why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[ImmortalFlame]

They certainly do, and that's how they feel so why should I tell them how to feel.

I will never bother or disrespect.a gay person,if I'm asked what I think about them I will answer right or wrong.

I will no ask someone their view on interacial breeding, they feel what they feel and have that right,but step to me and express that feeling and I will lash out not because of your views but because your challenging me.

So, basically, it's okay for you to - in your own words - "lash out" at people who have averse opinions on interracial relationships. However, when we "lash out" at you for your opinions, it's "defensive" or implying that we're saying you "shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion".

As soon as you understand why you would be angered by people calling interracial relationships disgusting, you can understand why we are angered by you calling homosexual relationships disgusting.

 

[payak]

So, basically, it's okay for you to - in your own words - "lash out" at people who have averse opinions on interracial relationships. However, when we "lash out" at you for your opinions, it's "defensive" or implying that we're saying you "shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion".

As soon as you understand why you would be angered by people calling interracial relationships disgusting, you can understand why we are angered by you calling homosexual relationships disgusting.

no, this is a debate, very different then walking up to someone and saying I don't like your lifestyle when your opinions not asked.

your a bit thick if you cannot see that's what I meant, take some deep breaths and compose yourself then you might think straight.

 

[payak]

just so you know no one is denying gay people their rights, they do absolutely have every right, but we don't have to like what they do.

however just for you I shall just lie from now on and say its ok.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

just so you know no one is denying gay people their rights, they do absolutely have every right, but we don't have to like what they do.

Right. And we don't have to like what interracial couples do. They have the right to do it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Just so you know no one is denying gay people their rights, they do absolutely have every right.......

Thank you for that.

.......but we don't have to like what they do.

But what you have to do was never an issue.

Why don't you like what homosexuals do? What do you recommend that they do?

Are you aware that sexual identity is not a choice?

 

[Agnostic75]

You have said that any deaths at all are not worth the risk, so you have refuted you own argument. Your primary context from the beginning of this thread regarding your secular arguments against homosexuality has been risk, and millions of heterosexuals in the U.S. alone are at risk. You said that heterosexuals need to have sex in order to maintain that population. I adequately refuted that argument.

No I didn't. I said no life is worth the risk if lust is the only justification.

When women are at least 45 years of age, most of them do not have any more children, and they have sex entirely for pleasure. That has risk, and it is not needed in order to maintain the population. Even when married heterosexual women are 25 years of age, a large percentage of them sometimes have sex entirely for pleasure.

Any competent expert knows that although homosexual sex is not exactly the same as heterosexual sex is, it provides significant physical, and emotional benefits for homosexuals. You cannot make a rational argument that heterosexual sex at 45 years of age and over is acceptable because it provides martial stability, which justifies deaths, and that homosexual sex among healthy homosexuals is not acceptable.

I tell you what you may delete that post if you wish. It will not change a thing. I doubt it is significantly in error but it would make no difference if it was.

Much of your post #304 is definitely false, misleading, or poorly documented, and it does not take anywhere an expert to know that. I could give you a number of examples if you wish.

What evidence do you have that the original Bible said anything about same-sex behavior, and that God inspired those texts? When I made a similar argument, you said that I was making an argument from convenience, but I wasn't since there many other questionable things in the Bible. For example, a global flood does not make any sense. A regional flood would make sense, but not a regional flood for the reasons that the Bible gives. Consider the following Scriptures:

Genesis 6:5-7

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

If that refers to a regional flood, who did God intend to kill, residents of the area, or residents, and visitors such as travelers, and traders who must have frequently visited the area? If God intended to kill only residents, why did he also kill some people who were not residents? What about residents who must have been traveling to other areas, and would have escaped being killed by the flood?

At the time of the supposed flood, there were people living in many other parts of the world. Surely many of those people were also evil.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Genesis 8:21-22

"And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

That indicates that the flood was global since it would not have made any sense for God to say that he would never kill everything again only in a relatively small area of the world. Since the supposed flood, many volcanoes have destroyed most life in relatively small areas of the world.

