nj writes:
And consider this as well. If this sexuality were really about love, then it shouldn't matter what sex anyone is, right? Therefore, if you remove the will to procreate, but only have homosexual sex as being measured strictly for sexual gratification, then where does love fit in? I don't understand that.
If you want to put it in terms of love, then shouldn't it be the case that whether or not the other person is of opposite sex or not you'd want to marry him/her? In fact, throughout my life I've had many great male friends as best buddies. I should have married one of them, then? We did, after all, do everything together.
Yes, but finding ways around nature doesn't help the evolutionary argument for why homosexuality exists at all. Yes, you could be artificially inseminated, you could adopt, you could have sex with a member of the opposite sex, but I'm talking about nature. Why would such a thing be selected for. Why would nature subvert itself? That makes no sense to me.
Despite the fact that this has been explained a kazillion times on here, you still manages to miss it.
Evolution and Natural Selection does not necessarily mean the pumping out of as many offspring as you possibly can. Having a gay uncle helping to raise you up does have its advantages. I am reminded of the grandmother hypothesis.
No. Because the answer is obvious. They 'want' different colored eyes, not that its natural. Perhaps we could make the same argument for homosexuality.
Oh, sure. It is entirely possible that there is a world wide conspiracy where humans and animal alike decide to be homosexuals and try to pass it as not having a choice about it. Those gay ducks, penguins, apes, etc. as well as my gay friends sat in a dark room together and consciously decided to be gay.
..... There it is. There is nothing left to discuss. Homosexuality is either a choice, directed by societal influence, or nature is in confusion which undermines the basic principles of evolution. The two are incompatible.
What about gay ducks, penguins, apes, cats, and a myriad other animal species that have homosexual members? Are they, too, influenced by the liberal agenda?
You can only fast for so long. My point is, if nature gives us instinct for a reason, what reason is there to select homosexuality?
How about to take care of your siblings' children?
And how far down does the rabbit hole go as far as what we get to decide is instinctual and what is societally induced?
Again, were gay ducks under some kind of duck societal pressure to be gay?
Couldn't we make the argument that old men desiring fertile, pubescent females is merely an instinct to procreate with the healthiest stock? And yet, we have a moral aversion towards pedophilia. Again, couldn't we make excuses for rape as some evolutionary basis? Just how far down the does the rabbit hole go? Where is the line drawn in the sand?
Again, you are trying to pass off the argument of making a comparason between sex between 2 or more consenting adults and rape as somehow valid.
I have. And if you read the OP's points, he has met homosexuals that have said the same thing. In other words, they are inventing reasons for why they are a-okay with nature and that they are actually beneficial. Sounds like purpose to me.
It's all in your head. Nobody is trying to convince you that it's a-okay. I certainly am under no obligation to try to convince you that my right handedness is a-okay. My wife is under no obligation to try to convince you that her left handedness is a-okay.
You seem to start out a priori that there is something wrong with homosexuality and that the rest of us have to somehow convince you that it's a-okay. You should be aware that I am under no moral or legal obligation to convince you that I should be able to have sex with Steve or any other consenting male adult in the population.
™ Version 4.2