Originally posted by Ushgarak
To all three-If so... so what?
Biologically natural- I don't care.
Compatible with natural selection- I don't care
Genetic mutation (whatever you mean by THAT)- I don't care
None of those three have anything do do with whether homosexuality is morally acceptable or not.
If you want to talk about something and not seem 'pathetic', try and actually talk to the point.
I can only assume from your quote above, that you have admitted that the arguments supporting homosexuality being solely dependant upon one's "genetics/biology" have been thoroughly defeated. So as a last resort, in a typical relativistic fashion😉, you're now attempting to resort to the commonly used "morality" argument.
Before we delve deeper into the "morality" aspect of homosexuality. Let us first define the term that we are using. This is essential if one ever hopes to get their point across.
MoralityThe quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
Virtuous conduct.
A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
Typically, most modern civilizations have defined such behaviors as being "immoral(bad)" Many reasons come to mind as to why these behaviors are defined that way. "Spiritual/Supernatural" religions definitely play a key role in defining homosexual behavior as being morally unacceptable. Particularly the monotheistic religions of Christianity, Islam, and similar belief systems that adhere to Judeo - Christian based doctrines.
However, even without making religion the primary bent to the morality argument, many "secular" societies have deemed such behaviors immoral as well. Take note that I use the term "secular" loosely in this context, specifically to represent "non - spiritual/supernatural" based religions. (i.e., Humanism, Agnosticism, Atheism, etc.)
With that being stated, let us now define why such behavior has been deemed "morally unacceptable" in "secular" societies.
1. It goes against the predominant pairing in nature, which is represented by the coupling between a male/female of a species.
2. Such behavior is often linked to sexual promiscuity. Those who are promiscuous are often thought to carry sexual diseases (and rightfully so, there is a direct correlation between promiscuity and the spread of STD's)
Statistically speaking, homosexual relationships often don't last as long as their heterosexual counterparts. In addition to this, the partners of such unions are generally found to be sexually promiscuous. The following is a brief list of these sociological studies, in addition to statistics taken from varied sources:
A recent study of Dutch homosexual men found that homosexual unions simply do not last. The study found that the average homosexual relationship lasts only 1-½ years. By comparison, more than two-thirds of heterosexual marriages in America last longer than ten years.
Dr. Maria Xiridou, of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, conducted the survey, which was published in the May edition of the AIDS Journal. Not only did her research indicate the failed longevity of homosexual relationships, it showed that rampant promiscuity that exists in homosexual unions. Dr. Xiridou’s research found that “men in homosexual relationships, on average, have eight partners a year outside those relationships.”
The Advocate, America’s largest gay magazine, published the results of their own survey in the August 1994 edition. Their research found:Fifty-seven percent of gay readers claimed more than thirty sexual partners during their lifetime.
Thirty-five percent claimed more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime.
Forty-eight percent admitted having a “three-way” sexual encounter during the past five years.
Twenty-nine percent admitted to meeting their partners in a bathhouse or a sex club.
The complete article with sources on all of these topics can be found at the following site.
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/pages/NEWS/news.aspx?story=1296
Taking all of the statistical and scientific data into consideration, I feel it necessary to now ask you all how such lifestyles can be defined as being "moral", based on the information given above? What social benefits do such behaviors offer to a society?
In retrospect, when one looks at the "moral" aspect of homosexuality, it is very difficult to determine how it can be deemed as such. Particularly when statistics and science, prove that such behavior has degenerative effects on all of those who directly/indirectly embrace it.
With higher separation rates & higher risks of spreading STD's due to promiscuity, one can obviously conclude that this would mean more tax dollars going into social health care systems, and various other social programs. Indeed from an economic standpoint, such relationships offer very few monetary gains and no social rewards to a culture. The only gains a society could truly attest to receiving from such relationships, would be those which represented broken homes, lost ambitions, and failing health conditions.
All of these things being stated, the only clear argument one has left to present for homosexuality being "good", is that two individuals who are homosexuals, could indeed be "in love with each other."
I believe this argument now brings us to the age old adage...
"What is love?"
Do we define it be sexuality?
Is it defined by procreation?
Is it defined by romance?
In this lifetime, I don't believe one will ever be able to completely define what love is, however, I believe we all can clearly define what it is not...
It is not selfish...
It is not untruthful...
It never fails...
Homosexual behavior strictly involves the pleasing of one's self..
Often times those who engage in such behavior do not use true natural-biological functions of various body parts...
The behavior fails in producing offspring which will allow for the continuation/advancement(syn evolution) of a species
With that being stated, one is entitled to make whatever choices they desire in life, however, it is always important to remember that choice and not genetics, will ultimately be responsible for the outcomes that directly follow each decision one has made.
Fin