|
Holy Crap. So now we're down to trying to determine whether or not being gay is genetically disfavored, based on the assumption that there is an overpowering gay gene? There's lots of things that don't have any use in reproduction. I have two of them. They are called my nipples. I like 'em just fine, but they'll never excrete the sweet sweet milk of paternal sustanence to any child I begot upon some unluckly lady. Shrill, tawdry crazy shrew she would have to be let me do all my begotting and whatnot. Why do I have nipples? Why damn it? Hold on, Ustwo's going to explain something about lack of differentiation in early child development whilst we lie in the womb. Ok, my tonsils have nothing to do with reproduction. Neither does my knee cap.
One also has to wonder if the formation of stable family units produces situations such that successful survival of any offspring born in the larger family unit are increased. Thus, as not all members of a homosexual household are likely to be homosexual, the safety and support offered by the formation of the stable family unit favors the survival of any child produced. As ratbastid directly just pointed out, it's not a cut and dry situation.
Holy sweet what-the-hell on a slinky. Whether or not someone regards homosexuality as some sort of genetically recessive trait disfavorable to the active direct production of children is not the issue with gay marriage.
Hold on, who was it that sang the following?
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
|