Dissident Dan
- 236
- 2
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, but homosexuals can't produce offspring, and if anything can be said to be "natural", it's the continuation of species.
Being gay doesn't make you impotent. People have often not been gay their entire lives. Also, some people marry members of the opposite sex to be more culturally-acceptable. Remember "The Birdcage"? Robin Williams's gay character had a son.
Originally posted by RageSk8
You're missing one of the biggest points of evolution - there is no point to evolution, there is no point to an organism, there are only patterns we can describe. Evolution does not give organisms "purpose". "Sh*t happens" is the best way to look at evolution.
Good points. It is all too common a false belief that evolution has a purpose.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
A natural behavior is one that wouldn't consist of unnatural imbalances are such. A social disorder due to a chemical imbalance isn't natural, even though it's caused through natural means.
The reason homosexuality couldn't be considered natural is because the point of sex is reproduction, homosexual reproduction just isn't possible.
It could be reasoned that something isn't natural if it hinders what was the natural intention of the thing being questioned.
How is a chemical imbalance an "unnatural" imbalance?
There is no "point" to sex, other than what an individual ascribes to it, and then that's only the point for that individual having sex. If the only "point" of sex was reproduction, then we'd either have an incredible reproduction rate or a lot less sex going on.
The only definition of what "natural" really means that I can come up with is "the way things have been for a long time." Homosexuality has been around for a LONG time, whether or not it was in the majority.
Finally, whether or not something is considered "unnatural" is irrelevant. That's just an arbitrary criterion for a value judgment.