Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Atheist God

Gay Marriage

276 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

BlueZone

I have some questions for the nay-sayers:

WHY DO YOU CARE what other people do with their personal lives? This is something I honestly don't understand. I'm interested on a nosy soap-opera level, but that's it.

Does it make sense to you that there's a point where your life is PRIVATE?

Do you think that everyone deserves the same level of privacy?

How would you feel if someone started penalizing you financially for your sex life?

Invasion of privacy is a much more important issue for me than what someone else does in his/her bedroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueZone
I've been trying to analyze and figure that out. I seem to have identified three responses.

...for some reason are so repulsed by the idea of homosexual acts that they can't even go on knowing that other people are having *spam filter*. they don't want to have to be reminded of it in any form, whether or not it's gay pride day, will and grace, or anyone being openly gay.

This is the classic description of a phobia (hence the name "homophobia"). Some people are phobic about dogs. Does this mean we should outlaw dogs? Some people are phobic about insects. Should we dump a cloud of DDT over the entire world?

A phobia is a mental health issue. I'm phobic about bats. This was a difficult phobia to have on evenings in upstate New York, so I went to a therapist and worked it out with desensitization therapy. Having a phobia can be an incapacitating problem, but it's the problem of the neurotic person, not the external community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
graylady2
i dont mind if a gay couple wants to marry and have sex, 2 gorgious lesbians making out, i wanna see more of it :blush:

Nothing like a double standard, is there? Men would rather see 2 women make out than 2 men... What's the discrepancy? Same gender sex is same gender sex...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Username Deleted
Nothing like a double standard, is there? Men would rather see 2 women make out than 2 men... What's the discrepancy? Same gender sex is same gender sex...

That's not double standards, it's called personal preference.

Are you saying that if you enjoying viewing one then you should enjoy viewing the other equally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harmon-E Cherry
Busted but I don't think it's wrong.. I know I'm not racist or homophobic.. having just the other day watched an interracial lesbian film. ^_^

A heroic sacrifice on the alter of Multiculturalism...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
Ok, let me try to decifer the above and get some clarification. Are you trying to say that only relationships that result in children are valid? Are you posing the idea that procration should be the qualifying characteristic for marriage?

That is exactly what I propose. The original purpose of the family is to raise and support children. Not to just get government freebees. The fact that many heteros are using the cover of marriage to get lower taxes and that many people having children are not getting married is a sign of the degradation of society.

The fact that without adoption gay couples (male couples at least) can not have children, so should they be able to marry? To me this seems like not. Maybe it is old fashioned, but it is not bigoted or descriminatory. With adoption I have issues too, since I would be suspicious of a gay male couple adopting a little girl or a two lesbian couple adoption a little boy. That may be bigotry a little or homophobia a little, but I think the vast majority of people in the US would feel this way. You can't set the national standard on what is acceptable in LA and NY.

The same arguments against gay marriage were made (and still are in some societies/religions) against interracial/interfaith marriage. Again, society as a whole has not gone to hell in a handbasket as a result of these unions. Live and let live people. As far as procreation goes, the number of childless marriages between heterosexuals is rising and last I saw comprised >50% of all marriages so are these not true marriages which should then be annulled?[/color]

It seems to me that people not having children is a sign of the handbasket swooping down on us right now.

2- Religious people who actually believe that it is their role to make sure that the society in which they belong follows the bible, which condemns homosexuality. some of them seem to even think that allowing homosexual marriage will somehow bring about punishment from God, and they fear they will be caught up in it. ???

I think I fall into this second catagory, but I recognize that few homosexuals once they start in that lifestyle will go over to be heteros. Very few. I am not going to Bible thump and say they are going to burn. But, I will say that they ARE making a choice, just as a gambling addict or alcoholic does. They can refrain from the lifestyle if they so choose. It happens to many choose to not refrain. Mainly because everyone tells them it is OK.

WHY DO YOU CARE what other people do with their personal lives? This is something I honestly don't understand. I'm interested on a nosy soap-opera level, but that's it.

