if homosexuality cannot naturally reproduce, how can it

[slims]

Stupid autocorrect

[LilBuffDa[OG]]

Is it weird that as early as three or four, I was attracted to women?

Yeah, nevermind about that point- back in 1994 I was attracted to Amy Jo Johnson, the pink power ranger.

[slims]

There's adoption, you stupid fuck.

What's with the hostility? I don't know how relevant adoption is here. I think he's digging down at the core meaning of reproduction.

I doubt you were literally always attracted to them. Even when you were in kindergarten where you barely had the social skills developed enough to know the difference between a boy and girls behavior?When I was very young I had no sexual attraction to anyone, it was something I developed the closer I got to women. Nothing was ever about pleasure back when I was a kid.

Is it weird that as early as three or four, I was attracted to women?

Idk, I just felt like being a jerk.

[Iris2]

I don't know how people say anything is 'unnatural'. Human beings are part of nature. Anything they exhibit, whether beneficial or not, useful or harmful, is all natural. Murder, rape, eating, drinking, marriage, have the same stake in the natural order when viewed from an objective lens if ethics and sociology are disregarded.

Considering reproduction or the lack thereof in case of homosexual couples, humans have come far from the idea that that they need to reproduce to survive. In the old days when the population was scarce and humans were 'animalistic', they relied on their basic instincts to reproduce. This is not the case at the moment, we're rather in need of reduced reproduction. So, as the paradigm shifts, the basic thinking also has to change. We now have come to think that we no longer need to rely on reproduction for survival. However, people still feel the need to produce heirs of their own, through genetic factors and evolutionary pressure, there is a rare bond between a parent and their real offspring, which will be lost on homosexual parenthood. But, the ethical argument to that is about how much of a success heterosexual parenthood is as compared to the homosexual parenthood, is it really better? Is the former guaranteed to mould better human beings than the latter? The answer is no.

In this day and age, children need guardians now more than ever. There are too many parent less children out there, what's so bad about providing them a lovely home which a lot of well educated homosexual couples are qualified and ready to do?
I don't think at all that homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love. It's unscientific to think so. But, the coexistence of heterosexuality and homosexuality can be the solution to some of the biggest problems proposed to humanity by the global increase in population.

Then, we have different types of homosexuality, not just that between men and women. Homosexuality with dom/submissive roles, between equals, etc. I think it's very natural that homosexuality exists. There is a force of attraction between positive charges if their sized differ greatly. So, is it really a wonder that with our postmodern thinking some people might come to think the attraction between them and other people of the same gender is the same love as the default?

Human beings have always been known to behave outside the norm, deviating from the centre of gravity, which is, in essence, the ideal behaviour of a social citizen of the society. As we're all animals, we tend to get frustrated with social constraints and what is considered normal. With these frustrations, come the changes to what is regarded as normalcy. The reason is that we live in a civilization, where we have to decide the best way to co-inhabit this planet. And, it changes constantly as the rest of the universe does. We try our best to accommodate the changes so that we lead better lives. And, there are many things that we don't know which greatly affect our everyday life. If we trusted our instincts for everything, we'd be no better than a carnivore in the jungle. Whether it is better to live this life in civilization or to move back to the jungle is a debate for another day, as is whether God made the country, man made the town or God made both, as is whether God exists or not, as is whether free will exists or not. Big questions, I know but they have lots to say about homosexuality. But, since we're all enjoying the life of a social animal, how much deviation from the centre of gravity are you prepared to entertain?

[Iris2]

Calandre, I don't really see the point of your argument. You seem to agree with everything I said and in turn, I agree with you. I wrote it hastily on my phone, so I reckon I wasn't able to expound on my ideas as well as I would've wanted. Your example regarding abuse is the testament to my argument that heterosexual parenting is in no way better than homosexual parenting. And, I said homosexual parenthood can provide loving families to parentless children around the world, where's the harm in that?

If my post was really so bad that it called for such a pointless refute, then I apologize. And, to clarify, I thoroughly disagree with the OP.

[StanBase]

Can't homosexuality be unnatural without being a bad thing?
People aren't meant to fly, but we got airplanes. I don't know about this, but I don't think any animals have any religions. Those aren't bad things, and if you think so, it isn't because it's unnatural.

Hahaha, idk wtf this was supposed to mean

[Shady Fable]

Call me crazy, but if you're born gay and it's all genetic, would that mean (provided that gay couples stick to adoption) and in the future everyone embraces homosexuality and it is not frowned upon (meaning anyone who's gay would be in a gay relationship and there would be no closeted homosexuals) that the genes determining someone as a homosexual would die out? I'm assuming that the only reason there are gay people to this day are due to the fact that homosexuals in the past and present are in the closet and have heterosexual relationships and have children and not the possibility that it would keep creeping up as a mutation in the genome.

I know that that are a lot of conditions and I'm not saying this will happen or that I would want it to, but what do people think of this train of thought? I'm interested what flaws you guys are able to find and how we can discuss it further

[EminemInsider]

Homosexuality is completely natural.

It's marriage that is unnatural.

[Guess_Who]

Not saying its wrong or anything, but this is just basic logic. Why do people even suggest it happens in nature? This is obviously an abomination to the natural order, and homosexuality will surely die out before it can multiply.

When I read this I thought you could be trolling.......

Homosexuality won't die, it's probably since the start and it happens also with animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... in_animals

Don't want to turn this into a religious topic, but religion has much to do with all those ideas about homosexuality being something bad because they can't multiply,As they consider sex something good just with reproductive purposes......but we are in 2014.

By the way gays can marry and adopt kids in Spain. I wonder what people here think about it. Don't know for how long though, the government we have now wants to reform the law.

[Guess_Who]

^^ haha and animals don't marry, therefore marriage is unnatural. I conclude. Pope come at me.

[Guess_Who]

@ Menzo, I was just playing around, I understood what you mean. I wasn't trying to betitle you at all , actually I agree with what you said.

I still wonder what you and the rest think about gay marriage and gays adopting.

[EminemInsider]

I don't think the idea of two animals remaining with one another is that unnatural, I think there are several species that remain with the same 'spouse' their entire lives.

Sure, but apes, whom we are descended from, aren't really one of them.

Given the 50+% divorce rate, it doesn't seem to be something natural to humans.

[UofLCard]

Homosexual people can reproduce.

[Mr Change]

You know, I've thought about this several times before.

Going along with what OP said, the goal in life is to reproduce--to keep the species alive. Homosexuality doesn't support that goal.

It isn't natural, but that doesn't mean it is a bad thing or that it is necessarily unnatural for say, people to be gay. Imo

[NextEpisode]

A lot of biology experts in this thread

It strikes me as quite likely that the disagreements in this thread are - to quite an extent - rooted in a general confusion about the meaning of the term "natural".