Well, although I'm heterosexual, I never had children, myself, and by choice, too; does that make me unnatural? Does it make me wrong, in some way? I'm looking forward to serious and well-thought out answers.
2006-06-26 13:08:22 · 11 answers · asked by silvercomet 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
The terms 'natural' and 'unnatural' are just ways for people to seek external support for their prejudices. It makes no sense to argue that something is 'natural' and therefore morally right, since even serial killers and paedophiles exist 'naturally'... and conversely it makes no sense to argue that what is 'unnatural' is morally wrong, since (for example) flying to the moon isn't something we can naturally do, but that doesn't make it immoral.
So, we can safely ignore any assertions about what is natural and unnatural on the understanding that the person making the assertion cannot support their argument with valid reasoning.
2006-06-26 13:15:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
To them, no, you are fine. I totally agree with the point you are making. For that matter, if homosexuals are unnatural because they cannot have children, that must mean that people who are naturally sterile via disease, infection, et cetera must also be unnatural, right? So must children who are not old enough to have them as well as the older sect of society who can no longer have kids.
I don't understand why people think that. It is dumb. If they want to split hairs, think about this: homosexuals CAN have kids. Just because you are with the same sex, does not mean that your ovaries no longer hold eggs or your testicles produce sprem. Gay men can have women bear their children just as easily as lesbians can grow a fetus inside her belly.
2006-06-26 20:14:59 · answer #2 · answered by marquise_hari 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To add to your question, I often ask this when people mention gay's inability to produce children together: would you call a woman born with a defect that prevented her from having kids "unnatural"? Would you deny her the right to marry? Does it make her a bad person?
People are just ignorant. They don't know what they're talking about, so they spew hate.
2006-06-26 20:12:38 · answer #3 · answered by cay_damay 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Having children is a big decision, it is not one to be taken lightly. Or just have kids because you weren't careful.
If you have thought out your decision, there must be a reason. Maybe if more people thought about it before they became pregnant, there would be less child abuse.
I am not saying that you would be a child abuser, so please don't think that.
People who want children are going to do a better job raising them because they will not resent the child for what they could have had.
You made a brave decision. That is what life is, the right to decide, to control your life.
I commend you for sticking to your guns.
2006-06-26 20:15:22 · answer #4 · answered by starting over 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have never had kids either and probably will not have them, but then I am weird. I dont even desire children or even to get married. Im not gay but I see the problems in other people's lives and realize I dont want any part of them. As the saying goes "it takes a mighty fine woman to be better than none"
2006-06-26 20:13:33 · answer #5 · answered by erik c 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All the people that post gay bashing topics on here are ignorant.
The thing that everyone needs to keep in mind is that anyone can make babies together! But it takes great people to raise babies and produce strong, productive people that will make a difference in this world.
STRAIGHT-GAY-LESBIAN- WHATEVER ..........
IT TAKES MORE THAN JUST BEING MALE AND FEMALE TO BE "PARENTS"!
YOU ARE NOT WRONG IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN. YOU ARE NOT UNNATURAL.
2006-06-26 20:22:30 · answer #6 · answered by sweet candy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It does seem like society wants women to have children. I find myself really disgusted by the pressure to have children I don't want. I don't think its unnatural; I think it's nature's way of instituting population control.
2006-06-26 20:11:23 · answer #7 · answered by cbett50 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
God may not have intended for men to have sex but I dont view homosexuality as a sin and i doubt God does either. I think people who say "well thats what it says in the bible" are ridiculous because no one follows everything the bible says. this whole "its not natural thing" or "if god intended man to be gay, there would be gay animals too" well thats sort of contradictory because lots of christians say "no where in the bible does God refer to humans as animals". so we either are animals or we arent for crap sakes. I truely believe homosexuality is genetic and it is caused by the part of the brain which tells each person which sex they should be attracted to, in homosexuals that part of their brain is the "unnatural" sex. I mean imagine yourself tomorrow, u wake up in another world where you are expected to have sex with ONLY people of the same sex as you are, and if you have sex with the opposite sex you will be ridiculed, i couldnt imagine having sex with a woman and actually being attracted to women and i imagine thats what if feels like for homosexuals. what i said to the last homophobe i talked to was this "God made homosexuals just as he made you and i"
2006-06-26 20:26:43 · answer #8 · answered by E 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Penises are made to go inside vaginas, not butts. Mouths and genitals isn't really natural either.
I don't care if they want to do it, though. People can get freaky any way they want to for all I care. :-)
It's not natural, but they again, neither are oreo cookies but I sure enjoy those every once in awhile. :-D
2006-06-26 20:16:07 · answer #9 · answered by NoWayOut 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All things that occur in natural are natural. Peace.
2006-06-26 20:11:02 · answer #10 · answered by wildrover 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