Homosexaulity is not nature

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFeXwKnCUNI"]Out in Nature: Homosexual Behavior in the Animal Kingdom (1 of 6) - YouTube[/ame]

A great little series to debunk the consistently perpetrated lie.

Homosexual behavior appears in nature.... so wouldn't that make it natural?

 

Homosexual BEHAVIOR. Not homosexuality.

 

Same thing.

....

I am so tried. Meh. The title was supposed to be "Homosexuality is not natural".

 

Pair bonding and egg hatching too.

Let's face it, HUMAN monogamous relationships and marriage to one person are "unnatural" (as in, again the grain of our nature to have as much sex as possible). With that in mind, "heterosexuality" doesn't exist in nature, only heterosexual behaviour.

 

Egg hatching is preceeded by one of the females copulating with a male. Heterosexual behavior.

 

So your position is that homosexual behavior is natural as long as it is preceded by heterosexual behavior?

 

And? It's still behaviour they engage in. They fulfill the same role in "raising" as a male and a female. Same in many ways to what human same-sex couples do. Paternal instinct is natural and universal.

 

If homosexuality is not natural then what is it? a lifestyle choice? a person choosing their sexuality?

 

It would be natural because animals don't "choose" to be in a same-sex bond, their instincts lead them to. And if that mechanism exists in nature as a biological instinct, the same would apply to humans. It is frankly proof of a biological basis to sexuality.

 

Homosexuality goes against nature. That is not to say it doesn't exist outside of human behavior. It does. It doesn't mean it is natural, nor healthy.

 

I'm not sure what definition of "natural" you're using - please elaborate.

 

Lol

Watch the video in the OP and come back.

 

Nope. My position is that homosexual behavior isnt homosexuality

 

Then heterosexual behaviour isn't heterosexuality. At least by human standards.

 

It also does not mean it is unnatural, or unhealthy. There is nothing about homosexual behavior that is inherently less healthy than the same behavior done by heterosexuals.

 

61% of HIV cases in the US are among men who have sex with men. 3-4% of the population accounting for 61% of the disease. While on the other hand, heterosexual relations account for 99. something% of the child births.

 

If you're recognising HIV as a problem for gay men, don't you think an institution which very much encourages monogamy would help curtail those rates?

Bearing in mind homosexuality has both the riskiest and the least riskiest form or sex depending on whether they are male or female.

 

That is because they had sex with people who were infected.

If they had engaged in homosexual behavior with people who were NOT infected, their rate of infection would have been zero.

The cause of their infection was not homoseuxal behavior or the gender of their partner. It was their specific choice of partner. If a heterosexual man only had sex with an HIV woman, he would be more likely to get HIV than a negative gay guy having sex with another negative gay guy. Despite the fact that he is engaging in heterosexual behavior, his sex would still be less healthy.

 

Monogamy is a foreign concept to most gays. Open relationships where sex with other partners is the norm. Monogamy is important in heterosexuality in that it helps establish paternity.

 

And if you choose a partner who is a man who has sex with men, your chances of contracting HIV is about TWENTY times that of choosing a partner who is not a man who has sex with men

 

But you haven't shown that to be the sole purpose. In fact in some places both same-sex parents can be put on the birth certificate to establish legal paternity.

You can't underestimate the importance of marriage as an institution. It solidifies bonds socially, legally and economically, creating more stable and long lasting relationships. The reasons that can be attributed to higher rates of promiscuity among gay people are very obviously the social factors and stigmas that work against them (such as the intolerance of parents, friends, society at large, ect). Indeed marriage would not solve that overnight, since even if full legal equality were a reality it would take a few generations for society's attitudes to significantly shift to the point that the vast majority don't bat an eyelid when two people of the same sex walk down the street holding hands.

But unless you think there's some biological reason gay people are promiscuous, the reasons are ALL environmental. And the environment can only begin to change when the government ceases to sanction discrimination.

HIV rates would blatantly decrease as the lawful and social normalisation of homosexuality reaches a veritable equilibrium.

 

Absurd made up nonsense. Birth certificates have one space for the mother, reserved for the mother who gave birth, and one space for the father.

 

Someone doesn't keep up with the news do they?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-05/iowa-same-sex-lawsuit/52388548/1

 

And in the UK it's been the case for about 2 and a half years. Just like opposite-sex sterile couples can (where the father isn't in fact the father - same deal)

 

So what? If I get a partner with HIV, that just means I was not careful in my choice of partner. It doesn't mean the sex act itself has any bearing on whether or not I get a disease.

The actual sex act is no more or less risky than the exact same act performed with heterosexuals. Homosexual SEX is not inherently unhealthy.