All of these homosexual animal examples are 1-in-a-billion aberrations that no scientist on Earth can explain from the point of any animal being able to reason and analyze on the level a human brain is supposed to be capable of. The penguins could, in fact, have poorly developed brains, or genetic defects, and not have the slightest clue what they are doing.
Why do some of us exclusively say homosexual and not the happy word? Because the happy word applies to all humans.
I can't speak for hens but I have some insight on rabbits. As a teen I raised rabbits and sold them as meat. This meant I had to put males in with the females to have more rabbits. I had some female rabbits that put up one hell of a fuss. To the point that I saw them at times actually running in a circle around the insides of the cage they were in. I mean like they were part of a circus. Sooner or later the male nailed them and she would produce more rabbits for me to change into dinner for my parents customers at their store. By the way, how can you describe them running around on the sides of the cage and not run on the floor. Well it was kind of amusing when one is 16.
Because you asked for it, “I dare you to show me ONE example of two males of any species adopting and rearing the offspring of another of their species.” You even capitalized the number you wanted Are you not even capable of following your own comments?
Perhaps, there is no scientific basis for this however. What does this have to do with criminalizing homosexuality?
It's quite natural. Look at how often animals will murder the offspring of others in order to secure a place for their own off spring. And I would bet anything that the instinct to kill would kick in if something or someone were threatening your own offspring. As humans we have the capacity to think and learn and overcome many of our natural tendencies. But that doesn't mean that they are not there.
I have the English definition as my line of reasoning. Do you typically feel you win arguments but just regurgitating what was just said to you? Is that like the senile version of “I'm rubber and you’re glue?”
Not so. With sexual orientation you only have a single source of information; the individuals themselves. With child molestation you have a double source at minimum; the victim and the molester. Maybe more sources if witnessed. That provides a more accurate figure. Yes, there are still going to be some cases which will never be discovered. However, more accurate doesn't automatically mean exact.
Ironic seeing that all of you and your ilk base your entire lives and points on superstition Stop making it everyone else's concern
I have never EVER proposed that anyone else ADOPT my beliefs about ANYTHING - nor would I ever endeavor to USE the power of government to force a belief on others - or to intimidate them into silence. I do not believe in a God of The Bible - a God that has personal relationships with humans - but I do believe there is some higher power out there that no human can comprehend, and 99% of folks would collapse and cry if they met Him. So take your assumptions and do something abnormal with them.
Banning same sex marriage or criminalizing homosexual behavior do both of the things you say you are not doing. No one is demanding you adopt anything — we would completely prefer if you just stayed out of our business and stopped the harassment. But since many of you have made it your life’s ambition we will happy fight fire with napalm.
Here is what he told you. The Last American said: ↑ I have never EVER proposed that anyone else ADOPT my beliefs about ANYTHING - nor would I ever endeavor to USE the power of government to force a belief on others - or to intimidate them into silence. And you want to use Napalm on him?
Marriage is a religious construct - when you folks stop DEMANDING that a Christian baker bakes you a cake, maybe you will have something solid to stand on - but since you have made DEMANDING that Christians honor your whim, I will fight your napalm with reason and intelligence.
In my case, like a stupido I voted when living in CA for the homosexuals right to a legal union with all gains or privileges had by married men to women. I voted for it to be inserted as part of the State of CA constitution which was passed by the number of CA citizens to pass it into the constitution. Guess who was angry? So my then state Supreme Court was asked to look into it. They found it constitutional. Till the robes in DC said different. We had states rights I believed.
How do you propose he does that? He stated he would not. How long did the Supreme court fight off the politicians desire to tax incomes? It was a very very long time. Point is what you suggest seems so unlikely I do not understand all the caterwauling.