It would also not have made any sense for God to say that "seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" would only happen in a relatively small part of the world.

Considering that evidence, it is no wonder that many liberal Christians claim that the flood story is allegorical, and of course, the story of Adam and Eve, and many other Old Testament stories. From a Christian perspective, an allegory is the best explanation, but a God who inspired the flood story as an allegory would be causing lots of unnecessary, and needless confusion.

Dr. Bart Ehrman has a book on Bible forgeries. If you wish, you can read an article by him at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html.

Dr. Richard Carrier has an article on the New Testament canon at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html that show that the formation of the New Testament canon was questionable.

 

[Agnostic75]

That is another ridiculous argument. There is obviously no comparison that can be made between practicing abstinence for a year or two, and practicing it for decades.

The heck there can't. I know of no reason there would be any additional problems but here certainly would be not prohibitive problems. This is more rationalization.

No, you do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about. I have posted the following information a number of times in at least three different threads:

Sexual abstinence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Queen's University Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal found that "men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards". The report also cited other studies to show that having sex even a few times a week may be associated with the following: improved sense of smell; reduced risk of heart disease; weight loss and overall fitness; reduced depression; the relief or lessening of pain; less frequent colds and flu; better bladder control; and better teeth. The report cited a study published by the British Journal of Urology International which indicated that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.

There have been numerous studies indicating that excessive repression of the sexual instinct leads to an increase in the overall level of aggression in a given society. Societies forbidding premarital sex are plagued by acts of rage and tend to have higher rates of crime and violence. There may be a link between sexual repression and aggression, insensitivity, criminal behaviour, and a greater likelihood of killing and torturing enemies.

THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE.

If we confine ourselves to modern times and to fairly precise medical statements, we find in Schurig's Spermatologia (1720, pp. 274 et seq.), not only a discussion of the advantages of moderate sexual intercourse in a number of disorders, as witnessed by famous authorities, but also a list of results—including anorexia, insanity, impotence, epilepsy, even death—which were believed to have been due to sexual abstinence. This extreme view of the possible evils of sexual abstinence seems to have been part of the Renaissance traditions of medicine stiffened by a certain opposition between religion and science. It was still rigorously stated by Lallemand early in the nineteenth century. Subsequently, the medical statements of the evil results of sexual abstinence became more temperate and measured, though still often pronounced. Thus Gyurkovechky believes that these results may be as serious as those of sexual excess. Krafft-Ebing showed that sexual abstinence could produce a state of general nervous excitement (Jahrbuch für Psychiatrie, Bd. viii, Heft 1 and 2). Schrenck-Notzing regards sexual abstinence as a cause of extreme sexual hyperæsthesia and of various perversions (in a chapter on sexual abstinence in his Kriminalpsychologische und Psychopathologische Studien, 1902, pp. 174-178).

Pearce Gould, it may be added, finds that "excessive ungratified sexual desire" is one of the causes of acute orchitis. Remondino ("Some Observations on Continence as a Factor in Health and Disease," Pacific Medical Journal, Jan., 1900) records the case of a gentleman of nearly seventy who, during the prolonged illness of his wife, suffered from frequent and extreme priapism, causing insomnia. He was very certain that his troubles were not due to his continence, but all treatment failed and there were no spontaneous emissions. At last Remondino advised him to, as he expresses it, "imitate Solomon." He did so, and all the symptoms at once disappeared. This case is of special interest, because the symptoms were not accompanied by any conscious sexual desire.

The whole subject of sexual abstinence has been discussed at length by Nyström, of Stockholm, in Das Geschlechtsleben und seine Gesetze, Ch. III. He concludes that it is desirable that continence should be preserved as long as possible in order to strengthen the physical health and to develop the intelligence and character. The doctrine of permanent sexual abstinence, however, he regards as entirely false, except in the case of a small number of religious or philosophic persons. "Complete abstinence during a long period of years cannot be borne without producing serious results both on the body and the mind.......

