DIRESTRAITS wrote:Looking at it from a purely scientific standpoint, homosexuality is not natural.
There are a dozen ways you can approach this one and it really depends on your definition of 'natural'. At the most generalised definition, it means that which falls within human experience, making homosexual natural. At a slightly more precise definition of it occuring within nature, homosexuality also fills that definition. The definition which is often used erroneously is simply that it goes against the norm. In the same way, one could define any minority interest as unnatural - for example, if less than the majority liked ice-cream then eating ice-cream would be unnatural under this definition.
It occurs in nature apart from humans, as well. Homosexual behaviour has been noted in over
450 species, including
penguins. A common counter-claim to this is that they are not exclusively homosexual or that they are simply going for same-sex mates due to lack of opposite-sex mates, which is not always true; the penguins mentioned in the link above would not leave their current same-sex mate even when female penguins were introduced.
In the debate as a whole, though, whether it is natural or not is moot (though it most certainly is by anything but the wooliest of definitions). Not everything that is natural is good (for example, otters are known to eat their young) and not everything that is unnatural is bad (how many people do you know who refuse to wear glasses when they need them because they don't occur in nature?).
Scientifically speaking, the purpose of life is to reproduce, which is impossible for homosexuals, therefore the trait never would have developed in the species. Furthermore, if it was an inherited genetic trait, it would have died long ago as those who possess it would have been unable to reproduce.
There are dozens of reasons why this argument falls flat on its face, so I'll say them all methodically. Firstly, it is questionable that the purpose of life is to reproduce. While as a population it is obviously necessary to our survival, it hardly follows that the only ambition every human has is to reproduce. On the contrary, I know many people (and I'm sure you do) who do not wish to reproduce and have other desires in their lives. Purpose tends to be self-defined and is not so simple as to sum up in one thing.
Also, there is the assertion that homosexuals cannot reproduce. Homosexuality is not linked to infertility in any way. If a gay man copulates with a woman, he is as likely to impregnate her as a heterosexual man is, all other things being equal. With modern techniques, such as surrogate mothering or IVF, it is possible for homosexuals to have children.
The hidden reasoning behind the above argument tends to be that by not reproducing, that couple is not contributing the society and humanity's survival. This is flawed reasoning on several counts; firstly, having more children is very questionable in helping humanity's survival, as overpopulation is a present and very important problem.
Secondly, it implies that the only way to benefit humanity is by having children. Not is this pseudologous if we take it as true, but is also nonsense because it simply isn't true; anyone heterosexual couple can pop out babies, and if those children are not looked after (as quite a few aren't) then the benefit to society is very questionable as well. Raising the child is just as, if not more, important than merely having the child. Homosexuals have, are, and will continue doing this for the foreseeable future.
or are you still in high school?
