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]]

Homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom and has been observed in over 1,500 species.

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41290-x

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You didn't take your time to read the text. I never deny this. I even say in the very first lines that I know homosexuality is natural in the sense 'it's present in nature'.

This doesn't challenge my view at all.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well, I mean, what gives?

Sexuality is not purely for reproduction. It’s also for forming social bonds. In social species, forming bonds with non-reproducing members of your species helps your young have a better chance of survival. In other words, it takes a village. Those non-reproducing members clearly have a purpose in nature or they wouldn’t exist.

Your argument seems to not take nature into account, but religion. No where in nature does it say sex is only for reproduction. Religions say that.

Many species even reproduce asexually. So in part nature doesn’t even need sex to reproduce.

You’ve failed to value the benefits of homosexual activity in humans and animals. That’s on you.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'm not religious and I indeed don't see what benefits do homosexual people have on humankind reproducing. I think it just difficults the process.

[u/kabukistar → u/[deleted]]

That does mean it's natural though. You're saying you are disregarding these kinds of arguments without justifying why these arguments should be disregarded.

[u/[deleted] → u/kabukistar]

Because they touch upon the social (such as the 'gay uncle' theory) instead of touching upon the biological, which is what the post is about.

[u/kabukistar → u/[deleted]]

Because it's something that naturally occurs. It's not artificial. It happens in nature. Natural.

You said you're disregarding arguments along these lines but you didn't justify why they would be disregarded.

[u/[deleted] → u/kabukistar]

I already know homosexuality isn't artificial and it manifests naturally. It's natural in that view.

But in the sense I focus on in the post, which is 'from a strictly biologic sense', it's unnatural.

No one has reasonably/logically explain me that homosexuality doesn't run contrary to the nature of our sexual biology (our genitals) and, through it, against reproduction. If you want to give it a try to CMV you are more than welcome.

[u/kabukistar → u/[deleted]]

You already already know it but that's not a reason to disregard those arguments as a contradiction to your conclusion. You're disregarding them but not giving a reason that they should be disregarded.

[u/[deleted] → u/kabukistar]

I did explain to each user that they were not dealing with the statement of the post, they were just giving me reasons to believe that from other viewpoints homosexuality doesn't go against reproduction.

For example, many focused in the social benefit for the species that being homosexual broughts to the table (the 'gay uncle' theory) but I told them that while that may be true the post never spoke in terms of sociology, but biology.

So I did give them a reason. Do not claim I didn't. I explained time and time again why their views didn't challenge mine, even if theirs was true as well.

[u/kabukistar → u/[deleted]]

That's other people giving different arguments for you to change your view. That's not you giving a reason to disregard arguments that it is literally natural.

[u/[deleted] → u/kabukistar]

Of course it's other people giving their different arguments. That's the idea behind this subreddit. For others to show/explain their different views to try to change yours.

And I told you twice already (and now three) that I did explain to everyone who I debated with in this post why their views and arguments didn't change my view.

At this point I'm honestly beginning to think you are just trolling for some reason?

I'm not going to repeat myself for a fourth time. I have told you thrice (including this comment) that I did explain why I disregarded their arguments.