patrick.net

OW says

Homosexual acts from species hinders or eliminates it's propagation and is eventually selected out.

Only pure homosexuality prevents reproduction. Bisexuality, which includes frequent homosexual acts, does not as evident throughout nature.

Furthermore, chastity and abstinence prevents reproduction. Yet, no one has ever proposed outlawing abstinence.

In any case, even pure homosexuality does have a selective advantage in terms of kin benefits. Gay uncles can funnel their resources to nieces and nephews.

But even if nature selected against homosexuality, which clearly it doesn't given the prevalence of homosexual relations in nature, why should government outlaw it? Nature selects against "nice guys". Does that mean government should mandate that all men be assholes?

OW says

Homosexual acts from species hinders or eliminates it's propagation and is eventually selected out.

Well you have a point. Homo erectus, the gayest of all species, is extinct.

OW says

No religion involved in this comment. I was taught evolution in school especially as a science major. Polygamy actually helps to propagate our species and gives us more chances of positive mutations. Homosexual acts from species hinders or eliminates it's propagation and is eventually selected out. Always find it interesting why this is considered a "religious" topic.

I really have to question your knowledge and experience here. Lots of gay people have children; among my friends and family I know more gay people with children than without. How many homosexuals do you even know?

Dan8267 says

However, why should polygamy be illegal? I'm not in favor of it, but then again, I'm not in favor of traditional marriage.

I don't care either. My point is just that we can and do draw lines all the time. Even the NRA doesn't condone individuals owning Nukes (I think---could be!).

"Free speech" has limits. We can draw the line at gay marriage and still be fair to all citizens who want to join in the bilateral contract.

true