Flamemignon1:

Lol,vex na

Orlu13:




carry ur gay self and move away from my mention

Akaujaa:
Let's not even try to bring religion into this. Same same marriage is even against the law of nature.

Adakintroy:
As it was in the begining so shall it be in the end.

For the science man. It's a new beginning. For the religious one it is the end.


But from natural science or observation. There is no such thing as gay marriage. A marriage implied joining of two semi half. A man generically is one half of the meaning while the woman is the other. Joining a man and a man still retain one meaning. The puzzle isn't fix that way.

But all of this will occur only in the time of plenty or population explosion. Since the male existence register as sterile birth anyway.

If Ukraine was to emerge from war as it is. There will be no pro gay law due to war and devastation. A nation who is planning rebuilding from ground up will priotise male female alliance for procreational purpose, family bond and re introducing quality new member into institution. Something mostly don by proper families. Gay union are priorities that can be afforded in times of population growth already. So this acct is mostly deliberate.

For those of you who don't know gay laws in the realest and I mean in the realest sense are not progressive..they are actually regressive.

They are laws taken when progress has been made and there is need to halt of slow it down.

JessicaRabbit:


I'm sorry, but this is a nonsensical argument!

I have to wonder if you have taken any science classes before, because anyone with a base knowledge of science knows that it doesn't have definite opinions on marriage. It only studies the natural world. And trust me, the natural world is far more diverse and fascinating than your binary interpretation of "two halves." Some fish change genders, and even bonobos throw epic orgies!

Marriage exists in countless forms across cultures and history. It's about love, commitment, building a life together, not some predetermined puzzle with pre-assigned pieces. Two men, two women, or even a polyamorous octopus commune? Love is love, and who gets to defines its "meaning" besides ourselves? War and devastation are awful, no doubt. But suggesting same-sex marriage is some opportunistic plot to sabotage procreation is, frankly, insensitive and absurd. People's identities and desires aren't pawns in some demographic chess game. Besides, plenty of straight couples choose not to have children, and many same-sex couples adopt or use assisted reproductive technologies to build families, just like anyone else. Being progressive means moving forward, not clinging to outdated notions of societal control. Restricting rights based on sexual orientation smacks more of fear and prejudice than progress. Same-sex marriage laws aren't some sudden invention. They're the culmination of decades of struggle for equality, recognition, and basic human dignity. To call them "regressive" ignores the historical context and the countless individuals who fought for them.

Excluding people based on who they love, or using fear-mongering about population control, is not just wrong, it's downright unoriginal.

Adakintroy:


I wonder even more about the science you have taken when you argue with exceptions and not standard rules. Yes most animals manifest exception odd mating habits. But on the whole it mostly the binaries ( male and female ) that rule the mating sphere. I go with 99.9 percent. The diverse forms mating habits you mention are not really in anywhere what can be said to constitute "diversity". Unless you are scarily ignorant of the natural world. Hyena's are led by matriarchs and they have sought of male Instruments, sea horse are hermaphrodites in some sense, while the bonobos you mention have gay orgies. But again small very minute insignificant number in relations to the broader animal groupings. bonobos predominantly mate with female and that's how they continue their own existence. So the male do not get pregnant from mating. Like seas horse do. Rather is just a tool to ease social tension. So if by any real consciouse sense we choose to rank order this acts in terms of meaning bio social habits the male female alliance still will rank higher within it's context. Since it's serve both the functions of procreation and social bonding. So no the natural world does not have much diverse habits in this context. Rather they have "odd" and "rare's". It s why they easily stand out. For the most part the male female alliances rule the plains or sea. Examples, Dogs cats goats oranguntans, silver backs, chickens,, lion, whale sharks..e.t.c. I can name 105 to every one you can come up with. These are commonly preferred everywhere by nature. So to lump everything together as one common generalities is for lack of better terms lazy "sciencing" or poor observations of the natural world.

