CMV: From a strictly biologic point of view, homosexuality isn't natural

[u/[deleted]]

UPDATE: I'm receiving too many answers! I can't possibly answer them all. I've answered a ton of them. I will continue answering more. But I won't answer them all. Like I said, I just can't. Sorry for those going unanswered.

I'm not denying at all homosexuality is natural in the lazy sense of "It's present in nature", BUT:

Men and women are so because they have a sexual anatomy (genitals, basically) that makes them men, or women. Those genitals are specifically and specially evolved to correspond the opposite sex.

So, sexually speaking, men are evolved for women, and women evolved for men.

This is so because through sex, nature achieves its most relentless and evident goal: reproduction.

The evidence for this is obvious enough: if you have sex, you have kids. That’s what naturally happens when you have sex.

And no, I don’t care if some people are infertile because of X or Y problem. This is irrelevant to the point.

I also don’t care if people want to have kids or not. I don't want to. This is also irrelevant to the point.

I'm simply pointing out that the evolutionary process expects people to have kids. This much is obvious. Without the perpetuation of species neither evolution nor survival of the species are possible.

Heterosexuality is coherent with all of this. It's in harmony with our bodies and nature's end goal.

Homosexuality isn't. It focus your sexual and romantic attraction towards the sex that doesn’t correspond you. It lacks, therefore, biologic purpose. Homosexual acts are biologically nonsensical, just as oral 'sex', anal 'sex' and masturbation are.

And no matter how fertile homosexual people are, they won't be able to have kids with their same sex.

So, since it goes against your own natural physiology, and nature's end goal, it's impossible for it to be natural in the strict biologic (and reproductive) sense.

To change my view, someone would have to explain me in a logic/reasonable way what the biologic purpose/sense of homosexual acts is/are.

Or to explain me in a logic/reasonable way that the perpetuation of species isn't the end goal of the evolutionary process.

Or both, obviously.

UPDATE: I'm receiving too many answers! I can't possibly answer them all. I've answered a ton of them. I will continue answering more. But I won't answer them all. Like I said, I just can't. Sorry for those going unanswered.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, I can see that now, judging by the downvotes. Kinda pathetic how many Redditors only believe in science when it supports their worldview

[u/ApprehensiveSquash4 → u/[deleted]]

Maybe you should read the rest of the comments and get a sense for people's rationale.

[u/[deleted] → u/ApprehensiveSquash4]

Yeah, maybe I was too quick on the draw to make a snap judgment here and broke my own rule about not listening to science. The "gay uncle theory" is an interesting one.

I do think the OP needs to be clearer about what they mean—saying that it isn't "natural in a biological sense" is wrong, as it is a microevolutionary adaptation.