Are you saying the only need for a male and female to truly be together is to reproduce the species the influence they both have on the ones they create is irrevelant?
Is that like saying we are truly no better off than some Animals where the males only come around when the female is in heat impregnate her then hit the road?
I am just wondering why some of you that say a same sex relationship is just as relevant as a male/female one.
Don't you think the majority of people like the fact that they have a heritage on both sides of there families (Mom and Dad) that they have blood Grandparents Uncles, Aunts Cousins is that just a ancient thought that does not matter or is valued in the 21st century?
2007-11-28 07:19:51 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I've got a news flash for ya, kiddo...
Humans ARE animals.
2007-11-28 07:29:07 · answer #1 · answered by The Reverend Soleil 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
"Are you saying the only need for a male and female to truly be together is to reproduce the species"
Technically, yes.
"the influence they both have on the ones they create is irrevelant?"
No. Everyone in your life influences you. The people who are around you the most (usu. your family especially in your first 18 or so yrs.) influence you the most.
If you were adopted by a male/female couple or a same sex couple, they would influence you the same way your parents would.
"Don't you think the majority of people like the fact that they have a heritage on both sides of there families (Mom and Dad) that they have blood Grandparents Uncles, Aunts Cousins is that just a ancient thought that does not matter or is valued in the 21st century?"
It's nice to have, but doesn't change who you are. These days you get what you get in life because of your talents and your work ethic (and a bit of luck)...but not so much because you are related to so-and-so. (There are exceptions, like Paris Hilton who's famous because her family is rich..)
So it's sort of ancient.
2007-11-28 15:38:27 · answer #2 · answered by little_elven 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, the belief that relationships should only be based on opposite sex would be closer to the "we are truly no better off than some Animals where the males only come around when the female is in heat impregnate her then hit the road" claim. It's the anti-homosexual people that insinuate that sex is for reproductive purposes only.
We believe that any consenting adult relationship based on love is equally relevant.
2007-11-28 15:29:26 · answer #3 · answered by Jess H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
All relationships are relevant. But I am curious as to why you dragged kids into this. Of course all kids want to know their heritage. In an ideal world, all kids would. But we don't live in such a world. And from your final paragraph, I assume you are against adoption, since this would take away all blood ties from a child. Most same sex couples adopt kids that were unwanted and give them wonderful homes. Are you so afraid of gay people that you would deny a child a good home and loving parents? Would you force people who choose to give birth and give up their child to keep and raise the child? That is the only way I can see that the child would keep it's blood ties to it's family. But, blood does not make a family. Love does. Think about that.
2007-11-28 15:38:27 · answer #4 · answered by magix151 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since you brought up animals, many animals mate and then raise their offspring, at that point they may separate or they may stay together. In social animals, there are same sex relationships as a bonding element.
What people like is irrelevant to facts, and would be different if they were raised in a different family structure. Imagine if you were raised in a 3 parent home, where 2 parents worked ans there was always one at home to "be there" for you. Not only that but you'd have 3 sets of grandparents... What you like is what you are used to.
2007-11-28 15:29:04 · answer #5 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
wrong - it depends on the species - some including humans followed a method where a family was the best way to survive - others using this strategy include wolves. So no, evolution did not favor the male to only be a dna provider for many species of animals - it is unknown why some people are homosexual - this behavoir is also seen in some animals - but it IS genetic - understand that environment can turn genes on or off - or it could be a defect that occurs after/before conception.
edit
if you think homosexuality is a choice - YOU ARE GAY
2007-11-28 15:23:16 · answer #6 · answered by PD 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
The point is, relationships, even in animals, aren't just sexual. A lot of animals value companionship, and humans are one such species.
People of different genders don't always start relationships so that they can reproduce, so it only follows that people of the same gender can still have a relationship based on companionship.
I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but I've answered as best I can.
2007-11-28 15:45:38 · answer #7 · answered by JC 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Are you saying the only need for a male and female to truly be together is to reproduce the species the influence they both have on the ones they create is irrevelant?"
Genetically speaking, yes.
2007-11-28 16:31:31 · answer #8 · answered by Scumspawn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is now possible for a human female to be impregnated without the help of a man at all. Men are "obsolete". Your question is silly. What the heck does this have to do with a same-sex relationship, and why the heck do you care? As long as you aren't the one involved, its none of your business, and you aren't going to stop it by wishing it so.
2007-11-28 15:29:50 · answer #9 · answered by Paul Hxyz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If homosexuality is scientific and inside the genes then it is a wrong mutation capable to extinct the human race... better stop homosexuals before it is too late.
This is not a hate msg but a wake up call to those who promote/preach/prescribe homosexuality as a reason of some genes and want to go uncontrolled.
2007-11-28 15:32:00 · answer #10 · answered by rupert4christ 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
*sight*
OK, first off commas are your friend, use them. Second yes, the main reason for species to have sexual reproduction is propagate it's own species. This however does not imply that us humans want to be with a partner for reproduction only, we also seek companionship like several other species of primates. Also note that some people, like some animal species are more polygamous than others.
On the case of homosexuality, if a person chooses to be with someone of their same sex let them be, in some species they even trans-gender.
And how does the last question relate to your question as a whole or even to evolution?
2007-11-28 15:22:33 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