“This kind of lifestyle will bring death.”
Death, at this juncture of scientific discovery, is still unavoidable no matter what one does; life brings death… for now anyways.
“Well, to find non-biblical responses you are in the wrong place but, I will be willing to give you are response.”
That was kind of the point I was making. If this is solely a religious, or biblical issue, than it should not be legislated on.
“1. If homosexual marriage is “right”. Then why does it take a man and a woman to create children? You can say oh they can just do artificial insemination. Well, then obviously they need a man to do that. And why can’t men be pregnant? As far as I know, scientist haven’t invented sperm.”
First, by this logic, a man and woman who are sterile, or simply have no desire to procreate should not be married either, nor people who adopt children? Is the point of marriage to conceive children? In any case, modern technology does not require intercourse between a man and a woman to fertilize an egg and ‘create children’, so it seems modern thought should be applied.
“2. If we are talking evolution, why wasn’t it man with man, and woman with woman from the beginning of time. And if it should have been that way, why has it been so hidden until recently?”
Because, if you study evolution, you will know that it is based on natural selection; or that the most suited to the environment and situation survived and thrived, and the unsuited died off. Therefore the traits that were necessary for a given environment and situation were passed on; those that were unnecessary were not (this is a very basic definition of natural selection). Human evolution is, and has been, occurring mentally rather than physically for thousands of years (our physical bodies could not have survived long enough to evolve in light of the things that threatened us: saber-tooth tigers, etc. etc.. So in reference to natural selection, the cave-man that had the abstract reasoning skill to see that the stick that hurt him when he stepped on it would also hurt the tiger survived and passed on that reasoning ability, the one who didn’t, was eaten). Our mental evolution has brought us to a place where male-female intercourse is no longer necessary to produce life. Our environment and situation is much different than it has been in the past, so, once again, it seems one should apply modern thought to modern issues.
“3. If we are talking Bible based, God made humans, why then did he create a man and a woman, instead of 2 men, or 2 woman. And make it possible for them to reproduce?”
I’ve found talking about God tends to produce more why’s, or other types of questions, than answers; so I have to say your’s are just more good one’s that don’t seem likely to have any good response. Why did God make some animals hermaphroditic? Why did God make some people with multiple sclerosis?
“To me, they have taken something beatuiful and made it ugly.”
Ugly how? Isn’t marriage a commitment of love between two people? How does love become ugly based on the sex of the two people who share it? Wouldn’t love be love regardless?
“I do not hate homosexuals, I just do not approve of what they are doing.”
You don’t have to approve of it, nor do you have to engage in it. That’s the point of, and nice thing, about a democracy (however much of a republic we really are), that we don’t have to agree with everything everyone else does and we can be vocal and discuss our differences of opinion; but we cannot make it illegal for people to do things just because we don’t approve of them. If we started doing that, who knows what it could lead to? That type of reasoning would validate a law that say’s one can’t practice a certain religion; what if Christianity became illegal because someone didn’t approve of it?
Anyways, thanks for responding,