So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all? Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?
There are 2 plausible explanations.
First, the alleles responsible for homosexuality are also involved in other important and beneficial adaptations. We see the same situation with sickle cell anemia where heterozygotes are protected against malaria which selects for the allele, even though there is negative selection in the case of homozygotes. Any negative selection caused by a preference for the same sex may be outweighed by other factors that increase fitness.
Second, social species do not have to personally reproduce in order to pass on their genes. This is called kin selection. If you are able to support your siblings and increase their chances of having children then you are also increasing the chances that the genes you carry will be passed on.
If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism).
Two bad conclusions here. First, homosexuality is a biological drive as much as heterosexuality is.
Second, we don't decide what is and isn't legal by what is or isn't "natural". We could argue that wearing clothes is not a natural or biological process, so we should outlaw it. That doesn't make much sense. It seems that you are committing the Naturalistic fallacy here.
So the equivalency would be for every restaurant to be required to have a vegetarian option or be considered to be persecuting vegetarians.
No. The equivalent would be to put up a sign that says "Will Not Serve Christians" since your religion is a choice.
Why should everyone be forced to cater to something that is a choice.
That is the agreement you make with our democratic society when you open a business that is open to the public. If you don't want to cater to homosexuals, then don't run a business that would require you to cater to homosexuals. It's not as if government agents are showing up to your home and forcing you serve homosexuals in your home.
It also has to do with what people consider persecution and bigotry. I once went to a forum and expressed my dislike of all of the homosexual lobbying that was putting homosexual scenes in every show. I said something along the lines that I was not entertained by it anymore than someone who doesn't like scenes of romantic comedy in their serious political thrillers. Shortly after I was severely 'persecuted' for having an opinion.
Tell you what. Go find Jesse Jackson who worked with Martin Luther King, Jr. Tell him your story, and then ask him how your story compares to the persecution that blacks suffered in the South during the Civil Rights movement. Don't be surprised if he laughs at you . . . for a long time.
People who have sickle cell anemia are immune or resistant to malaria a wide spread disease in some areas. There is a reason it persisted. There is no reason for homosexuality (if it were genetic) to persist.
Perhaps you could produce the evidence for this claim?
My example is that every restaurant is forced to serve vegetarian options on their menus.
False. Vegetarians can order anything off the menu, just like anyone else. There is no discrimination. If it were comparable, you would not let vegetarians enter your restaurant.
Actually relatives helping others in their families in social animals is seen whether the animals in question are gay or not. So this proposition doesn't even stand up to basic logic (are there other equally likely reasons that this could happen?).
Worker bees are female and entirely sterile. They do not have children. They make up more than half of the bee population in a hive. Only a single female in an entire hive is producing children.
Evolution has selected for this strategy on the part of bees. How do you explain this?
How does this in any way equivocate to homosexuality or the argument at hand? Are there homosexual bees?
You are arguing that evolution would not favor a situation where members of a species do not reproduce because of genetics. Worker bees demonstrates that you are wrong. Evolution can and does select for genetic mutations that result in non-reproducing individuals in a social species.
In my opinion no Christian here has expressed anything remotely along the lines of "hate rhetoric" etc.
It is hate rhetoric each and every time you vocally support a political movement to take away the rights of homosexuals, which you have done repeatedly. Time and again, you have supported the idea that homosexuals should be discriminated against, segregated from heterosexuals, and treated as less than heterosexuals.
Re: Courts strike down anti-gay maraige in Arkansas and Idaho
Practicing sinner means habitual sinner, one who persists in sin, will not give it up, will not repent of it, thinks God will accept him nevertheless but scripture says no, practicing habitual sinners are not saved, and it specifically names homosexuality.
Until you start living by the edicts of religions you don't belong to, don't expect others to live by the edicts of your religion.
Should the state outlaw pork? Require women to wear a burqa?
Re: Courts strike down anti-gay maraige in Arkansas and Idaho
Best topic I could find for this. State Judge Strikes Down AR Marriage Ban
U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale has ruled Idaho’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional
Yes, bare links. But I wanted to get this into the record somewhere. Go to the linked pages to read more.
The actual ruling is very well written, IMHO.
"This case asks a basic and enduring question about the essence of American government: Whether the will of the majority, based as it often is on sincere beliefs and democratic consensus, may trump the rights of a minority
... Idaho's marriage laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love,"