Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NCB
2. I'm against it for a number of reason, one being that the homosexual lobby will not want to stop there. Soon, they'll be teaching homosexual sex in elemantry sex ed classes. Frankly, that's not the kind of soceity I want my children to grow up in. And I'm not alone.
|
This is the first progression i've seen by NCB in this thread on how he really feels about homosexuality.
NCB, you are a bigot. Just because you're uncomfortable with the idea (read: scared), does not mean it is wrong. Homosexuals deserve to be accorded the same rights and freedoms the rest of us do. Love is not bound by gender, color, or ideals. There is no reason a homosexual man can't love and care for another man, like a heterosexual man would care for a woman. I see now why you can't accept gay marriage. It would mean that a gay man's marriage would be just as valid and special as yours. You would be the same. Equal.
Being homosexual is not a choice, and you can't assume it is just because you can't see it on the outside, like the color of your skin. Black people couldn't "come out of the closet", because they had no way to hide their skin colour to avoid prejudice. They couldn't pretend to themselves they weren't black.
If homosexuality had primarily an environmental cause, we would see distribution patterns based on favorable environmental conditions for homosexuality. Similar family environments producing homosexuals. Something in the air, or water, or food. But there isn't. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the statistical distribution of homosexuals based on their birthplace.
Bailey and Pillard (1991) conducted a study on the occurrence of homosexuality among brothers.
52% of identical twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual. Your chance of being homosexual, based just on the fact that your twin brother shares your genes, is greater than 1/2. This clearly speaks of a genetic predisposition for homosexuality.