I care because there are some things that I want to know about, if it is going on in my community. Drug dealers, burglers, domestic violence are examples of things that go on every day that should not be allowed to be private. I really don't care what a gay couple do together, but I believe gay marriage will lead to other much worse people being able to get rights that will definately cause community problems. It will be a landmark for sickos to try to get rights, and who knows, in twenty years those sickos may get those rights.

Plus, the Dems in the US will not back it anyway. If it is OK in Canada, then just move to Canada. Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Hill

This is the classic description of a phobia (hence the name "homophobia"). Some people are phobic about dogs. Does this mean we should outlaw dogs? Some people are phobic about insects. Should we dump a cloud of DDT over the entire world?

A phobia is a mental health issue. I'm phobic about bats. This was a difficult phobia to have on evenings in upstate New York, so I went to a therapist and worked it out with desensitization therapy. Having a phobia can be an incapacitating problem, but it's the problem of the neurotic person, not the external community.

Is homophobia genetic or psychological? Are some gay people gay because they're heterophobic?

I think homophobia doesn't exist as a proper or real phobia like Arachnophobia.

Imo It's made up... by the gay rights movement to use as a mechanism to try and silent debate or critics. To try and make out the otherside's 'irrational' therefore they 'win' by default.

The fact that homophobia has been included in law (homophobic crimes) sets a dangerous precedence. After all if someone attacks someone for being gay-which in the UK... is classed as a homophobic crime... you could argue that the perpetrator isn't responsible because he/she is suffering from a phobia.

Here's the full phobia list

Hobophobia- Fear of bums or beggars.

Hominophobia-Fear of men

lol I wonder if lesbians are suffering from a form of Hominophobia?

See, just demonstrating the point, that you can use this argument to justify anything.

Edited by billyhill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Hill

I have some questions for the nay-sayers:

WHY DO YOU CARE what other people do with their personal lives? This is something I honestly don't understand. I'm interested on a nosy soap-opera level, but that's it.

As one who doesn't really care maybe I shouldn't comment. But, as you've highlighted- 'what people do with thier personal lifes'

That the problem, BlueZone...Now that homosexuality has become a civil rights movement; it's no longer personal or private.

On the note of caring... by the same token..Why do some people feel the need to SHOUT about what they do in the bedroom?

You can't expect everyone to think it's cool or be into it..and if they're not label them 'phobic.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
explorer
I care because there are some things that I want to know about, if it is going on in my community. Drug dealers, burglers, domestic violence are examples of things that go on every day that should not be allowed to be private. I really don't care what a gay couple do together, but I believe gay marriage will lead to other much worse people being able to get rights that will definately cause community problems. It will be a landmark for sickos to try to get rights, and who knows, in twenty years those sickos may get those rights.

Plus, the Dems in the US will not back it anyway. If it is OK in Canada, then just move to Canada. Problem solved.

You're equating any right of gay couples to marry with "sicko's", meaning who, pedophiles and rapists? What group do those sicko's tend to emerge from? Lumping anything and everything that does not mirror you're own status into one group of sickness is a big mistake. It's your right but it's a mistake.

If anything, gay marriage could be a boon to the Christian churches. They need all the help they can get these days. It's a chance for them to reflect the breadth of the message of Jesus, instead of some myopic interpretation wrapped up in the domination of one gender.

As one who doesn't really care maybe I shouldn't comment. But, as you've highlighted- 'what people do with thier personal lifes'

That the problem, BlueZone...Now that homosexuality has become a civil rights movement; it's no longer personal or private.

On the note of caring... by the same token..Why do some people feel the need to SHOUT about what they do in the bedroom?

You can't expect everyone to think it's cool or be into it..and if they're not label them 'phobic.'

One has to wonder what other sorts of movies you've been watching. What makes you think gay people are shouting about their bedroom antics? Did you happen upon a gay parade and mistake it for someone's bedroom? There is a difference between their legal rights and their private pleasures, as there is for the rest of us. Aren't we talking about gay marriage rights in this thread, not the prospect of deep throating in public?

