I mean sure, they call this piece "
So if children need mother and father figures that badly, mandate that every single parent and same sex couple get a guardian of the opposite gender to serve as the missing parental figure. Problem solved. Of course, you don't actually care about whether children are getting the best possible home environment to assure that they can be all that can be; you just want to be able to say that gay people are bad because hetero couples are good. And then, of course, your patented "gay is bad because others can become gay" argument. Awesome.
Yep. Being gay is bad because gay sex is bad. Being gay isn't loving because who would subject someone they love to something as bad as gay sex? I am so close to just telling this guy to get off my internet forever. People should not be exposed to things that make them want to stab their eyes out in a combination of fury and temporary insanity. There are limits to free speech.
Anyway, lower fidelity rates would be mitigated if they had an ultimate goal to which to head for in their relationships, and a way to make it seem legitimate. Which is what marriage does for all those good hetero couples.
They have lower average life expectancies due to high incidence of death by AIDS (and possibly suicide). Unless those couples are HIV positive, they should have relatively normal life expectancies. Just don't deal out kids to the outliers.
Wow. He's just pulling off the sexual preference equivalent of racial profiling at this point. Just trying to spout out random things that kinda-sorta correlate with teh ghey, see it what sticks, and call homosexuality evil as a result of merely being roughly associated with some other kind of unrelated activity. I mean, I would love for him to show how homosexuality is "wrong" without having to resort to things that have nothing to do with sexual preference and to show that it "hurts society" without society hurting them first. But, I guess I'll just have to settle for this. Anyway, the increased level of domestic violence doesn't occur in a vacuum: it occurs in an environment where same-sex relationships need to be more covert, and where the partners often need to be more cut off from external support (and potential mediators or people who could intervene) due to the stigma associated with the relationship. The fact that they need to isolate themselves more, whether to hide the relationship, or due to a falling out with family after revealing their true sexuality, is conducive to an abusive environment. And the fact that males tend to be more abusive, and gay male relationships have two men could just increase the odds of an abusive relationship on merits of that alone.
And the tacking on of unrelated evils continues. Do you know how he probably got that percentage? Because approximately 10% of all males are molested before age 13 and 20% of females are, meaning that molested boys make up 33% of all victims of child molestation. It makes sense on its face. Except....
Whooops. Turns out that the pedophiles don't have to be gay to like prepubescent boys. Who would've guessed?
LOL. You knew that "because the Bible says so" had to come in somewhere. Had no idea that he'd toss in "because it's tradition" at the same time though.
Sigh. The definition has been changing constantly. It used to be polygamous. It used to be that the male had all the control. It used to require certain bizarre series of payments and exchanges on the parts of the involved families and could symbolize a greater union between those families, rather than just exclusively a union between two people. It used to be something that you could only get with a member of your own race. It used to be an exclusively religious ceremony but now is a secular contract that offers state-granted benefits.
The slippery slope appears. Animals can't consent and 10 year olds probably don't have informed consent (but please note that, in regards to your immutable definition of marriage...a 52 year old marrying a 10 year old wouldn't have been a problem a few hundred years ago...). And, personally, I have no problem with consensual incestuous relationships. They can start petitioning for their own rights if they want to, but I think that the sex itself isn't considered "immoral" and isn't illegal as long as it also doesn't lack informed consent (i.e. as long as both parties are of sufficient age to make the decision to have sex, and aren't tricked or coerced into doing so...a big "if" in regards to most kinds of incest).
"Penis goes in vagina" and obsession with procreation once again. You see deviation from "basic fundamentals of proper mechanical applications of using their genitalia" and I see "creativity". We don't all need to procreate. If we do, I am sure there are quite a few married couples who don't want to have children that you should be out haranguing right now. And we don't all need to use things for their "intended purpose". If we did, MacGyver would be a considerably less entertaining show.
"Adam and Eve, not Adam and....uh...Steve!1!!". Uggh. This is getting sad.
This shows that it is not solely genetic. But it also shows that it has a genetic factor, unless you mean to tell that the standard odds of any person turning gay is 38%. Which is means that when you say that "homosexuality has little if anything to do with genetics", you fail. You fail within the information that you yourself give and you don't even know it.
Morality: now without fairness. And yes, if the act is immoral, it should not praised or rewarded. It's a damn shame that your merely claiming it to be immoral on the grounds that your religion claims it as such and that it is tangentially related to other bad things doesn't quite convince. You might have won a convert elsewhere, who knows. Stranger things have happened.