Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
Skybird:
I would agree here. I believe the homosexual animal theory was taken as proof it is all natural(for humans) was accepted a bit to easily.
|
You're falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy, I believe.
"Natural" doesn't inherently mean "good". Rape is natural. Earthquakes are natural. Illness is natural. Sulphuric acid and mercury are natural. "Natural" doesn't mean "good" or "healthy", it means just that,
natural.
Of nature.
Yes, homosexuality is natural. Sure, it may not lead to procreation (lots of things don't, like wearing a condom or waiting until you find the "right one"), but that's another discussion. Natural just means natural.
Quote:
|
Homosexuals eicst, and I see no reasoin to discriminate against them, but I also am not willing to label homosexuality as a sexual norm that is of equal meaning and importance in nature than heterosexual relations. If that would be the case, then man species would have gone extinct a long time ago, and probbaly our own as well.
|
I could say the same about safe sex with condoms, or the morning-after pill, or waiting with having sex until you find the right one. If everyone wore condoms every time they had intercourse, and the girls used morning-after pills, we would probably go extinct pretty quick as well. What's your point?
I see lots of advantages in a system within a species where a small fraction enjoys sex that does not lead to procreation. For one thing, this "frees up" individuals to adopt and care for the offspring spawned by heterosexuals who for some reason or another cannot take care of them.