Honestly some people can't hear diddly squat about dry legal freedom for gays without drowning their own minds in a wet patch of extrapolated horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Hill

One has to wonder what other sorts of movies you've been watching. What makes you think gay people are shouting about their bedroom antics? Did you happen upon a gay parade and mistake it for someone's bedroom? There is a difference between their legal rights and their private pleasures, as there is for the rest of us. Aren't we talking about gay marriage rights in this thread, not the prospect of deep throating in public?

Honestly some people can't hear diddly squat about dry legal freedom for gays without drowning their own minds in a wet patch of extrapolated horror.

Why yes, explorer, the gay rights movement has nothing to do with sex. :rolleyes: I always thought the clue was in the name homosexual.

But you're right, in fact many gay and lesbian people don't have sex at all- but I believe we call them 'friends.'

I also agree, a gay parade is all about ones rights... the right to dance about abit and blow whistles. Into innocent bystanders ears.

On the legal side-I don't know why people can't marry fruits in the US- a guy did in Greece. He married a watermelon... it's about love not sex! Leave him alone.

Edited by billyhill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
explorer
Why yes, explorer, the gay rights movement has nothing to do with sex. :rolleyes: I always thought the clue was in the name homosexual.

You've skipped the sexual in heterosexual?

But you're right, in fact many gay and lesbian people don't have sex at all- but I believe we call them 'friends.'

No. That's not what I said. Some of the gay people I've associated with are hornier than rhinos. I've never met one that I've thought was dangerous to anyone beyond themselves. Legal rights and private, consensual fancies are two different things.

I also agree, a gay parade is all about ones rights... the right to dance about abit and blow whistles. Into innocent bystanders ears.

Those poor, innocent bystanders. In your neck of the woods, some of them are probably Muslim. How perfectly normal they must be, for your argument's sake anyway.

On the legal side-I don't know why people can't marry fruits in the US- a guy did in Greece. He married a watermelon... it's about love not sex! Leave him alone.

And why are gay people mockingly referred to as fruits, because they're sweeter than vegetables?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Hill

And why are gay people mockingly referred to as fruits, because they're sweeter than vegetables?

lol :lol: that wasn't my point. I was using the fruit guy as just another example of the different aspects to human sexuality (Heterosexuality).

My point was- you don't see fruitsexuals demanding 'human rights'

Although, aren't some lesbians in some way fruitsexuals? Don't they sometimes use a banana, cucumber, eggplant...as a type of 'pseudo-penis'.

Just a thought..I digress..

No. That's not what I said. Some of the gay people I've associated with are hornier than rhinos.

:P whoah hold tight explorer- you're gonna be in for a bumpy ride, you just can't say things like that...not in this thread.

Oh no wait..my mistake- you're supporting gayrights, it's ok, sorry my mistake- you are allowed to say that..it's not stereotyping.

Edited by billyhill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Hill

Those poor, innocent bystanders. In your neck of the woods, some of them are probably Muslim. How perfectly normal they must be, for your argument's

It was my bleeding ear... :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
explorer
lol :lol: that wasn't my point. I was using the fruit guy as just another example of the different aspects to human sexuality (Heterosexuality).

My point was- you don't see fruitsexuals demanding 'humans rights'

Although, aren't some lesbians in some way fruitsexuals? Don't they sometimes use a banana, cucumber, eggplant...as a type of 'pseudo-penis'.

Just a thought..I digress..

:P whoah hold tight explorer- you're gonna be in for a bumpy ride, you just can't say things like that...not in this thread.

Oh no wait..my mistake- you're supporting gayrights, it's ok, sorry my mistake- you are allowed to say that..it's not stereotyping.

There are all sorts campaigning for rights. I remember seeing an episode of the Phil Donahue show where a grown adult dressed in a nappy and a bib stated that his right to be treated as a baby, complete with a nursing nurse...was a political issue. I don't think Phil was going for an Emmy for best comedy either, nor was the man in the nappy.

But they earnt it in my book.

Bananas, cucumbers? That's imagination lite! There are straights out there that make gays look pedestrian. So there are gays out there that want a little piece of paper that says, I made a legal vow to an individual of my own sex. Holy Bonobo! How could it be. Where did God go wrong? Or does nature want as many as possible to have a go at as much as possible? Maybe homosexuality tells us that men and women really aren't that far apart. There are just variations in chemical stimuli. Much ado over bugger all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Hill

Bananas, cucumbers? That's imagination lite!