Many advocates of sexual abstinence have attached importance to the fact that men of great genius have apparently been completely continent throughout life. This is certainly true (see ante, p. 173). But this fact can scarcely be invoked as an argument in favor of the advantages of sexual abstinence among the ordinary population. J. F. Scott selects Jesus, Newton, Beethoven, and Kant as "men of vigor and mental acumen who have lived chastely as bachelors." It cannot, however, be said that Dr. Scott has been happy in the four figures whom he has been able to select from the whole history of human genius as examples of life-long sexual abstinence. We know little with absolute certainty of Jesus, and even if we reject the diagnosis which Professor Binet-Sanglé (in his Folie de Jesus) has built up from a minute study of the Gospels, there are many reasons why we should refrain from emphasizing the example of his sexual abstinence; Newton, apart from his stupendous genius in a special field, was an incomplete and unsatisfactory human being who ultimately reached a condition very like insanity; Beethoven was a thoroughly morbid and diseased man, who led an intensely unhappy existence; Kant, from first to last, was a feeble valetudinarian. It would probably be difficult to find a healthy normal man who would voluntarily accept the life led by any of these four, even as the price of their fame. J. A. Godfrey (Science of Sex, pp. 139-147) discusses at length the question whether sexual abstinence is favorable to ordinary intellectual vigor, deciding that it is not, and that we cannot argue from the occasional sexual abstinence of men of genius, who are often abnormally constituted, and physically below the average, to the normally developed man. Sexual abstinence, it may be added, is by no means always a favorable sign, even in men who stand intellectually above the average.

Numerous distinguished gynæcologists have recorded their belief that sexual excitement is a remedy for various disorders of the sexual system in women, and that abstinence is a cause of such disorders.

In addition, when you practiced abstinence, you knew that after a year or so, you would be able to enjoy having sex again.

No I didn't.

Why didn't you? Regardless, most servicemen who do not have access to women for many months believe that they will be able to have sex again in a year or two.

There is little doubt that eventually, you would have become frustrated with practicing abstinence. As I pointed out it got increasingly easier not harder. The first few weeks were the hard part. Eventually it became a non-issue.

As I pointed out it got increasingly easier not harder. The first few weeks were the hard part. Eventually it became a non-issue.

That is absurd. First of all, your personal experiences, even if true, are not representative of the majority of heterosexual men. Second, the evidence that I posted reasonably proves that having sex has significant health benefits, and that long term abstinence has significant health risks.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Agnostic75]

I tell you what you may delete that post if you wish. It will not change a thing. I doubt it is significantly in error but it would make no difference if it was.

Much of your post #304 is definitely false, misleading, or poorly documented, and it does not take anywhere an expert to know that. I could give you a number of examples if you wish. The general state of physical, and mental health of all homosexuals is much better than you believe it is. You do not want to discuss your post #304 since you know that very little, if any of it applies to the majority of homosexuals.

Regarding the shorter life span of homosexuals, the life span of monogamous homosexuals is much higher than the life span of homosexuals in general. In addition, if monogamous homosexuals practiced abstinence, in many cases, they would not live as long, and they would have medical expenses due to the proven health risks of long term abstinence.

It is reasonable to say that the physical, and mental health of an unknown percentage of homosexuals compares favorably with the physical, and mental health of heterosexuals. After all, some heads of state, some Olympic gold medalists, some Ph.D.s, some high income earners, and some people over 65 years of age, are homosexuals. In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died from AIDS. In the same year, about 600,000 Americans died from heart disease alone, and the vast majority of them were heterosexuals. Heart disease is often preventable.

By 2030, which is 17 years from now, about half of Americans will be obese, which will add over 500 million dollars to health care costs. Two wrongs do not make a right, but everyone who is at risk from any preventable medical problem is to blame, not just homosexuals.

Since you are concerned with reducing medical costs, and suffering from homosexuality, in order to be fair, you should also be concerned with the following groups of heterosexuals who are at risk from STDs, and other medical problems:

1. All heterosexual black Americans who live in black American communities.

2. All heterosexual black people who live in sub-Saharan African countries.

3. All heterosexuals in the world who live in poverty.

4. All heterosexuals in the world who are 45 years of age. and over, and are not needed to maintain the population, which would be case in most countries.

