Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)

An illness may be a "natural" condition, but that does not make it a "normal" condition. Homosexuality may be a natural condition, but I will never believe it to be a normal condition.No, civil rights should not be denied a person because the person is homosexual, but neither should the person be afforded special rules because of the homosexual condition. In other words, the rules of marriage should not be subverted for homosexuals to be able to marry one another.

Sicknesses and injury are common in the natural world, but that does not make them normal states of health. Since when is paraplegia, for example, a normal state of human health? And allowing a handicapped person access to a public place is simply ensuring them the same right to be there as anyone else. Marriage is an ancient and sacred (in countless religions and cultures) union between a man and a woman for purposes of procreation and child-rearing. "Love" isn't even considered in many cultures where marriages are arranged long before the betrothed individuals even understand a concept of romantic love or sexual relations. If homosexual couples want to engage in sex or romance or living together, fine. But change the fundamental concept of marriage so they can pretend to live in a normal marital relationship? They can't procreate! Better to legalize it as a "gay union" than as marriage. But even then, why discriminate against all other types of people who happen to live together? Provide all of them the same privileges that a man and woman trying to raise a family have. Why are gays so special?By the way, if you are an evolutionist, how do think homosexuality, if it is a normal condition, evolved as an adaptation that is beneficial to the propagation or survival of an individual's genetic traits? It may be "common" in the natural world, but I still maintain that it is not a condition that is normal.

Every one has the right to participate in marriage, a legal union between two members of the opposing sex. There is no discrimination in this. What you want to do is change the fundamental definition of an institution so that people with no rights to the benefits of that institution can gain access to them.I would like to move this reply over to the Ban on Gay Marriages topic, but I can't. Is there a way an administrator could do it?

And no one with Downs syndrome chooses to be born with it, either. But it is still an abnormal condition. No one chooses to have Parkinsons disease, yet they do, and it is still an abnormal condition. My grandmother suffers from Alzheimers, and not because she chose to. If not having a choice in the matter is how we define what is normal, then human slavery must be a normal condition, too! However, it is not. Are you saying God does not care about an individual's condition? Of course He cares! (But that's off-topic again.)

I edited out my comments because I realized I was off-topic again.I'll put it under the gay marriage ban topic.[This message has been edited by godsmac, 02-27-2004]

Aren't there always changes going on within a population's gene pool? Not all the changes going on would be beneficiary ("adaptive") to the population's survival (or actually the individuals' survival) and I should think that most changes would have no immediate effect unless a change in environment, say, sparked the natural selection process to act on those changes. Might not homosexuality be a common and perhaps often repeated one of these kinds of changes? Educate me here.