Homosexuality? In all of 'evolution' two men cannot create a baby...nor can two women. If procreation is physically IMPOSSIBLE...then doesnt that at its most core derivative, classify the 'behavior/preference" as NOT NATURAL and further, that the evidence of it, should be defined as the very least as a highly recurring yet unreproducable 'mutation' that cannot propogate itself unless through 'natural' processes ie..a man and woman?
2007-09-24 09:58:01 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
mutation in 'nature' amongst animals doesnt make the behavior natural. I ask in this forum because many atheists are evolutionist in opposition to creationism.
2007-09-24 10:10:30 · update #1
'gay' apes can no more reproduce than gay men....ie..unnatural. Unless you are going to argue that procreation is not the most natural necessary aspect of man's continued existence on the planet.
2007-09-24 10:13:29 · update #2
the argument that its biological has to then beg the question is it a mutation of biology (?) in that it cannot recreate itself AMONGST itself? Anything that cannot reproduce life by its OWN function, sexually or asexually exists out of mutation/exception..not Nature.
2007-09-24 10:28:18 · update #3
Ok..let me get this straight- Evolution can explain away all the development of the world and universe with neat little explanations for everything creationists attribute to God..but its ridiculous for me to ask how it explains/categorizes homosexuality? Are you guys kidding?
2007-09-24 10:46:13 · update #4
The same way evolution created impotence, susceptibility to certain kinds of illness, or other reproduction-limiting factors.
2007-09-24 10:09:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Really... just how many humans do YOU know that ONLY have sex for procreation?
Sorry- squirrels don't kneel down and repent every time they have gay sex, and neither should humans. Its pretty natural (humans aren't the only species who act on their homosexuality)- whether your religion says it is or not. Tell you what- YOU and I just won't have gay sex, but maybe Elton John will. Its no more your business (having a problem with it) than it is MY business (having absolutely no problem with - though equally uninterested).
You missed the point, dumdum. Just because heterosexual sex produces an offspring, doesn't mean that all members of the species partake-nor does that make it the ONLY reason they have sex. There are more than enough people procreating. If two members of the same sex want to do their thing together- its not going to make that much difference; and stepping on their feet for doing it makes anyone look like a 1950's style square... ditch the bigotry... it'll help you.
BTW- if its unnatural, why is the male G-spot (prostrate gland) part of the rectum? Why would it be easily stimulated by a penis? Why have a pleasure center there at all?
2007-09-24 10:10:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Let me get this strait, you are finally admitting that God created Homosexuality?
In reality as others have noted, Homosexuality does occur in nature. It is a result of sexual attraction, that takes place in many animal species. Sexual urges are very natural, and some animals, including people are born with the urge to practice sex with the same type of partner. The fact that homosexual sex doesn't result in procreation, is probably the only thing keeping homosexuality at a level 7-10% rate. Otherwise it would probably be much higher.
Your arguments is basically stating that evolution cannot be real because homosexuality exists. Think about the alternative, Homosexuals exist because of a creator?
2007-09-24 10:08:09 · answer #3 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
In nature, homosexuality has been observed in animals (deer, mice [in labs when artificially crowded into small spaces], goats, dolphins and bonobos all have been observed) when the topography of the land can no longer support the growing number of members of a certain group.
So, homosexuality is a natural response to the need to STOP procreating due to minimum natural resources that can support the entire species as a group.
Whats that again about it having no natural purpose? Im afraid youre wrong.
2007-09-24 10:08:36 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
This argument assumes that homosexuality is definitely a genetic and inherited trait. Since no one has determined this to be the case, this argument seems moot. However, if you want an explanation for this argument, allow me to suggest that in relatively small and isolated populations of sexual organisms, when the population of one sex or another becomes too far out of balanced to one or the other, a reaction may occur in the form of hormones from the mother's body effecting developing embryos of her young to alter their behavior, and thus reduce the pressure for sexual competition in the population. There - a biological justification for homosexual behavior.
2007-09-24 10:18:41 · answer #5 · answered by Lao Pu 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How does evolution explain why some people like chocolate? Or ballet? Or skydiving? None of these has anything to do with furthering the human race, and yet they are preferences ingrained in certain people. All humans have certain preferences they are born with. There is no reason to believe that evolution has anything to do with human preferences regarding anything, beyond enabling our brains to prefer certain things over others. This question is based on a fallacy.
2007-09-24 10:11:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bcause it seems to be a dual psychological genetic thing, it dosen't really. Anything that is purely homosexual [that is unable to procreate with a thing that can produce offspring with it] is not going to reproduce [Therefore, it's a dead end]
You'll notice how no species is consisted of fully homosexual creatures, for example [Well, species with 2 or more genders at least]
2007-09-24 10:15:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Homosexuality is not an obvious part of evolution, I agree. However, homosexuality is part of several species' social structure. The relationship is obviously beneficial in many instances, and obviously has been over time. Giraffes, for instance, MOSTLY exhibit homosexual behavior. Humans, just a fraction, and of course there's football.
2007-09-24 10:11:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just because you are blind to the plan doesn't mean there isn't a logical one. It helps provide for survival of the species by providing an extra set of hands to raise the youth. Remember there weren't older adults around in the past when life spans were shorter to take care of orphans in a world where many died before their children reached maturity.
2007-09-24 10:25:47 · answer #9 · answered by American Spirit 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look at it from the point of view of the sibling of a homosexual. There's a non-reproducing adult who can contribute any extra resources to your child, the closest relative in the next generation. If the gene is recessive, it's frequency should fluctuate in proportion to the degree of overpopulation.
2007-09-24 10:12:35 · answer #10 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it's not natural, why does homosexuality occur in animals other than humans?
Edited:
"mutation in 'nature' amongst animals doesnt make the behavior natural."
Uh, did you bother to look up the definition of "natural" before you stated this?
2007-09-24 10:10:27 · answer #11 · answered by OPad 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