Same sex marriage

Though this seems to be a drive-by posting (even though funk is a regular poster)....

quote:

---

However I must protest because I see the adoption of children into gay families as the logical next step. This bothers me immensly. I would have felt this way even if I was not a Christian.

---

So you're saying that it is better for a child to remain in foster care and be a ward of the state than to be adopted by a loving couple? Being raised by gay parents is worse than having no parents at all?Is that what you're saying?Methinks you've fallen for all the lies you've been told about what gay people are like. What could possibly be problematic with gay people raising children? Do you think the children will turn gay? Considering that the vast majority of gay people were raised by straight parents, I don't think being raised by straight parents is exactly a hedge against that. In fact, there is no difference in outcome comparing straight parents to gay parents with regard to the sexual orientation of their children.But more importantly, why is that a problem? What is wrong with being gay? Why should parents be upset if their children turn out to be gay? Do you obsess about the color of your child's eyes or the texture of your child's hair? Would it be the end of the world if your child decided to be a scientist or an athlete or a actor? What if your child decided to become an author? Or convert to another religion? Suppose your child became a vegetarian or told you that your cooking stinks? Would that really be the end of the world?So why the overreaction to your child's sexuality?Do you think that gay people are going to sexually abuse the children? If so, let your heart be put at ease because it actually turns out that gay people are less likely to molest children than straight people.Do you think that children raised in families headed by gay people will have more difficulty in adjusting to society? Again, there is no evidence for this. The children of gay parents are no more likely to get in trouble, have the same grade levels, are no more likely to do drugs or engage in premarital sex, etc., etc.In short, there appears to be absolutely no difference between children in families headed by a straight couple and those in families headed by a gay couple.I highly recommend reading the transcripts of the Hawaii case from a few years ago regarding same-sex marriage. One of the arguments put forward by the District Attorney to prevent marriage was the question of children. It turns out that the State's own witnesses couldn't come up with a single reason indicating children are worse off in gay households compared to straight households.So one has to wonder: Why are you so upset over this? What could be the source of this visceral reaction of yours?What are you afraid of?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

SLPx writes:

quote:

---

I know that I would not want to use children in some sort of social experiment, in the name of 'rights.'

---

What makes you think the reason anybody wants to adopt a child is because of a "social experiment, in the name of 'rights'"? Are you seriously saying that gay people adopt children in order to make a political statement rather than because of their love?What do you make of the people who adopt children from overseas? For example, there are many children in orphanages in foreign countries who are suffering from the horrible conditions there. Is it a bad thing for these Americans to adopt children of different ethnic backgrounds? Are they doing it for a political statement?What are you afraid of? Why do you seem to be so determined to make gay people out to be the bad guy, completely evil in every thought and deed, incapable of having any compassion or any other redeeming feature?What are you afraid of?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

[delete][This message has been edited by Rrhain, 07-24-2003]

DC85 writes:

quote:

---

I don't criticize but

---

Um...if you have to use the word "but," then you're criticizing.

quote:

---

Personally I don't see how homosexuality is Possible

---

Why? You certainly hope that somebody of a certain sex finds your sex attractive, yes? Then what is so bizarre with someone of the other sex also finding it attractive? Only females can find males sexy? Only males can find females sexy?

quote:

---

your Brain can not be in the wrong type of Body.

---

Um, you've just confused transgender with homosexuality. Gay men don't want to be women. They don't think they are women. Gay women don't want to be men. They don't think they are men. They are men and women who identify as men and women, respectively, and want to have sex with their own sex.

quote:

---

Because its not your brain that makes you feel that way its the chemicals in your body.

---

How can you separate the brain from its neurotransmitters? A neuron cannot interact with any other neuron without the release of neurotransmitters. If your neurotransmitters are released making you aroused when you see someone of your own sex, it's your brain that is responding because those neurotransmitters are part of your brain.

quote:

---

how can a male possibly have Female ones if they are a male?