Yep I totally agree with you there.

A little experimentation leads to-

linked-image

Smiles all round.

But, too much experimentation leads to the 'cenobites..'

linked-image

The pleasures of the flesh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Hill

So there are gays out there that want a little piece of paper that says, I made a legal vow to an individual of my own sex. Holy Bonobo! How could it be.

Yeah big deal. But it depends on the motivation- I say the gay rights movement can't find anyone to shock anymore- so in a reactionary way- has gone after those blasted 'uptight' Christians who, not surprisingly, don't want gay marriages in their churches.

So what..it's their right.

But no, it's not good enough for the gay rights movement, they just can't over the fact... Christians aren't down with their or that matter anyone else's 'insert fetish.'

Both the gay rights and the holy christians are faith-based in my book..so they should respect each other- even if that means avoiding each other.

Edited by billyhill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
explorer

You're just dripping with image shacks for all occasions. Though Pinhead is a personal Hollywood favourite, Clive Barkers Cenobites weren't quite what I was referring to on the flipside of imagination lite. Pinhead vowing to tear souls apart should really be reserved for those desperately unsuspecting, just moved into a new house, corporate Christian moments. I think that's what Clive was banging on about.

Yeah big deal. But it depends on the motivation- I say the gay rights movement can't find anyone to shock anymore- so in a reactionary way- has gone after those blasted 'uptight' Christians who, not surprisingly, don't want gay marriages in their churches.

So what..it's their right.

But no, it's not good enough for the gay rights movement, they just can't over the fact... Christians aren't down with their or that matter anyone else's 'insert fetish.'

Both the gay rights and the holy christians are faith-based in my book..so they should respect each other- even if that means avoiding each other.

Well, they've shocked you enough haven't they? You're not exactly yawning. Anyway, how many less marriages would Christians have in their churches if it wasn't for, shriek, divorce, which leads so many numpties to re-marriage. What's the collective noun for it...an embarrassment of belief systems, a fortitude of myopia, a mesmerism of certified dreaminess?. Or is it just cash flow in church coffers? Why anyone would bother getting a priest to say one can kiss any bride leaves me speechless.

But at it's heart, gay people want recognition that they are a legitimate form of human relationship. So let them. And what better place for dreamers, the altar. The sky won't fall in. You'll be no less sarcastic. It might even take you to a new level. Think of the fun you can have with lesbians emerging from a church, perhaps bearing cucumber shaped diamonds. What until you've got the interracial after wedding video. We might never hear from you again, such will be your delirium. Who, after all, dares hold a monopoly on love, belief or stupidity?

Edited by explorer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
You're equating any right of gay couples to marry with "sicko's", meaning who, pedophiles and rapists? What group do those sicko's tend to emerge from? Lumping anything and everything that does not mirror you're own status into one group of sickness is a big mistake. It's your right but it's a mistake.

If anything, gay marriage could be a boon to the Christian churches. They need all the help they can get these days. It's a chance for them to reflect the breadth of the message of Jesus, instead of some myopic interpretation wrapped up in the domination of one gender.

One has to wonder what other sorts of movies you've been watching. What makes you think gay people are shouting about their bedroom antics? Did you happen upon a gay parade and mistake it for someone's bedroom? There is a difference between their legal rights and their private pleasures, as there is for the rest of us. Aren't we talking about gay marriage rights in this thread, not the prospect of deep throating in public?

No, I'm saying that such a law could be used as a presadent for the sickos to push their own agenda. Like someone said earlier, the Gay movement is riding on the history of the inter-racial movement. So then what is next? The polygamyst movement? And then what? Who knows.

I know that people say that it is harmless, and on the surface it is. But, what will come of such laws decades from now? That is what I am conserned about. Maybe the Pro-gay marriage people are only living in the Here and Now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
explorer
No, I'm saying that such a law could be used as a presadent for the sickos to push their own agenda. Like someone said earlier, the Gay movement is riding on the history of the inter-racial movement. So then what is next? The polygamyst movement? And then what? Who knows.