Moving on to your take 2 with regards human social dynamism of sex and marriage. No marriage don't exist in countless form involving multi diverse genders. They exist in diverse ways between same binary genders. Little wonder you fail to site much examples in that but rather including polygamy to stretch your list. plain ignorant simple. Polygamy is a marriage between a man and woman or the reverse. Is still within same binaries mentioned. Across human history, time and space, marriage have been predominantly, I repeat predominately between men and women..if they do exist aside that, they are the exception once again not the ruling. So to draw authority from the odd exceptions or to lump it all as one common generality is plain intellectual dishonesty on your part plain and simple. I do not content with that much..it's beneath me. Historically marriage is and was mostly between a man and woman. Were you get history lesson from is were I should maybe question. ShopRite maybe.

The demography of humans are what we count as our meaningful human progress. It's human born to this world..is not a stats measured. Its a human being born. Its's easily the most transcended of all the meaning and ranks higher than all the thought and that include sex for social bonding. Notice the only reason we are having this conversation is because you are here via the male female binary meaning..even so the gay man. So for some one commenting about unoriginality of my thought, I doubt if you get your own origin.

JessicaRabbit:


Correlation is not causation. You have only just cherry-picked exceptions to paint a misleading picture of the natural world.

It's true that most animals reproduce sexually, but focusing solely on the binary ignores the fascinating spectrum of biodiversity. You highlight hyenas, seahorses, and bonobos as "oddities," conveniently forgetting the numerous species exhibiting same-sex behavior, hermaphroditism, and alternative family structures e.g. clownfish with their gender-switching dominance hierarchies etc. Perhaps you should crack open a biology textbook beyond the "birds and the bees" chapter. Plus, anthropocentric. Nature doesn't operate on human-imposed value judgments. Every species has its own unique way of ensuring survival and procreation, and judging them based on our narrow understanding of marriage is simply illogical.

Moving on to human societies, claiming marriage has historically been predominantly between men and women ignores the vast cultural and historical diversity. From ancient Greece and Rome to various indigenous communities around the world, examples of same-sex unions, polyamory, and other non-traditional family structures existed and continue to exist. To claim these are mere exceptions is demonstrably false. Your argument about demographics and human progress being solely dependent on the "male-female binary" is not only simplistic but also offensive. Reducing human existence to mere procreation undermines the complexities of love, companionship, and societal evolution. Suggesting that same-sex couples somehow impede human progress is not just factually incorrect but also deeply prejudiced.

Adakintroy:


A man like you born of a woman has already allude to a male female binaries position even before they wake up to it's consciousness.


The gay man has no right just granted privilege . If It can not replicate after his own kind it Will always refer to the "hetro" What's the point of independence when it's always going to be dependent.

JessicaRabbit:


Firstly, I'm not a man.

Secondly, equating my biological origins with inherent bias is a rather comical attempt at logical gymnastics, I must say. It's like claiming a paleontologist studying dinosaurs must secretly yearn to become a T-Rex. My existence as a product of heterosexual coupling doesn't automatically negate my ability to analyze societal issues objectively. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable if I donned a lab coat and delivered this lecture in a monotone to appease your desire for scientific detachment, devoid of any pesky human characteristics like, you know, independent thought? Oh, and there is nothing like inherent dependence on "hetro" [sic] reproduction. Have you ever heard of *gasp!*... adoption? Modern medicine has opened doors to surrogacy and assisted reproduction. And let's not forget, countless heterosexual couples choose not to have biological children at all. Does that somehow render their lives meaningless or dependent? Please, spare me the tired trope of equating procreation with the entirety of human existence. It's both reductive and frankly, reeks of a deep-seated fear of anything outside the narrow confines of your worldview. Regarding the supposed "privilege" of gay men. This statement is so laughably off-base that I'm almost tempted to humor it. If anything, history has shown us that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights has been a relentless struggle against prejudice and discrimination! To claim they're somehow privileged is not only insensitive but demonstrably false. In addition to biology textbooks, you might also be in dire need of history textbooks as well.

You seem to be arguing for blind conformity in the name of tradition, while simultaneously denying the very agency and individuality you claim to possess. It's a fascinating paradox, wouldn't you agree?

Adakintroy:
Open your mind.

