We have all heard the arguments time and again from people on homosexuality. There are those who believe it is unnatural, and that it should be treated as a crime against nature and God. Then there is the opposition to this point of view that states that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomena among mammals.
Now usually this argument takes a standard course. The opposition references the Bible, it is argued that natural observation contradicts the Bibles. Then the opposition claims it is a choice made by humans, and not a naturally occurring event. The counterpoint is almost defiantly the example that homosexuality has been observed in almost every mammalian species on the planet as occurring in nature.
Now this next part is where I see a major flaw in logic. This assertion is met with the idea that animals simply do not know any better, and cannot make the conscious choice to deny these "unnatural urges"> Humans can.
This contradicts the earlier assertion that it is not naturally occurring. If animals are not capable of making rational choices, they are acting on instinct, an instinct that they did not choose, but rather simply... have. This is in complete contradiction to the idea that humans are simply making a choice, and there is not naturally occurring phenomena that leads to homosexuality. So rather if any choice is truly
made by the homosexual (in regards to this specific topic) it cannot be whether or not they are gay, but rather if they accept it or not.
In short, I believe that the argument put forth against homosexuality is not only inherently flawed, but self contradictory. I bring this argument here to test this idea. For those who act in opposition towards homosexuality as a naturally occurring event, how can you make this claim without the inerrant contradiction? Am I missing something?
™ Version 4.2