An argument for why same sex attraction is against nature

Submit Do not compare animals to your situation. Two male flour beetles will mount each other one even producing sperm on the other so that if he finds a mate it will be the other beetles sperm impregnating the female therefore maximising the chance of having offspring, still reproduction purposes. Female albatrosses pair for life because the shortage of males in their groups mainly because males migrate but if two females pair they have a chance at raising ones offspring and surviving. Males mount other males for dominance and just like all apes females will mount females in order to make more fertile and encouraged for a male.

An argument for why same sex attraction is against nature

Allow me to reiterate that this argument is fallacious and built up simply to support discrimination against sexual minorities. But before I start discounting this fallacy, I will briefly discuss the term Natural. Natural is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: It is based on the above definitions and many others which are beyond the length of this write-up that the argument that other minority sexual orientations are unnatural sits: That queer sexual orientations are not found in nature, not formed by nature, and, ultimately, are not part and parcel of the make-up of individuals who identify as queer.

A question I once heard asked at a conference which goes thus: Indeed there is a common sexual orientation and other less common but equally valid ones. This is not so. Also, species do not ONLY need to procreate to ensure their survival but must function as a community to transfer genes that are overall favourable onto the next generation.

That means that procreation is not the only contribution that members of a species have to make to prevent the extinction of the species.

These theories hold that the genetic contribution to homosexuality has been preserved through time because this helps support other related genes that favour propagation of the human species. My point here is that there is no need for nature to procreate numerous offspring without favouring them for survival; they will just die off and this is evidenced by the fact that Neanderthal man and other older fossil records of man showed smaller skulls corresponding to smaller brain size and were less intelligent.

A study done by Andrea Camperio Ciani and Elena Pellizzari in found that non-parental females aunts and grandmothers in the maternal lines of homosexual males were more fertile than those of heterosexual males, suggesting that the genetic contribution to fertility in women was being carried along by nature with male homosexuality.

The research helps throw some light on the fact that female fertility and homosexual tendencies are relevant to preventing extinction as a pair. It is evident therefore that nature has persistently preserved both heterosexual and other sexual orientations through generations because nature requires heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and other sexual orientations to prevent humans from going extinct.

This is because other orientations obviously contribute to the propagation of the Homo sapiens species and no way result in its extinction because they exist in balance with heterosexual orientation which can still procreate. If we know anything about nature and science, it is that history has shown how much of nature science is still yet to uncover.

So I can imagine there are many more unknown contributions of the diverse minority sexual orientations in nature that science is even yet to explore. Another basis of this argument comes from the direction of the anatomical forms of male and female animal species.

It states that there are no Homosexual or Bisexual animals. Examples of this part of the argument include statements like: Nature has also fortunately blessed our diverse world with intersex members of species regarded in certain parlances as hermaphrodites who have natural anatomical sexual organs conforming to neither Male nor Female strictly ambiguous genitalia or having both.

Is orientation an Evangelical argument for same-sex marriage? - Ethos

Finally, scientifically speaking, man is classified under the Kingdom Animalia. If the Homo sapiens species were the only member of the kingdom to exhibit non-heterosexual orientations, we would have questioned the scientific validity of these orientations being natural.

But this is not so. What is however impossible to find in the Kingdom Animalia is the hate directed against people of minority sexual orientations. The comparison however is not apt because it is trying to equate Homosexuality, Bisexuality and Other sexual orientations to behaviours that are harmful to society.

No sexual orientation is in itself harmful and several studies have shown that Homosexuality, Bisexuality and Other Sexual orientations are no more harmful than Heterosexual orientation.

An argument for why same sex attraction is against nature

Even if stealing, murder and other crimes can be said to be natural, these behaviours are not acceptable because they are harmful. However, non-heterosexual orientations are both natural and harmless and are not crimes against humanity.

Permit me to say that people who say this are just brandishing their ignorance on the subject of genetics and its research.WHY ARE HOMOSEXUAL ACTS WRONG? by Brian W. Harrison Much recent argumentation in the public square against same-sex ‘marriage’ prescinds altogether from the question of Sodom” [As with sacrilege], vices against nature are also against God, as stated above, and are so.

Same-sex “marriage” destroys the integrity of true marriage by turning traditional marriage into a species within the marriage genus.

This broad marriage genus would supposedly encompass traditional marriage, homosexual or heterosexual unions, and whatever other bizarre new relationships might arise. Jan 10,  · One might say that fornication is an "ontological" sin against the moral "concept" of marriage, while homosexual sex sins both against the purpose of sex and the ontological, metaphysical, and spiritual (even physical) nature of sex itself.

I can see why a church would decide not to have same-sex marriages performed in their church but actively campaigning for discrimination against secular same-sex marriage or calling them sinners etc.

seems like an overreaction. The argument to normalize homosexuality is based on social reasoning, and not an appeal to nature. Homosexuality is against nature in every way.

People are not born gay, and homosexuality is against biology and evolution. Feeling attraction towards people of the same sex is natural to homosexuals. Its not a choice. They are built in. The Federalist reports on what researchers have found about the nature of same-sex attraction.

Is it fixed? Or does it change over time? I think that gay activists would like everyone to believe that same-sex attraction is fixed, but to learn the truth, we should look at what the scientific research says.

Is homosexuality natural? |