---

You seem to think that a male who is gay has excess estrogen or that a female who is gay has excess testosterone. This isn't true.By the way, males do produce estrogen in the adrenal glands. Too, testosterone is converted into the female hormone estradiol in the brain. It's part of the hormone regulation system. The same FH/LSH cycle in women happens in men, too, but rather than the estrogen being the trigger, the testosterone has to get converted into a form that the brain recognizes...and it happens to be the female hormone, estradiol.

quote:

---

you don't see Homosexuality in other animals so why us?

---

Oh, you most certainly do. In fact, homosexuality has been seen in pretty much every mammalian species and many non-mammalian species, too.I highly recommend Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl. It has an exhaustive list of the species in which homosexual activity has been seen and the book, itself, describes how it appears. In some species, members of the same sex often pair-bond for life, just like their heterosexual counterparts.There's a very nice point in the book:

quote:

---

(we are animals and Love is only the word we use for attachment and a true love is the chosen mate I don't believe we have Feelings other animals don't)

---

So why the attitude? Even if we were to assume that only humans are gay, why is that problematic? Humans do not behave like dogs even though dogs are also animals. Dogs don't behave like cats. Cats don't behave like birds. Birds don't behave like fish. Fish don't behave like insects. Why should humans behave like other animals?

quote:

---

I am not downing it I just don't understand........

---

What's not to understand?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

DC85 responds to me:

quote:

---

was that post really needed?

---

If I didn't think so, I wouldn't have made it. You made some fundamental statements regarding sexuality that seemed to be in error. I was pointing out not just that you were wrong but the specific reasons why so that you might learn.This is a bulletin board system. When you make a post, you risk a lot of people responding, often saying the same thing. Get over it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

SLPx writes:

quote:

---

As far as the 'social experiment', again, I did not write or even imply that gay couples would want to adopt BECAUSE they wanted to perform a social experiment, rather gay adoption ends up BEING a de facto social experiment.

---

My apologies for misinterpreting you, but it hinged on a couple parts of your statement: "Use" children? Who is "using" children? That would be the people who are adopting the children and the agencies that place them in adoption, right? And what is the point behind saying "use children" if not to question the motives of those people who are trying to adopt them and the people who are trying to place them?In short, it suggests that you are saying that the people who are trying to adopt and the people who are trying to place the children have some sort of ulterior motive for doing so above and beyond the desire to provide a loving home for a child who has no parents. That is very different, in my mind, from an attitude that the motives of the parents and the placement agencies are pure but that there is going to be a problem from the surrounding society."In the name of 'rights'"? We're back to that question of impugning the integrity of the people involved in adopting the child. Who possibly thinks that the reason that a child should be adopted is simply because it is his right to do so? What does that mean, "in the name of 'rights'"? What is the point of saying this if not to suggest that there is an ulterior motive among those wishing to adopt and those looking to place children above and beyond the desire to provide a loving home for a child who has no parents? It shows, in my mind, an attitude very different from someone trying to say that the motives behind the adoption are pure but that there is a social stigma in the surrounding community.This is only compounded by the phrase, "social experiment," because that is precisely the phrase used by those who oppose adoption by gay parents. Despite the fact that thousands upon thousands of children have been raised by gay parents already, those that seek to discriminate against those who aren't straight seem to feel that the motive behind gay parents wishing to adopt is an active attempt to destroy society, bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! and all that.For example, they forget that there are gay women. While a man needs a woman to bear a child, a woman only needs a man's sperm and then she can take care of the rest. In our society, if a couple has a child, she is overwhelmingly more likely to be awarded custody than he is (partly socilogical logistics, partly sexism). Thus, there are many gay women who are the sole custodial parent of children. If they then find a partner, it only makes sense that the new partner might want to adopt the children of her partner. Similarly for those women who become pregant from artificial insemination. At that point, the bearer of the child has custody but the partner needs to adopt the child.The point is that these children are growing up in homes headed by gay people anyway and have been for decades. So where is this "social experiment" that is taking place? It belies an attitude that gay people raising children is a new thing. You may think that it is a "social experiment" for gays to raise children, but I have to wonder how many years have to pass where gays have been raising children before the experiment comes to an end.And when you look at the statements of people who use the phrase "social experiment," you find that they impugn the integrity of those who are trying to adopt. They are so certain that heterosexuality is the only thing that can possibly cause a good outcome, so certain that gays want to "recruit," so certain that to let a gay person anywhere near a child is going to cause irreparable damage (at the very least turn the child gay if not molestation of the child), that they use this phrase, "social experiment," as a code term in order to scare people away from placing a child in a loving home. This same term, "social experiment," is used to deny gays from serving in the military.That is why I responded the way I did. Your personal opinion may be that the problem lies in the society surrounding the child rather than the parents and adoption agencies, but that one statement pretty much said the exact opposite. It contained two phrases that I can't manage to interpret any other way and another that used the exact phrasing of those who wish to keep children out of loving homes.Again, I am sorry for misinterpreting you, but what you said was an almost word-for-word statement from the homophobes who were fighting against same-sex marriage in Hawaii...we can't allow same-sex marriage because it would lead to children being adopted by gay couples and we cannot allow gays to "use children in some sort of social experiment, in the name of 'rights.'" It is almost a word-for-word statement from the homophobes in Florida who fought against adoption by gays.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mr Jack writes:

quote:

---

But because I think there's resonable evidence that having a mother and father is the best environment for a child to be raised in.

---

As I stated previously, I highly recommend you look over the transcript of the Hawaii case regarding same-sex marriage (Baehr v. Miike). One of the arguments the attorney general put forward in the State's case to prevent same-sex marriage was that it would lead to gay adoption.The State's own witnesses couldn't come up with a reason for thinking that heterosexual couples make better parents than gay couples. For example, one of their witnesses was a Dr. Thomas Merrill who testified as follows:Q. Now, doctor, do you think the
children, regardless of whether they have a
mother and a father, male-female parents,
single parents, adoptive parents, gay and
lesbian parents, same gender parents, should
have the same opportunity in society to reach
their optimum development, each child?
A. Yes, I do.Now, you have said that the issue is that you think that straight parents are better but aren't sure. What are you planning to do to become more sure? Might you consider withholding judgement until such time as you become more sure?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mr Jack responds to me:

quote:

---

I therefor conclude that children, probably, require both male and female parent figures in their lives in order to have the best possible development. Would you agree this is a reasonable conclusion from that evidence?

---

Hard to say...I know of much different evidence that shows that children raised by gay parents show no difference in outcome compared to children raised by straight parents (for example, the Bay Area Family Study and the Contemporary Family Study).So the problem is not so much the conclusion but the premises on which it is based. There is no reason to prefer opposite-sex couples over same-sex couples. The children of gay parents show no higher rates of drug use, delinquency, truancy, etc., no lower rates of graduation, college attendance, etc.The overwhelming predictor of outcome in a family is not the sex of the parents but how well they get along. Parents who love each other make better parents than those who don't.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

DC85 writes:

quote:

---

it would Be Extremely hard for a child in that type of Environment not Because the parents are Gay and can't make a happy home its Because of Other children!

---

That isn't what the experts in child development say.Again, it seems that you, too, are of the opinion that gays raising children is a new thing. To the contrary, gays have been raising children for decades. What is this "social experiment"?Will children tease other children because their parents are gay? Of course. But then again, children will tease other children for everything. Should we not allow Jewish parents who live in predominantly Christian neighborhoods from adopting children lest the other children make fun of them for their religion? Should atheists not be allowed to adopt children?

quote:

---

Right now in the USA it seems to be the Biggest Insult to Call someone Gay. its really a Big deal. to have a Kid in a family like that? to me thats really NO.

---

Even though the children, themselves, don't seem to have a problem with it? Again, children will always find something to pick on the other kids about. Doesn't matter what.

quote:

---

I know it was torture being fat in school... and right now thats noting compared to Homosexuality.