I know that people say that it is harmless, and on the surface it is. But, what will come of such laws decades from now? That is what I am conserned about. Maybe the Pro-gay marriage people are only living in the Here and Now.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about something really sick and serious. You know, how to keep you're equine betrothed happy, or worse. But polygamy? Isn't it happening already? There making tv shows about it. Well, maybe they don't get a license for it, but there about, in those cryptic Christian folds that the US seems to specialise in.

Listen, gay marriage may be controversial for the reality stunned, but grant them this, it seems to involve one on one, not the whole nightclub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Hill

You've skipped the sexual in heterosexual?

No. That's not what I said. Some of the gay people I've associated with are hornier than rhinos.

Agreed- as we've established homosexuals are experimenting heterosexuals- where to they draw their own line as they smash through preconceived taboos? They've crossed one line where do they stop.

Seems nothing is too 'out there'- remember we're talking about quite a powerful civil rights movement. Those- gay men at NAMBLA don't see themselves has pedophiles; they see themselves as legitimate 'gay people' and part of a legitimate gay rights movement.

I think we can see them not a straight people, not as gay people but as cenobites..

You're just dripping with image shacks for all occasions. Though Pinhead is a personal Hollywood favourite, Clive Barkers Cenobites weren't quite what I was referring to on the flipside of imagination lite.

Yep... good old cenobites, while cool in hollyhood... perhaps not so cool for people to emulate . And No I don't mean in sense of tearing souls apart..but in the sense of breaking down morals and social taboos.

Interesting to note that Clive Baker is gay... coincidence? Maybe, maybe not, perhaps the cenobites are an representation of an amalgamation of his sexual longings.

But at it's heart, gay people want recognition that they are a legitimate form of human relationship. So let them. And what better place for dreamers, the altar. The sky won't fall in. You'll be no less sarcastic. It might even take you to a new level. Think of the fun you can have with lesbians emerging from a church, perhaps bearing cucumber shaped diamonds. What until you've got the interracial after wedding video. We might never hear from you again, such will be your delirium. ?

Oh you've changed you're tune from 'so what...' how did I know this would happen :P ?

Yes explorer, once again you've presented a 'nice happy image' Oh, gay people want recognition as a legitimate form of human relationship.

Recognition from whom? Everybody in the whole world? I think so, hence my 'shout about it' comment.

Btw..The gay right movement doesn't just spare it's intimidation tactics for the church- no, they'll go up against or stop, unbiased scientific research- change the meanings of words- such a sexual fetish- and creating new 'phobias.' Thanks to the power of 'so what' and the whistle.

Who, does after all, dares to hold a monopoly on love, belief or stupidity? Maybe the answer is- The gay rights movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
explorer

I'll ask you this. Who's been spared from the intimidation tactics of the Church? The Church has long sought to scoop up everyone in sight. All encompassing religious guilt and shame has been a conceptually and fiscally mesmerising horse for every possible course for centuries. Thank Humans that parliamentary democracy has knocked them off their 'pedostal'. Gay people have barely cracked a chip off the old wealth driven church wall since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
Sorry, I thought you were talking about something really sick and serious. You know, how to keep you're equine betrothed happy, or worse. But polygamy? Isn't it happening already? There making tv shows about it. Well, maybe they don't get a license for it, but there about, in those cryptic Christian folds that the US seems to specialise in.

Listen, gay marriage may be controversial for the reality stunned, but grant them this, it seems to involve one on one, not the whole nightclub.

Perhaps polygamy is going mainstream right now. A further sign of the degradation of the US society. It is still practiced by splinter groups off the Mormons. I saw a guy on TV who was arrested in Utah yesterday for polygamy, he married his 14 year old cousin.

Really, they see nothing wrong with it. Is that something that should be encouraged? Why not? Isn't it all the same, but with different levels of acceptability? When will the changing of the laws stop? With gay marriage? Maybe for ten years or so, but inevitably some one will sue and have a good enough lawyer and then things like brothers and sisters marrying and having kids will be OK.

It already is OK in Finland, I think.

