Originally Posted by rubicon

I did not want to include this in my post but what I found in the original post was "confirmation bias". In the original post posters were admonished not to bring religion into the conversation. I did not and will re-address that issue shortly.

However by virtue of the fact that the original post asked religion not to be included in opinions clearly denotes that references to God's/Bible's word has no validity. Ergo, if you are one of those church going obedient to Ten Commandment types your opinion is flawed, your opinion is dismissed because you believe in fairy tales....or something to that effect.

Recognizing that bias was implanted in the original post my references were from a historical prospective. Regardless of whether you believe in God, Bible, religion, etc the bible certainly can be viewed, once again, from a historical point of view from the people living during those times. Whether in the old testament or new throughout the ages men/women recording events of their time made it clear that homosexuality was frowned upon and found to be of deviate behavior.

I am not inclined to teach my grandchildren that homosexuality is an OK thing when every fiber of my body tells me it is against nature and no one has to even bring God's word into the conversation just simply compare the physical anatomy of man and woman and you can recognize the complementary nature of the sexes Whether that difference was an act of God or an act of nature is personal choice but that significant and wonderful difference is a fact that cannot be dismissed.

Respectively submitted