Originally posted by Gunslinger
HUMANS naturally have to to procreate to survive.
Sloppy thinking there oxygen, water, sleep, food, shelter. That's all humans need to survive. Procreation is entirely optional.
Without going into too many off the wall what ifs with out gender to opposite gender procreation the species would die.
Yes but here's the rub: Only some are required to procreate for the species to survive not all of us. In fact only a few males are necessary: females are more important, but I'm guessing that you'll have much less issues with female homosexuals than with male ones, despite the rather larger impact of lesbianism in the whole species survival issue.
Thus homosexuality is un natural. It goes against natures cylce of life and survival of the HUMAN species.
And yet here we sit in nature, with all these naturally-occurring homosexuals all over the shop. So who's got it wrong here? You or reality? And if nature abhors homosexuality so much, why doesn't it go the same way as it does with vacuums? If heterosexuality is essential for survival, how have all these homosexuals survived? If they confer no evolutionary advantage why haven't they gone the way of the tail or the appendix?
This is really the crux of the problem in your logic these two points are where it all falls down:
Not every member of a species has to procreate in order for the species to survive. And procreation is not the only factor governing the survival of a species. There are many others in play. A speculative example homosexuality is often linked to creative stuff, so perhaps homosexuals had a part to play in the development of language and written language in particular, which has an immense importance in the survival and thriving of our species.
I have no idea if that's true or not but it serves to illustrate that procreation alone is not necessarily the be-all and end-all of survival: there are other ways to contribute to the survival of the species, and homosexuals may well have contributed to it and may still be contributing to it.
I think life, evolution and genetics is rather more complicated than we think. In fact I suspect it's more complicated than we
can think the rules may well be simple, but the results are too complex to fathom. Which is why I use the all-encompassing definition of what is natural. Of course you still haven't defined what you think nature is, or what natural is, so I'm still working on my version.
Yeast procreates until it suffocates in its own waste and the whole colony kills itself, humans are currently in danger of doing pretty much the same. Procreation does not necessarily mean survival. In fact, adaptation is generally the defining factor in survival. Procreation is only one strategy used to adapt.
So all in all dismissing homosexuality as unnatural and contrary to nature based solely on the fact that homosexuals can't procreate seems a little premature. It also rather hinges on the view that a species dying out is unnatural, but the evidence points to the opposite being the case.
You can talk about monkeys and bees/ants all you want but what we are talking about here is HUMANS and nothing else.
Humans are just jumped up monkeys anyway (all apes are), indeed our closest relative is the foully unnatural (by your standards) Bonobo who will pretty much do anything to anything at every opportunity. They're a very peaceful and content lot, with no wars and not much fighting disputes are settled through sex. And we keep on insisting we're the clever ones...
I digress. I would also like to know what your feelings on childless heterosexual couples are, though: should they be allowed to marry? Even if they are so "unnatural" that they are not going to procreate? Are those who cannot procreate also unnatural? Should all couples who want to marry be forced take a fertility test and sign a "We promise to procreate" affadavit? It's a logical step based on the premise of "couple X is unnatural because they can't/won't procreate, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to marry".