Is the best we can expect only to slow it down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
explorer
Perhaps polygamy is going mainstream right now. A further sign of the degradation of the US society. It is still practiced by splinter groups off the Mormons. I saw a guy on TV who was arrested in Utah yesterday for polygamy, he married his 14 year old cousin.

Really, they see nothing wrong with it. Is that something that should be encouraged? Why not? Isn't it all the same, but with different levels of acceptability? When will the changing of the laws stop? With gay marriage? Maybe for ten years or so, but inevitably some one will sue and have a good enough lawyer and then things like brothers and sisters marrying and having kids will be OK.

It already is OK in Finland, I think.

Is the best we can expect only to slow it down?

Why is it a degradation of society? Nature abhors a vacuum but loves a gene pool and loves exploration of alternatives. Big disclaimer, I agree that 14 year olds are way too young to be married off by some noxious control freak. There may be learned, emotional practicalities to the concept of one man, one woman, but so often it doesn't last. There is nothing wrong with it as such, but history is more than littered with relationships that break with convention because human convention isn't quite natural or realistic. Hence there are those who are attracted to the same sex or who even want to be the opposite sex. I think that can be perfectly natural for those so inclined, perhaps a product of experience, not genetics.

Reality is wild. It cannot be domesticated, however hard human intelligence launches itself at stricture. It makes me wonder about how much our upbringing delimits our vision of other ways of living. History holds no guarantee of perfection, maybe just repitition of tradition with better technology.

Then again, if not for the male dominated society that has characterised human history, how strong would be the revulsion for the idea of one woman married to multiple submissive men, mixing multiple drinks and mowing multiple lawns at her discretion, after which she picks a suitable mate for conception, compared to one man controlling multiple submissive females, which is the usual stereotype? There are a lot of male creatures in the kingdom of life that need to impress females sufficiently in fights or displays for the right to breed. Plenty more get passed over than those chosen. So is the pan-religious concept of one man married to one woman another way of delimiting the choices of women?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stixxman

one- there is nothing wrong with being gay

two- there is nothing wrong with same sex partnering being recognized legally

three- there is nothing wrong with having a valid ceremony avaliable to same sex relationships so they can have weddings and such too.

BUT

one-there is something wrong with trying to label it "normal" like its an extentsion of proper human functioning. That changes the whole meaning of the word "normal" and warps the purpose of its meaning.

two-there is something wrong with any gay person insisting that they get married in a church. You may have been religious before you found your true self but once you cross that line your bond with the church is broken. Its against the rules folks, once you break the clubs rules you get kicked out of the club, thats the whole point of the rules in the first place. its not personal or an attack on your rights as a gay person its just the rules.

three- there is something wrong with same sex parenting. There is a very specific reason why it takes a male and a female to procreate, its not just the act, its what both sides provide for the child as it grows, nature made it this way across the board for a specific reason. Its not an accident or a mistake, its as purposeful as it gets.

Now as I've read, yes there are examples of it in every species, but these are aberations within the breed not a natural path of species developement. Why? nothing sinister really, its just the oldest rule on the books, survival of the fittest. Now some people won't know what I'm talking about because in this day and age we have created all these wonderful little things that save all the genetically inferior products from eliminating themselves from the gene pool. Years past nature would have taken care of the problem but thats not happening, so all the dummies survive and make more dummies, etc etc. And thats whats happening here, because no species will propogate itself with same sex partnering, there is just no getting around that period. Saying its natural is like putting silk on a pig, you can put as much as you want on it but your still dressing up a pig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rhyknow
one-there is something wrong with trying to label it "normal" like its an extentsion of proper human functioning. That changes the whole meaning of the word "normal" and warps the purpose of its meaning.

I disagree, Stixx. The way I look at it, is in the eyes of a gay man or a lesbian, it's completely normal for them. Sure, they can't reproduce, but if being a homosexual wasn't 'normal' in any way, shape or form, I don't think they'd be around now. And I know that sounds like an incredibly callous statement, but I look at it from the point of view where Nature defines what is the norm, and things that are seen as "unnormal" in the eyes of nature, don't last very long, if you see what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.