lives in peace and have the same rights no matter what their genders are."

Now you want to restrict the redefinition of marriage to homosexual couples only?

Which is it?

Or are you as confused about this as everything else??

sterile- So gay people aren't capable of reproduction? (who they're attracted to is IRRELEVENT to if they are physically able to reproduce)

physiologically challenged- Please explain how being gay is physiologically challenged. Is it because only a penis fits inside a vagina? Well, a penis fits fine in an anus (both men and women can attest to that) and a finger fits fine inside a vagina (again, ask both men and women.)

biologically and evolutionary null- See "sterile". If a person can reproduce, they can pass on their traits.

"just give the aspects of homosexuality that show humans are supposed to be gay."

Just show the aspects of right handedness that make that particular "orientation" more valid then left-handedness. Yet history will show that society looked on "lefties" (I'm one, btw) with as much disdain as alot of people look on homosexuals with today. What makes you think our views of gays today are any more valid then what people thought of lefties in the past?

I said "no matter what their genders are", not "no matter who it is they are attracted to." If you are too stupid to read the difference, that's not my problem.

Ugh, there you go miscomprehending again. Gender is the ONLY thing that is an issue, everything else being equal. Did you understand that now, or do I need to go Sesame Street on you?

A gay person is capable of reproduction, but a gay union isn't. Just like the other situations I listed. You are kinda light on the reading comprehension ain't ya?

Noo it's because the human has evolved facilitation for penile vaginal sex between adults. Humans may choose to have sex with a picnic table too, but a compulsion to fall in love with one is physiologically challenged since no picnic table is designed for penises.

Yet pedophilia and zoophila are still considered disordered. Still looking for something that separates these.

I'm not talking about societal validation. I'm looking for a scientific reason for homosexuality coming from the instinct to the purpose to the evolved facilitation for it. You can do it for any other innate normal human instinct.

Left handedness and homosexuality has a history. It also has a link to pedo.
This study adds to previous research from this team that found pedophiles have lower IQs, are three times more likely to be left-handed, failed school grades significantly more frequently, and suffered more head injuries as children.

Thank you. That was my only point with that and I'm glad you agree.


You are going beyond the meaning of the word "physiological" then. My point stands as the truth, and you need to be more specific in yours.


Of course those are disorders. But homosexuality is not one, so I don't see why you are bringing up things that are clearly outside the conversation.


Humans have evolved beyond basic instinct. Or did you miss that day in biology class?

One study is not a "history".

Any human can reproduce. An Asexual person "can" still reproduce. So that's not the litmus.

Really? Physiology encompasses every aspect of sexuality and the defects it might have. Males and females of all animals have evolved traits that compliment each other and the mating instinct. Just as breasts were evolved for feeding young. If a woman's breasts produce no milk, she is considered disordered. But she might still otherwise still live a full life and "in our society" breasts aren't necessary for reproduction. But it's not brokebreastophobic to deem a woman with broke breasts disordered.

It's a clear comparison. That's why. Homosexuality shares a lot with them with very few differences. The only difference is the object of attraction. But biologically the differences are minor.

But they haven't evolved to include homosexuality. Remember it's a mistake throughout the animal kingdom. Humans have evolved to include homosexuality but not the other sexual deviant acts? Sounds again like the typical homosexual trying to pigeonhole themselves at the expense of common sense.

How many studies you need? Got any evidence to discredit it?

Look, the whole thing boils down to the fact that you think homosexuality is unnatural and akin to beastiality or pedophilia, while I see it as an inherent trait that some humans possess, much like someone who has blue eyes or freckles. Neither of us are going to be doing any biological research on the subject any time soon, so all we have to go on are other people's work, which you can pick and choose to support whatever view you happen to have. So I guess we just have a difference of opinion. I'm happy enough to leave it at that.

People should conduct their lives in ways that I am comfortable with. The world revolves around me ya know.