|
"Its SIMPLE, cause homos cannot have childen of their own. And thats because mother nature says so."
Not so simple. Gay women can have children, just like a straight woman. All you need are a pair of fertile fallopian tubes and you're in potential business. By your logic, one can only be accepted into society if you can reproduce. You realize not everyone with fallopian tubes can reproduce. What does that make women w/o children (by choice or circumstances), second-class citizens too?
Did you notice that men, gay or straight, can't reproduce either? I suppose that puts you in that same category since I assume you're either gay or straight and not a woman. Nothing personal by that statement, btw.
My civil rights analogy was that the majority of society back then thought giving blacks the right to vote, equal access under the law, etc. were special rights too. They're not special rights as we've learned over the years - even some die-hard segregationists have accepted this. If you believe providing equal legal status to couples of any sexual or racial persuasion constitutes "special rights" then that's your perogative. That's where we differ. Your difference of opinion doesn't make it right. Even a majority view in society doesn't make it right, just as denying blacks the right to vote, to sit anywhere on a public transport or to deny them many other basic rights was the prevelant view just a few years ago.
Maybe Mother Nature created gays to reduce the birth rate to manage population growth. By that estimation we might need more gays in China. I didn't ask or argue, but who's to say Mother Nature (since you brought her up) isn't planning that too? BTW, is Mother Nature gay or straight?
If being gay is a matter of choice, then being heterosexual is a matter of choice as well. And by that logic, man must be bisexual, bound only by the choice of Saturday night dates are available to him.
Sherwood
|