Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

Neither do worker bees, and yet their genes still get passed on.

There are 2 plausible explanations.First, the alleles responsible for homosexuality are also involved in other important and beneficial adaptations. We see the same situation with sickle cell anemia where heterozygotes are protected against malaria which selects for the allele, even though there is negative selection in the case of homozygotes. Any negative selection caused by a preference for the same sex may be outweighed by other factors that increase fitness.Second, social species do not have to personally reproduce in order to pass on their genes. This is called kin selection. If you are able to support your siblings and increase their chances of having children then you are also increasing the chances that the genes you carry will be passed on. Two bad conclusions here. First, homosexuality is a biological drive as much as heterosexuality is.Second, we don't decide what is and isn't legal by what is or isn't "natural". We could argue that wearing clothes is not a natural or biological process, so we should outlaw it. That doesn't make much sense. It seems that you are committing the Naturalistic fallacy here. Free Republic? No thanks.Do you have any scientific references?

No. The equivalent would be to put up a sign that says "Will Not Serve Christians" since your religion is a choice. That is the agreement you make with our democratic society when you open a business that is open to the public. If you don't want to cater to homosexuals, then don't run a business that would require you to cater to homosexuals. It's not as if government agents are showing up to your home and forcing you serve homosexuals in your home. Tell you what. Go find Jesse Jackson who worked with Martin Luther King, Jr. Tell him your story, and then ask him how your story compares to the persecution that blacks suffered in the South during the Civil Rights movement. Don't be surprised if he laughs at you . . . for a long time.

Perhaps you could produce the evidence for this claim? False. Vegetarians can order anything off the menu, just like anyone else. There is no discrimination. If it were comparable, you would not let vegetarians enter your restaurant.

First, I know plenty of gay people. None of them chose to be gay.Second, being sexually abused as a child is not a choice.Besides, our choices of how we want to live our lives is protected by law.

Your genetics determine how you react to your environment. I have yet to see you discuss a single study, and how it supports your claims. Yes, that is what it means. You need to treat people equally, even people you think are icky. At what rates? Who were the study groups? What were the control groups?

Worker bees are female and entirely sterile. They do not have children. They make up more than half of the bee population in a hive. Only a single female in an entire hive is producing children.Evolution has selected for this strategy on the part of bees. How do you explain this?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

You are arguing that evolution would not favor a situation where members of a species do not reproduce because of genetics. Worker bees demonstrates that you are wrong. Evolution can and does select for genetic mutations that result in non-reproducing individuals in a social species.

Your stand requires you to punish others and take away their human rights. That's the problem.

I find it strange that christians would consider it punishment to treat fellow human beings with a little bit of dignity and fairness.

Neither is selling cakes to gay couples.

It is hate rhetoric each and every time you vocally support a political movement to take away the rights of homosexuals, which you have done repeatedly. Time and again, you have supported the idea that homosexuals should be discriminated against, segregated from heterosexuals, and treated as less than heterosexuals.

Until you start living by the edicts of religions you don't belong to, don't expect others to live by the edicts of your religion.Should the state outlaw pork? Require women to wear a burqa?

The actual ruling is very well written, IMHO."This case asks a basic and enduring question about the essence of American government: Whether the will of the majority, based as it often is on sincere beliefs and democratic consensus, may trump the rights of a minority... Idaho's marriage laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love,"Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/...rejected.html#storylink=cpyAlso, a stay on the decision has been denied:http://www.idahostatesman.com/...les-idaho-gay-marriage.htmlAs an Idahoan, I really didn't think I would see this happen this quickly. Same sex couples start getting married tomorrow here in my own state, which is one of the most conservative in the nation.

We already changed the institution of voting to allow women to vote.We already changed the institution of marriage to allow couples of mixed race to get married.We already changed the definition of "person" to allow black people to vote, and have access to the same bathroom as white people.We already changed this entire country by declaring our independence in 1776.Is that really your only argument, that you don't want anything to change because any change is bad, no matter what?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.