'What is your name?' 'Ken Clements.' 'IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS!!!':
> I can't believe how many people assume that gays don't have children. This is
> simply wrong, and I find this thread embarrassingly lacking in both information
> and sensitivity.
Even supposing that we were completely ignorant of this "embarrassing" sociological point, I think your allegations of insensitivity are uncalled for.
To my mind, there is a matter of fact under discussion: that homosexuality provides some genetic advantage, and that this explains its presence in human and animal societies. Whether you believe it does or it doesn't, neither belief suggests a particular lack of sensitivity on anyone's part, that I can tell.
> For thousands of years gays have gotten married and had children for
> societal, and other reasons, even though they may have had no sexual
> attraction for their spouses.
Thousands of years is a very long time, but not on an evolutionary time scale. Indeed, on an evolutionary time scale, this social stuff is NEW.
The fact that all people, homosexual people included, are under abusive social pressure to procreate still doesn't explain the homosexual population we see throughout the animal kingdom (us included). It's an awful truth, but it's also not relevant to the debate.
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-