There are plenty of theories out there on homosexuality and its existence. But all the theories out there do not effect these following FACTS about homosexuality. These three are what I base my opinions on.
#1 They cannot reproduce or add to genetic diversity
#2 They cannot engange in sexual intercourse
#3 Heterosexuality can be seen physically in sexual anatomy between male and females, this is not case for homosexuals
So if you have any information that changes these facts then fine. But so far nobody has provided anything. If you have info about homosexual reprodcution or physical changes in sexual anatomy in homosexuals then please do so.
Again I am for protecting and respecting the power of reproduction and the process of sexual intercourse only experienced in heterosexual relations.
Are you even reading the MANY responses I've given to YOUR BLOODY THREAD?!?!?
As far as #1 is concerned, I've ALREADY mentioned that the vast majority of homosexual people actually DO reproduce in their lifetimes. If you were to do even a measly 4 hours of research on this topic which you claim to know so much about -- and on a specific point that you admit is CENTRAL to your own argument -- then you would know you are W-R-O-N-G. And there is an added irony here: because homosexual humans do often participate in procreation, they, by sheer dint of THEIR OWN DIFFERENCE, have a greater impact on DIVERSITY (at least when compared your white-bread ***).
As far as #2 is concerned: Not only do they not NEED to engage in sexual intercourse to participate in conception in today's technological climate, that doesn't mean that many of them don't/haven't. The United States has a very polarizing sexual climate for homosexuality (in relation to the rest of human history); there
are/have been many cultures (e.g. Tahiti, in the past) where homosexuals both desire and do what it takes to have a baby. This is incontrovertible truth. Again, you are W-R-O-N-G. Your stance is built on the polarizing view of PURE HOMOSEXUALITY, which, simply, is idiotic and doesn't exist empirically. It's an idea in your head.
As far as #3 is concerned: Once again, I have already brought up a point against this with my statements on female genital morphology (which Gameface also talks about without referencing my post). In case my words are too fancy for you, let me put it to you this way: your penetration of a female does very little to stimulate her erogenous zones. Remember when I talked about how there was a theory that females might be built for female-to-female contact? Do you know what a ****oris is? Do you know where it is? As for males, a ***** is not a complicated tool. There doesn't seem to be any problem satisfying it. Here is more evolutionary background for you: matrilineal connections play a very important part in primate social structure and mating habits -- in other words, the powerful females control A LOT. There is empirical data that strongly suggests that sexual contact between females in this "political" triangulation is incredibly important not only to the subordinate's survival, but ESPECIALLY to her offspring. THEREFORE, female-to-female sexual would be evolutionarily advantageous. Their morphology (i.e. body structure) bears the stamp of this behavior. (This is a rushed/sloppy version of the story, but, there it is).
I don't know how I can make this clearer for you. I had (before you posted this crap above) ALREADY listed each of these arguments! DUDE, YOU ARE JUST PLAIN WRONG ABOUT THIS. I wish I knew you well enough to have sympathy for your situation; you are clearly the product of a religio-political milieu that lacks imagination and information.
Last thing, all of this which I've just typed out, is just about the social and biological data that articulate with one another. I could write another diatribe about how your politics are screwy, but I honestly don't have the time for you anymore.
