? The OP appeals to the scientific realm when invoking evolution via natural selection as explanatory for homosexual behavior. The unproven premise underlying the empirical sciences is the existence of natural laws which give order to the universe.
I don’t think that high risk behavior causes health insurance premiums to go up, either.Thorolfr:
You are trying to slide a high risk behavior into ACA as a pre-existing condition?
I have a bridge for sale.
What I meant is that they aren’t raised only on the people engaging in high risk behavior. Insurance companies don’t notify individuals that they are raising their rates because they have compiled information on their unhealthy behaviors.Thorolfr:
I have a bridge for sale.
I did a search on this thread, bisexuality had only been mentioned once before my post brought it up. Yet it is a massive area of research in human sexuality. Scientists almost uniformly agree that a significant majority of those who have homosexual sexual experience also have heterosexual experience at the same time. Dr. Baker’s research also mentioned that 80% of those who engage in homosexual acts also engage in heterosexual acts basically at the same time.
Community rated health care plans just add it all up and then bill the subscribers. I advocate for high risk behaviors not to be just diluted in the population. Rather, higher premiums for the increased exposure would be fairer to the rest of us.
… for the sake of children. Legal marriage outlines and protects children’s rights and parents obligations to them. The state has a vested interest in this to propagate itself.
OK, but the Church doesn’t teach that it is immoral to have homosexual tendencies. The moral law concerns chosen behavior, not intrinsic traits one inherits.
They redecorate?
But when you look closely, and you see what is happening, male/female sex makes sense - what’s happening and the potential ends align in a way that same sex relations cannot match.
Such contracts did exist at one time. Marriage has always been understood differently.
Are you suggesting that if the inclination is exclusive, catholic teaching on sexuality doesn’t make sense?
I can’t believe that you are suggesting that the concept of natural law is not used as a basis for theological claims on sexual morality.Freddy:
Please show us how this is a religious argument.
I don’t know where Dr. Baker got his information, but it’s not true that “80% of those who engage in homosexual acts also engage in heterosexual acts basically at the same time.” I’m a gay man and have known a lot of other gay men in my life and almost none of them were having sexual relations with women at the same time in their life.
Male/female sex makes reproductive sense, but humans and other species do a lot of other things besides reproduce. Sex need not be used for only one purpose and in fact it isn’t, and that’s not only true of humans but of other species as well.Thorolfr:
But when you look closely, and you see what is happening, male/female sex makes sense - what’s happening and the potential ends align in a way that same sex relations cannot match.
The context of make/female sex provides the totality of meaning. It ALL makes sense in a way no other form can match. Eg. The fertility of a man seems meaningless in same sex activity.
So, how do you explain same-sex activity among bonobos and other primates? They’ve obviously found other uses for sexual activity beyond reproduction.Thorolfr:
The context of make/female sex provides the totality of meaning. It ALL makes sense in a way no other form can match. Eg. The fertility of a man seems meaningless in same sex activity.
As it is equally meaningless in the same way when I have sex with my wife, who is well past her child bearing days. Yes, there is still the unitive aspect of it which could be considered, but that wasn’t part of the point you were making.Thorolfr:
The context of make/female sex provides the totality of meaning. It ALL makes sense in a way no other form can match. Eg. The fertility of a man seems meaningless in same sex activity.
No idea. But can you acknowledge the point I’ve made?