---

Oh really? How would you know?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mr Jack responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

know of much different evidence that shows that children raised by gay parents show no difference in outcome compared to children raised by straight parents (for example, the Bay Area Family Study and the Contemporary Family Study).

---

​

Are these available online? Can you provide a link to them?

---

Not that I'm aware of, but I haven't gone looking.I do know that the Baehr v. Miike decision is online which includes the testimony of Dr. Charlotte Patterson who referenced them. Court Decision, Baehr vs. Miike (complete text)------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

messenjaH writes:

quote:

---

Same sex marriages have just become illegal in the USA

---

Really? Was there a court decision just now?The current state of the law as I understand is that there is a Federal law saying that the Federal government will not recognize same-sex marriage and 36 states have enacted similar legislation.However, the Massachussetts Supreme Court is set to rule regarding same-sex marriage in that state and are expected to say that it is unconstitutional to bar same-sex marriage.So I'm wondering where you got the "just become."

quote:

---

A gay person as one of the figureheads of a church is fundamentally wrong on every level.

---

Only if you think that you're the only one who has a correct view of how a church is supposed to be.Fortunately, the Episcopalian church is only beholden to its congregation, not you.

quote:

---

In the bible homosexuality has been noted as a sin many times.

---

No, in the Bible, homosexuality as we understand it is never mentioned. Instead, there are 4 (or 6, depending on how you interpret it) admonitions against temple prostitution and ritualistic sex.This is in comparison to over 300 admonitions against various types of heterosexual sex (including heterosexual temple prostitution and ritualistic sex.)This doesn't mean god loves straights any less than gays...just that they need more supervision.

quote:

---

I mean to ignore many, many parts of the bible

---

Have you considered the possibility that the Bible doesn't say what you think it says?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

messenjaH responds to me:

quote:

---

The bible says clearly that homosexuality is a sin, are you that blinded?

---

Nope. Just that educated.Leviticus says nothing about homosexuality. It's about temple prostitution.1 and 2 Kings are about inhospitality, not homosexuals. Surely you don't think that the sin of Sodom had anything to do with sex, do you?I'm having a hard time finding the Judges 14:14-29 passages you're referring to since Judges 14 only has 20 verses and is about Samson and his wife.Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy are all about temple prostitution.Question: What words are used in those passages? To take a single example, what do you think "arsenkoites" means? Paul makes up this word. It's a conglomeration of two other words which mean "male" and "prostitute."Now it is quite true that there was same-sex sexual activity going on insde the temples for the fertility rites. But there was also opposite-sex sex going on. The condemnation is not against the sex, per se. It's about the reason why it is taking place, the fact that it is outside of marriage, that it is being used to worship something other than god. These rites were the sign of pagan worship, antathema to the monotheistic Jews.

quote:

---

You see, I stand to my words as homosexuality has been mentioned in the bible

---

Since the word "homosexual" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible, I fail to see how you have proven anything.And I'm not playing a semantic game of requiring that specific word. I'm talking about the specific concept of what we understand "homosexual" to be. The ancients had no concept of what we would call "homosexual," so how on earth could they be saying anything about it?I've got an object on my bathroom counter. Tell me something about it like its color. How big is it? Is it a unique item or part of a set? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?Do you see my point? With no knowledge about it, you can't tell me anything about it. So since the concept of "homosexual" didn't exist then, how could there possibly be any passage about it?

quote:

---

For a gay person to become a figurehead of a church is to ignore almost every book in the bible.

---

Why not? David was. And he was king.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

Sorry, but the destruction of Sodom is about something much more than homosexuality. Yes it doesn't help matters that they are lusting after men, but the main point is the poor treatment of strangers.