5. All heterosexuals in the world who died prematurely from heart disease, cancer, and obesity who could have prevented their illnesses.

Consider the following:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/10/us-pregnancy-risks-idUSTRE6A94TK20101110

For the few women who manage to get pregnant after age 45, both they and their babies have a higher risk of complications, Israeli researchers have found. For instance, they are about three times more likely than younger women to experience diabetes and high blood pressure during their pregnancies, the researchers report in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Older women also have higher rates of preterm births and placenta previa, in which the placenta blocks the opening to the birth canal.
"Increasing age leads to less (healthy) individuals, and less healthy individuals do have higher pregnancy risks," Dr. Maximilian Franz of the Medical University of Vienna, who did not participate in the study, told Reuters Health.

That is another important reason why women over 45 years of age should practice abstinence, at least according to your philosophy.

Since heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, and could do far more to reduce health care costs, and suffering, than homosexuals could, they are much more at fault than homosexuals are.

Regarding the five groups of heterosexuals who I mentioned, there are hundreds of millions of them, maybe over one billion of them, or even over two billion of them. Solutions are needed for them far more than solutions are needed for homosexuals. Logically, the more that a group of people threaten the health care system, the more that solutions are needed for their inappropriate behaviors.

So, some homosexuals are in the same boat with hundreds of millions, or billions of heterosexuals. Two wrongs do not make a right, but everyone who is at risk from any preventable medical problem is to blame, not just homosexuals, and it is unfair for you to spend an inordinate amount of your time primarily criticizing homosexuals, especially since heterosexuals as a whole are far more dangerous to the survival of the earth than homosexuals are as a whole.

If aliens abducted all homosexuals from the world, over 95% of health care costs would still exist, and global warming would still be the greatest threat to humans in history by far, and has been primarily caused by heterosexuals.

You once said that you do not have anything personal against homosexuals who have died, and did not harm you, or anyone else. Let's call all homosexuals who died, and whose physical, and mental health compared favorably with heterosexuals Group A. Over the next 100 years, millions of homosexuals will die whose physical, and mental health compared favorably with heterosexuals. Let's call them Group B. Over the next 100 years, millions of homosexuals will die whose physical, and mental health did not compare favorably with heterosexuals. Let's call them Group C. Why did you criticize Group B, and Group C, but not Group A?

In order for your plan to work, both Group B, and Group C would have to practice abstinence. As I have told you before, even if Group B practiced abstinence, Group C would not, and nothing practical would be gained, and some of Group B would have unnecessary suffering, and medical expenses due to the proven health risks of long term abstinence. Even if there were no health risks from long term abstinence, there are not any good reasons for Group B not to enjoy having sex.

You have argued that Group B do not know who they are, and thus should not play the game. It is true that Group B do not know who they are, but most of them trust that their current intentions, and practices regarding health issues will remain similar for the rest of their lives. History will eventually show that they were right, and that their trust in themselves was warranted, and that they beat the odds. The should play the game, but even if they shouldn't, no more harm will have been done than heterosexuals will do.

Regarding homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, and whose physical, and mental health compares favorably with heterosexuals, there is obviously no need for them to practice abstinence.

What percentage of homosexuals do you suppose have physical, and mental health that compares favorably with heterosexuals? Based upon many of your posts, I think that your guess might be only 1%. The actual percentage would be a good deal higher, but even 1% of homosexuals in the world would be about 1.4 million homosexuals who do not need to practice abstinence.

In the U.S., it has become a political liability in swing states to oppose homosexuality, and same-sex marriage, The majority of Republicans now support same-sex marriage. The Mormon church has made a dramatic turnaround, and their hierarchy no longer politically opposes same-sex marriage, although they still consider homosexuality to be a sin. Do you recommend that Republicans in swing states openly oppose homosexuality, and same-sex marriage?

Please make a post in my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...52974-does-god-bible-give-everyone-least.html.

Please reply to my two previous posts.

 

[payak]

Right. And we don't have to like what interracial couples do. They have the right to do it.

I kind of said that already, is their an echo here.

 

[payak]

Thank you for that.



