Homosexuality:* is present in and faithfully represents nature or life.
* is a phenomenon expressive of natural conditions.
* conforms to the usual and ordinary course of the material world and its phenomena.
Homosexuality is definitionally natural. Further illustrating this is the fact that homosexuality extensively occurs in nature. Homosexuality has been documented in over 450 species and occurs in all sexually reproducing organisms, the only exception being bacteria.
Unlike most species which go through sesonal periods of mating, human beings are always sexuall viable. This makes human beings one of a number of species that do not have sex solely for procreation. Therefore, it is arguable that homosexual sex is unnatural on this basis. During homosexual sex, the genitals are used for copulation, just as they are used during recreational heterosexual sex.
In order for homosexuality to be unnatural, one would have to prove:
1. That homosexuality does not occur in nature.
2. That all recreational sexual acts are unnatural.
The fact that every species would die off if heterosexual was non existence, paints a rather clear picture as to how NATURAL acts of homosexuality are. Im not debating whether or not it happens in nature or whether or not people have sex for purposes other than reproduction. Im simply stating that reproduction is not NATURALLY possible between two same sex partners and thus makes homosexuality unnatural.
If you disagree with that, then tell me how members of the same sex can naturally reproduce amongst themselves and survive their species.
Or is reproduction not a necessity for existence?
Originally posted by clickclick
The fact that every species would die off if heterosexual was non existence, paints a rather clear picture as to how NATURAL acts of homosexuality are. Im not debating whether or not it happens in nature or whether or not people have sex for purposes other than reproduction. Im simply stating that reproduction is not NATURALLY possible between two same sex partners and thus makes homosexuality unnatural.If you disagree with that, then tell me how members of the same sex can naturally reproduce amongst themselves and survive their species.
Or is reproduction not a necessity for existence?
No one is denying that heterosexual sex is necessary for reproduction.
This is not the point. Procreation is not the sole purpose of sex among human beings; this is evident in the fact that human beings are always sexually viable and have sex for other purpouses than procreation.
For homosexuality to be unnatural, you have to prove:
[list=1][*]That homosexuality does not occur in nature.
[*]That all recreational sexual acts are unnatural.[/list]
Originally posted by clickclick
The fact that every species would die off if heterosexual was non existence, paints a rather clear picture as to how NATURAL acts of homosexuality are. Im not debating whether or not it happens in nature or whether or not people have sex for purposes other than reproduction. Im simply stating that reproduction is not NATURALLY possible between two same sex partners and thus makes homosexuality unnatural.If you disagree with that, then tell me how members of the same sex can naturally reproduce amongst themselves and survive their species.
Or is reproduction not a necessity for existence?
Read about worms
http://www.zephyrus.co.uk/wormreproduction.html
You will see the flaw in you thoughts.
I dismissed assexual reproduction, thats a given.
No one is denying that heterosexual sex is necessary for reproduction.This is not the point. Procreation is not the sole purpose of sex among human beings; this is evident in the fact that human beings are always sexually viable and have sex for other purpouses than procreation.
For homosexuality to be unnatural, you have to prove:
1. That homosexuality does not occur in nature.
2. That all recreational sexual acts are unnatural.
Would a human and an animal engaging in recreational sex then too be natural? Im not saying that homosexuality is the same as that, im just pointing out the flaw in your argument. You outlined two things that you believe are necessary to prove that homosexuality is unnatural but in which way does your opinion constitute a fact?
Its true that sex is not used solely for purposes of reproduction but when its NOT A possibility, its because of its inherent unnaturalness. This of course doesnt include abnormalities and such.
Species are supposed to be able to reproduce. I dont deny that there is some degree of validity to what you are saying but my main point remains unchanged.
Originally posted by clickclick
I dismissed assexual reproduction, thats a given.
If you are referring to worms? You did not look at the article. Worms are not asexual, they are HERMAPHRODITES. Please read something, if you stand on the same soapbox and say the same thing post after post, people will stop listening to you.
Originally posted by clickclick
I dismissed assexual reproduction, thats a given.Would a human and an animal engaging in recreational sex then too be natural? Im not saying that homosexuality is the same as that, im just pointing out the flaw in your argument. You outlined two things that you believe are necessary to prove that homosexuality is unnatural but in which way does your opinion constitute a fact?
