Argument: Homosexuality is not natural.
One important thing to define is what is “natural” and what is “unnatural”.
As homosexuality has to do with biological life forms and the behaviors they exhibit, I feel that the only definitions necessary for both terms are those that involve direct reference to nature and biology:
”Dictionary”
Natural:
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to ARTIFICIAL)
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
[...]
5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
6. growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation
Unnatural:
1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.
2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.
3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected
[...]
5. not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived
What we can infer from that is those behaviors we observe in the wild (as in, the ones that cannot be considered “artificial”) by other species are therefore most likely to be “natural” behaviors.
Therefore, in order to determine the normal, natural occurrence of homosexuality, we must observe it in the wild.
And lo and behold, we have found such behavior, in well over 1,500 species, including many of the higher mammals like apes, which are our closest kin. If you would like more information on this subject, you can visit the Wikipedia page on homosexuality, along with all of the species that have been identified as having homosexual behavior (ranging from mating to long term, stable relationships):
Homosexuality in Animals,
Homosexuality
Argument: If everyone were gay, then the species wouldn’t reproduce: clearly, homosexuality is detrimental to the species.
This makes the flawed assumption that homosexuality will suddenly arise the dominant and even overarching orientation, which is entirely false and meant to be a straw man rather than an argument based on actual observation. In general, homosexuality is in the minority, with the vast majority of individuals of a species being heterosexual. This percentage does not grow or change, suggesting that it is not a genetic trait, nor will it negatively affect breeding populations. Further, this argument assumes that all homosexuals will never have vaginal intercourse and instead will only have sex with members of their own gender, meaning no offspring will be produced. It also completely disregards the number of bisexuals in a population.
In order to understand this, we must recognize that there is a distinct difference between “orientation” – that is, one’s sense of sexual/romantic attraction to others – and “sexual behavior” – how one acts sexually; if they are monogamous, bigamous, celibate, etc. A homosexual man may derive more sexual pleasure from sex with another man, but this does not make him impotent: he is still capable of ejaculating into a female and so impregnating her. In turn, a lesbian woman is certainly still capable of becoming pregnant. Because both of these examples are homosexual, they will therefore prefer to have sex with those of their own gender, at least, physically. But for social reasons they may choose not to: there are plenty of gays in opposite sex relationships because they have not accepted their orientation or they want to change, etc.
Also, this argument suggests that homosexuals therefore do not help the population in any way: if they aren’t producing new offspring, they’re useless, right? It was a waste to bring one into the world, seeing as it doesn’t pay back, correct?
Wrong. It doesn’t matter how many children a woman gives birth to: if she abandons every last one and they day, the total number of children she has raised is zero, and so she has not “made up for herself” when she dies. However, if she raises the children she gives birth to, she is securing the next generation.
Pairs of homosexual swans and penguins have been known to take care of eggs and raise the hatchlings, therefore ensuring that the new generation may continue on. In that sense, they are adding to the population because they are raising the next generation. They didn’t produce the child, but they are helping their species.
It’s similar to adoption. The person that remains celibate all their life but adopts several children and raises them won’t have passed on their genes, but they will have aided the next generation and so helped their population.
Argument: It’s a sin: it says so in the Bible.
The Bible is a religious text; it has no scientific credentials to speak of, and in fact many parts of it are fantastical in nature, and creationism is, scientifically, dead wrong. Therefore, holding it aloft as a scientific source is entirely illogical.
If you view it as a moral code, then you must realize that others do not, and unless you live in a theocracy, it cannot be used as the basis of laws governing human rights. Further, usually the texts used to support this view come from Leviticus, which mainly revolves around how to slaughter and prepare sacrifices at the altar. Seeing as I hardly see people quoting that part and urging others to sacrifice to God, this strongly suggests that people are picking and choosing which parts of the texts fit their personal prejudices. That is not following the Bible as a moral guide: that is marrying ignorance and hatred and backing it with a bastardization of religion in order to make it a credible argument, which it never will be.
As those arguments were the ones that I noticed in both (Iron Knee and DSkaterdude) of your posts, those were the only ones I addressed. If you have more, please, offer them, as well as any rebuttals or scientific documentation explaining your views.
100
200
250