---

Not only was the sin of Sodom inhospitality, there was no indication of homosexuality to be found in the story.The single phrase that makes some people think it has something to do with sex is this:Genesis 19:4: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:19:5: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.Now take a look at this: The entire population of men comes to the door to inquire about the strangers Lot is harboring.Can anybody be serious in saying that the entire male population of Sodom was gay? Every last one of them? How on earth did they manage to have any children?And the specific word in question is "know." Now it is true, in Hebrew the word "yada" can mean sexual relations. However, it has to be phrased in a very specific way. If I were to say to you in English, "Come over and you can 'get to know' my parents," you wouldn't think I was suggesting you have sex. No, to do that in English, I'd have to phrase it in a special way such as "know carnally."That phrasing is not used in Genesis 19. The exact same phrasing as used in Genesis 19 is used over 100 other times in the Bible and not once is it considered to mean sex. So what is so special about Genesis 19 that this single instance suddenly means what no other instance does?And let's not forget what the mob says to Lot when he offers his daughters:Genesis 19:9: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.In other words, they were shocked as hell that Lot thought they could be distracted with offers of sex. They rebuke him for this insult and a riot starts.No, in order to understand Genesis 19, we have to go back to Genesis 14:Genesis 14:1: And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;14:2: That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.Notice the second verse: Sodom was at war. And what happened during that war?14:12: And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.14:13: And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.14:14: And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.That's right...Lot was taken captive and his brother (or was it his uncle?...the Bible contradicts itself), Abram, raised an army.And kicks ass. He humiliates the king of Sodom publically:Genesis 14:22: And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,14:23: That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:14:24: Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.So think about it:1) You're a country who was recently at war.
2) You lost. Big time.
3) You took the brother/nephew of the guy who whupped your ass.
4) He humiliates your king.
5) That brother/nephew is now harboring strangers whom he refuses to identify.Now you tell me, what do you think the entire male population might be doing at his door? Let's put it in a light that we 'murrukins might understand:Suppose we were beaten back by the Iraqis but before we did, we had taken Uday and Qusay. While their in our country and while we are licking our wounds, we find out that they've brought in a couple of their friends and managed to get them inside our borders without passing customs or even having passports.How quickly do you think John Ashcroft and the rest of the FBI would be at their door demanding them to bring forth their friends so that he might "know" them?Do you really think sex would have anything to do with it?

quote:

---

But don't worry, some of your other citations support the anti-gay bigotry you say the Xtian church has, as I will elaborate in my own response to Rrhain.

---

Nope, not a single one of those passages has anything to do with homosexuality.Remember, there was no word for "homosexual" in Hebrew or Greek at the time. This isn't to say that you couldn't talk about people who only had sex with people of the same sex, but you have to come up with a roundabout way of saying it because the simple concept of "homosexual" did not exist.Take a look at some of the Latin American cultures. A "gay" man is specifically the receptive partner. He is the one who performs oral sex. He is the one who receives anal sex. The man who is on "top" is not gay. Even though it's another man with whom he is having sex, he is not gay precisely because he is on top.Do you really think that any particular statements made about "gays" in that culture would be in reference to the men on top? Nobody thinks they're gay, so how could you be saying anything about them?Instead, if you look at the specific words used, the phrasings in which they are used, and the context in which the statements are made, you find that they are dealing with temple prostitutes.Paul's words are particularly direct. "Arsenkoitai," a word he made, means, literally, "male temple prostitute."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

But let's get serious, in order to make Xtianity look gay-friendly

---

Wait just a parboiled second there. Who said anything about "gay-friendly"? The closest the Bible comes to anything even remotely resembling what we would understand as "homosexuality" are David and Johnathan.Jesus says absolutely nothing about it. None of the other passages can be seriously construed to mean homosexuality. The specific words used in the phrasings that they were used and the contexts in which they were said do not point to homosexuality.Since there was no word for that concept, how could they be condemning it?So the rest of your post can be dismissed. It isn't that the Bible is gay-friendly.It's pretty much silent on the subject.

quote:

---

This hardly cuts down the argument that homosexual sex acts are bad according to the Bible.

---

But the Bible says nothing about it. All the references that make any connection to same-sex sex are all about ritualistic sex and temple prostitutes. Yes, even Leviticus 20.

quote:

---

On the other hand, pro-gay Xtians are majorly missing the point in believing this forgiveness or love somehow legitimates the practice of homosexual sex.