Its true that sex is not used solely for purposes of reproduction but when its NOT A possibility, its because of its inherent unnaturalness. This of course doesnt include abnormalities and such.
Species are supposed to be able to reproduce. I dont deny that there is some degree of validity to what you are saying but my main point remains unchanged.
Let us examine the definition of "natural":
nat·u·ral adj.
[list=1][*]Present in or faithfully represents nature or life.
[*]A phenomenon expressive of natural conditions.
[*]Conforms to the usual and ordinary course of the material world and its phenomena.[/list]
[list][*]Is homosexuality present in nature? - Yes.
[*]Is homosexuality a phenomena expressive of natural conditions? - Yes.
[*]Does homosexuality conform to the usual and ordinary course of the material world and its phenomena? - Yes.[/list]
Homosexuality is definitionally natural; it occurs in nature. If it is your claim that homosexuality is not natural, you must prove that it does not occur in nature.
Now let us examine interspecies sex:
[list][*]Is interspecies sex present in nature? - No.
[*]Is interspecies sex a phenomena expressive of natural conditions? - No.
[*]Does interspecies sex conform to the usual and ordinary course of the material world and its phenomena? - No.[/list]
Interspecies sex does not qualify as natural.
Therefore, comparing interspecies sex to homosexuality is illogical as it committs the logic fallacy of False Analogy.
Furthermore, in both homosexual sex and recreational heterosexual sex, the genitals are used solely for copulation. If acts in which the genitals are used for something other than procreation are unnatural, then recreational heterosexual sex qualifies as unnatural as well.
If you are referring to worms? You did not look at the article. Worms are not asexual, they are HERMAPHRODITES. Please read something, if you stand on the same soapbox and say the same thing post after post, people will stop listening to you.
Sorry earthworms. Humans arent generally hermaphroditic though, its an abnormality.
Your argument is that recreational sex is found in nature and im not disagreeing wit that.
But as I have previously stated, the fact that reproductive organs can be used for other purposes does not detract from their original purpose. They are a necessity for reproduction and reproduction is about as big a part of nature as you will get. Its in this aspect that homosexuality clearly fails to meet acceptability. It leads to the death of a species when species are clearly designed and capable of reproduction. So how is that consistent with what nature dictates?
Homosexuals can not reproduce.
The fact that something can be used for recreational purposes is entirely besides the point here.
Interspecies sex would most certainly be an excersize of recreational sex. Something you swear is an act of nature. So regardless of how common that exact type of sex is, it would still qualify as sex for recreational purposes. Thus making it by your own argument, natural.
nature never cosider a factor called love, gay can reproduce they just have to do it the good ol natural way male on female, or by test tube
Lets disregard the fact that artificial insemination is a possibility, given that its clearly not natural.
Yes they can reproduce but not with each other. Which is the point. If they want to reproduce, they have to do what has been dictated by nature.
Im not arguing that homosexuals can not be in love and im not even codemning the act either. Im simply stating that nature intended for humans to reproduce via heterosexual means only. Humans are designed to reproduce, its a natural thing. And homosexuals are unable to do so based on its inherent unnaturalness.
Originally posted by clickclick
Your argument is that recreational sex is found in nature and im not disagreeing wit that.
Humans are a part of nature. We are just another animal. God is everything; God is the rock on the ground, God is the cat on my lap, God is the holy man in the temple, God is the gay man going to work, God is the child running through the field, it seems to me that you wish to separate us from God. You say; there's man and then there's nature, you can't get any idea right with that incorrect thinking.
Sorry if anything I have said upset you and I wish you great happiness.
Everything in nature exists for a purpose. Sex purpose is reproduction.
Fishes don´t need sex to reproduce, because they live in the water, and it all happens externally to their organisms. Cells don´t need sex to reproduce, maybe because they are very simple organisms. So in these species sex doesn´t even exist.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
For homosexuality to be unnatural, you have to prove:[list=1][*]That homosexuality does not occur in nature.
[*]That all recreational sexual acts are unnatural.[/list]
What needs to be proved is that homosexuality is natural. It has not been proved yet.