But what you have to do was never an issue.

Why don't you like what homosexuals do? What do you recommend that they do?

Are you aware that sexual identity is not a choice?

I recommend they do what they want to do, just don't ask me to like it, in the grand scheme of things i'm nobody so whats it matter.

I don't like it, and I never will.

 

[Agnostic75]

I recommend they do what they want to do, just don't ask me to like it, in the grand scheme of things, I'm a nobody so what's it matter.

Having significant status is not required in order to make posts at this forum. In elections, the votes of nobodies count just as much as the votes of anyone else.

I don't like it, and I never will.

I am not asking you to like it, but will you please explain why you do not like it?

If you had a son who was a homosexual, would you treat him any differently than you would if he was a heterosexual?

Would you hire a qualified homosexual to work for you?

 

[payak]

Having significant status is not required in order to make posts at this forum. In elections, the votes of nobodies count just as much as the votes of anyone else.



I am not asking you to like it, but will you please explain why you do not like it?

If you had a son who was a homosexual, would you treat him any differently than you would if he was a heterosexual?

Would you hire a qualified homosexual to work for you?

yes I would hire a homosexual and if I had a son I would love him all the same, I would not however like what they do.

if my son tries cramming French fries into his ear I will not like it, the body by its very design has tools created wether by nature or by god for a purpose.

 

[Agnostic75]

I myself feel we are being forced in society today to say we are pro homosexuality.

That is true regarding some countries, but it is not true in many other countries. For most of human history, homosexuals were persecuted in most of the world.

We are not entitled to an opinion, myself I find it disgusting and abnormal however it would not be a problem if the media did not thrust it into your face every chance they get.

Wrongfully oppressed minorities have a habit of trying to get equal rights, and acceptance, such as regarding women, black people, and native American Indians.

You said that homosexuality is abnormal. However, it is quite normal for a minority of over 1500 species of animals and birds, and minority of humans, to practice it, and all bonobo monkeys are bisexual.

What is most important is what is beneficial, or harmful, not what is abnormal. It is beneficial for homosexuals to have safe sex, and long term abstinence has proven health risks.

Since sexual identity is not a choice, homosexuals are only doing what feels natural for them.

Do you find homosexuality to be more disgusting than heart disease is? If so, why? In 2010, about 600,000 Americans died of heart disease, and most of them were heterosexuals. Far fewer people died of AIDS, which was about 15,000. Heart disease is often preventable.

 

[Agnostic75]

Yes I would hire a homosexual and if I had a son I would love him all the same, I would not however like what they do.

If my son tries cramming French fries into his ear I will not like it, the body by its very design has tools created whether by nature or by god for a purpose.

Cramming French fries into the ear can be harmful, and serves no useful purpose. Safe same-sex behavior usually serves a useful purpose.

If a God exists, he created homosexuality in over 1500 species of animals and birds, and causes all bonobo monkeys to be bisexual. Why would a God have chosen to do that?

I am not recommending that humans do everything that animals do, nor am I recommending that animals do everything that humans do, such as destroying the earth with global warming, and many other ways. It all gets down to what animals do that is beneficial for them, and what humans do that is beneficial for them. Homosexuality is beneficial for some homosexuals.

If the universe is naturalistic, evolution somehow caused homosexuality. Homosexuals are not responsible for that, or for their sexual identity since sexual identity is not a choice, nor are they responsible for their sexual identity if a God exists.

 

[Katzpur]

The Mormon church has made a dramatic turnaround, and their hierarchy no longer politically opposes same-sex marriage, although they still consider homosexuality to be a sin.

Actually, the LDS Church heirarchy still strongly opposes same-sex marriage. They've just finally stopped taking an active roll in the political process when the matter is put to a vote (thank goodness). And they do seem to be encouraging their general membership to look on the LGBT community a little less judgmentally.

 

[payak]

Cramming French fries into the ear can be harmful, and serves no useful purpose. Safe same-sex behavior usually serves a useful purpose.

If a God exists, he created homosexuality in over 1500 species of animals and birds, and causes all bonobo monkeys to be bisexual. Why would a God have chosen to do that?