---

Since the Bible is mute on the subject, what point is there to miss?That, I think, is the point you are missing. Nobody is saying that the Bible tells people to go out and find a good gay lover if that's where their inclinations lie. Instead, the Bible says nothing about it. It doesn't even consider the idea that there would be people who would only have sex with people of the same sex.There is no concept of homosexuality as we understand it at the time.Let's look at Sparta. This city-state had enforced homosexuality. Any boys who lived to the age of 7 (assuming they hadn't been thrown over a cliff for not being up to snuff) were sent to the agoge for training where they were taken in by an older soldier who would teach him about the ways of life in Sparta, including sex.By the time these men got married (and the average age of marriage for Spartan men was the late 20s), they had hardly ever seen women. They would have no concept of how to have sex with women. Thus, there was a common ritual to help them "make the switch" whereby the newly wedded groom would slip away from his mates, go to his wife in the dark, have sex with her, and then quietly rejoin his fellows in the common mess.Not all men needed this ritual, but for many, this sexual tip-toeing would continue for years.And yet, none of these people would have thought of themselves as "gay" though clearly some were.You cannot interpret the Bible using our standards. It simply does not mean what we think it means. You have to read it within the confines of the author's time and culture.And they had no idea what we would mean by "homosexual." So how could they possibly be making any condemnations against them? How do you condemn what you don't know exists?

quote:

---

But should the Xtian church allow ACTIVELY gay clergy? Ahem... should it allow active thieves into the clergy?

---

Since thievery is a sin and same-sex sex is not, one wonders why you are comparing the two.Let's not forget, the Catholic Church was performing same-sex marriage up until a couple centuries ago. If they didn't think it was wrong then, why would it have been wrong before them?

quote:

---

I'm simply saying once moral lines are adopted (and in the Bible it is clear that homosexual acts are at least the equivalent of acts of theft), certain decisions or judgements are clearcut. It is just a matter of following moral proscriptions to their logical conclusions.

---

And that's perfectly fine.The problem is that they are using a work that clearly does not say what they think it says.It is very much like people who misquote Darwin thinking that it somehow "proves" that even he thought it was a fraud.Do we allow misquotes and misconceptions to continue simply because we don't want to offend somebody? If somebody wants to think that being gay or engaging in same-sex sexual behaviour is some sort of affront to god, they can go right ahead.But it isn't the Bible they get it from.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

This is where I am going to ask you to review your own arguments. Your post--- linking the naturalness of homosexuality in humans to the sexuality of animals--- involved cattle mounting each other when they get "horny."

​

This hardly suggests that the level of "intimacy" you say sex is all about, finds its source in nature.

---

The example by schraf was just a throwaway example. If you want to get into the subject, then let's look at a comprehensive analysis of it:Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl.You seem to be hinting at the very bias Bagemihl mentions: [emphasis theirs]This is the problem many people have with comparing humans to other animals. We like to think we are somehow "above" animals. And yet, we want to have our cake and eat it, too. We want to declare certain things that humans do as "unnatural," claiming that animals don't do it, therefore it must be a product of the human nature to sin.And yet, when we find animals doing the exact same behaviour, we have to somehow sidestep it, claim that this particular example of animal behaviour doesn't apply to humans as a "natural" behaviour.The simple answer, of course, is that everything that humans do is natural. We are a part of nature, so how could anything we do be "unnatural"? What would be "unnatural" is if you could find, say, a baby that matured into a normal, healthy adult in the space of two hours after birth. That would violate so many laws of physics that I daresay it could be called "supernatural."In nature, we find the gamut of sexual relationships from dolphins who will screw anything to certain birds that mate for life.In humans, there is a strong urge to pair-bond. Even among males. It is not so strong as it appears in other animals, but it is there. There's a reason people get jealous when their sexual partners start looking elsewhere. That's biology.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!