Adoption, is by the way borrowing a child of a man and a woman. In simple terms..it still the offspring of male female binary. So you still stuck with dependency.

Surrogacy is a woman having a child for another couple..but still a man and woman binaries. Artificial inseminations are sperms of men into a female. Same male female order. Just different re twist. Yet you brought that up so like you found a glitch.

You consider human evolution as something petty..independent of procreation. With a wave of hand you casually dispose it as nothing. See how you stepped over it as nothing. Human existence and continuity is tired to procreation. There are no evolution without procreation. Certainly no modern era.

Old stale information but true and who is responsible these? Male/ females. Not gays.

They are weak sterile and incapable of making meaning contributive progress. Only in times of social stability ado we need them. Pro gays laws are regressive laws as I said. In a count from zero to complexities they are static.

isolate the whole gay community in an island and withing a century they all die off with no continuity. While heteros stay striving .

"Progressives" my royal ass!

JessicaRabbit:


Already ajar, just waiting for something interesting to peek in.



This isn't about ownership, my dear. It's about creating families, not replicating biology. It's about love, commitment, and forging deep bonds that transcend the limitations of DNA. And yes, while adopted children may have biological parents, their adoptive family is the one they choose, the one that nurtures them, and the one they build a future with. As for dependency, we're all interdependent. It's the very fabric of society!



It's cute watching you express unwavering commitment to tradition, even in the face of inconvenient facts, but let me enlighten you. Surrogacy and assisted reproduction challenge the rigid binary you cling to, rather than enforce it. They showcase the beautiful complexities of modern families, where love and commitment, not rigid gender roles, dictate what constitutes a family. It's not about men and women fulfilling their "biological destinies," but about creating loving homes for children, regardless of the path taken. And yes, I brought it up because it dismantles your narrow argument about inherent bias stemming from procreation. Perhaps, instead of fearing possible "glitches" in your worldview, embrace them as opportunities to expand your understanding. If you really want to have this conversation honestly, you must be willing to engage with facts and logic, not outdated biological determinism.



What do you know about evolution really? I'm afraid you've mistaken evolution for a cosmic game of hot potato. It's not a relay race where the baton must be passed on at all costs. Evolution is a complex dance of adaptation and environmental pressures, not a linear march towards ever-increasing numbers. Suggesting that my stance on social issues somehow disrupts this grand evolutionary ballet is, well, let's just say it wouldn't win any awards for scientific accuracy. Besides, focusing solely on biological continuity paints a rather uninspired picture of human existence. Don't we, as a species, strive for more than just perpetuating ourselves? We create art, push the boundaries of knowledge, and build cultures that transcend mere procreation. To suggest that these endeavors hold no evolutionary value is not only shortsighted but frankly, a little insulting to the ingenuity of humankind.



Attributing societal advancements solely to "male/females" erases the contributions of countless individuals who defy such rigid categorization. Intersex folks, non-binary individuals, and those existing outside the gender spectrum have all played vital roles in shaping the world we know today. You need to revisit your argument because it suffers from a distinct lack of nuance.



Pro-gay laws promote equality and basic human rights, something I would hope we can all agree is a fundamental good in any society. I suspect you'd be more comfortable in a bygone era, clutching your pearls and fainting at the sight of someone who doesn't conform to your narrow definition of normalcy. It's really unfortunate that your comments on this topic so far are rife with the same tired tropes used to marginalize countless groups throughout history, and if you are at all capable of honest introspection, you'd see how it speaks to your own baselines. I also find it hilarious how you boldly claim that LGBTQ+ individuals are incapable of contributing meaningfully to society. The LGBTQ+ community has consistently enriched the world with their talents and perspectives, from scientists to entrepreneurs and activists. Maybe you've simply chosen to ignore their contributions, blinded by your own prejudice.



Frankly, your obsession with procreation as the sole measure of societal value is tiresome, and based on redundant ideals. Adoption, surrogacy, and assisted reproductive technologies are just a few terms that reveal the thoughtlessness of your hypothetical.



Well, to be fair, I wouldn't expect someone clinging to the past to understand the value of progress.