I am not recommending that humans do everything that animals do, nor am I recommending that animals do everything that humans do, such as destroying the earth with global warming, and many other ways. It all gets down to what animals do that is beneficial for them, and what humans do that is beneficial for them. Homosexuality is beneficial for some homosexuals.

If the universe is naturalistic, evolution somehow caused homosexuality. Homosexuals are not responsible for that, or for their sexual identity since sexual identity is not a choice, nor are they responsible for their sexual identity if a God exists.

do you know rats eat their young, so when Jeffrey darmha was on the stand he could of argued eating people was natural according to your train of thought.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

do you know rats eat their young, so when Jeffrey darmha was on the stand he could of argued eating people was natural according to your train of thought.

You don't appear to have read the post you're responding to in it's entirety. I'll repost it with emphasis for you:

Cramming French fries into the ear can be harmful, and serves no useful purpose. Safe same-sex behavior usually serves a useful purpose.

If a God exists, he created homosexuality in over 1500 species of animals and birds, and causes all bonobo monkeys to be bisexual. Why would a God have chosen to do that?

I am not recommending that humans do everything that animals do, nor am I recommending that animals do everything that humans do, such as destroying the earth with global warming, and many other ways. It all gets down to what animals do that is beneficial for them, and what humans do that is beneficial for them. Homosexuality is beneficial for some homosexuals.

If the universe is naturalistic, evolution somehow caused homosexuality. Homosexuals are not responsible for that, or for their sexual identity since sexual identity is not a choice, nor are they responsible for their sexual identity if a God exists.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Christians are not supposed to hate anyone but we must be intolerant of gross sin while being aware that no man can live w/o breaking God's eternal Law (why we need Jesus for forgiveness). However, often people confuse telling the truth (it offends many though) and hateful behavior. Gay behavior is still an abomination, even under the New testament.

There are a number of verses in the New Testament that both directly and indirectly reinforce what was said in verses in the Old testament on this issue. In other words, God's purpose for marriage [between 1 man & 1 woman, emphasis added] never changes but pride [i.e. pride parades] comes before the fall of mankind. Its a sign for the end-times.

One cannot remain gay, bi, etc and be Christian. It MOCKS God. If you sleep with or marry same sex it is in effect sleeping with or marrying yourself=lover of self=abomination (valid reason against it=right vs wrong love). Such relationships&marriages distort/merge/blurs God's male/female creation characteristics, attributes & purpose-Lv 18:22/Rm1:26-32/1Pt 4:3-4/Gal5:19-21/1Cr6:18-20.

Even 1 man&woman marriages cant b rightly put together w/o seeing God's purpose=the reason divorce rates have accelerated. God made Adam&Eve not Adam&Steve. It also hurts families&children(child sees 2 men kissing, etc.-children thinks its normal&they copy adults).

Only 1 God can occupy infinity=God of Israel=the only position no cause needed can exist&u can declare the end from the beginning=the Bible. Its only fully provable b/c Jesus is God's Son&He wasn't talking out 2nor1000s of sides of His mouth=no confusion.

In history only Jesus said He's the way, truth&life-no1 sees God w/o Him(Jn 14:6/5:39/Act4:12)=All new&other claims r false/godless or Jesus is 1 more false prophet 2 ignore.

Whether its b/c of so-called natural origin, hardwired or by choice gay behavior is against God's purpose. Only Jesus can rewire our brains to accept what is right. We can't change ourselves as we can't understand God's purpose w/o going through Jesus.

Oh dear. So you think people become gay by observing gay people? You're not serious, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you aware that less than a century ago people thought the exact same thing about interracial relationships?

As for the media "thrusting it into your face every chance they get", I think that's a ridiculous thing to say. Do you have any idea how often heterosexuality is portrayed in popular media compared with homosexuality? It's not difficult to avoid it unless you're looking for it. Frankly, this kind of backwards thinking has no place in modern society.

Hear, hear!! :clap2::cheer:

 

[SkepticThinker]

Acting like monkeys hurts millions, even those that do not practice the behavior, and costs billions.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate this.