I will admit these are my opinions and ideas I have brought together in the last 8 months or so debating homosexuality and homosexual marriage. But it seems everyone seems to start with homosexuality and then working it into the social structure. To me that's backward. What if homosexuality and the behavior is a disorder that some animals have noticed and taken advantage of?

I'm gonna start at the beginning. Nearly every living animal on this planet procreates by the exchange of male and female genetic material. And in the case of mammals, as we humans are, coitus is the method that this is done.

So lets start at the egg being fertilized. This is where I'm gonna define natural. The "natural" result of fertilization of an egg is a healthy viable baby. However miscarriage as stated by the emedicine web site can actually be quoted at 60-70% is a "natural occurence" but not necessarily the natural result one would like. Even after the baby completes the gestation period, Wikipedia says in the U.S. a baby is born non viable once every 20 minutes. Again, a "natural occurence" but I hope we can agree that that isn't the "natural" outcome of a pregnancy.

Of the babies that survive gestation, 3 to 4 percent of all births result in obvious congenital abnormalities according to the Penn State Children's Hospital Web site. This number increases to 10 percent by the time the child reaches age 5. And this number doesn't include abnormalities that take longer to manifest themselves. Especially behavior issues. It is my theory that homosexuality is a congenital abnormality that crosses up the natural instinct to be attracted to the opposite gender and is therefore not a "natural" behavior but just a "natural occurence".

I formed this opinion based on applying (my) logic to many of the points raised in forums such as this one and doing other reading on my own. Excuse me if I miss one or two, I'm sure they'll come up in the following posts. though.

Point 1. I'm born this way.
I agree. A gay person is as gay as a man is a man and a woman is a woman. But there is no system set up for man man or woman woman love. While I will admit that homosexuality does not mean that there WILL be sex, it does imply it. And nature provided a complex system for heterosexuality and a compelling reason for the attraction in the first place. Homosexuality has no such compelling reason, and no such complex system to facilitate any of the sexual contact that homosexuality implies. We have eyes and ears for spatial awareness. Olfactory for smelling. Digestive for processing food. All of these are obvious and present on all animals. And in animals that by way of environmental conditions lose the need of a system, it atrophies such the sight of animals in caves. Yet homosexuality is present on only about 450 out of 4260 species of mammals and 9703 species of birds since penguins are also included in the 450 number. To me, that points to homosexuality being a "natural occurence" but not "natural".

2. Other species do it.. As I pointed out, 450 was the number mention of homosexual species. My congenital abnormality theory fits that in that since science doesn't know what causes homosexuality, it could be a shared defective gene or some other issue that takes place during the development of the baby. That would also explain why the behaviour exists among others of the species. We all know there is a difference between a person who is homosexual, a person who just enjoys homosexual acts, and a person who turns to homosexuality due to environmental conditions.

3.It's better for the society...
IMHO that's starting with homosexuality and working backward. I don't see that being the case. Additionally, that would be more of an argument for bisexuality an orientation whith rates lower than homosexuality. But that still fits my theory though. Homosexuality "could" (there's that word) be better for the society. But there are other human behaviors that could rationalize themselves into being good for an overpopulous or overprocreative society. And many societies practice them....Which leads me to...

4. Heterosexuals do it too.....
After any animal is born, it is bound to be influenced by external forces. Humans even more since we are more intelligent animals. The prostate has the capability to produce sexual gratification. Humans are programmed for gratification. Some more than others. I think the position of the prostate is coincidental with its purpose. Homosexuality has been around forever though, and especially in males, the sex that homosexuality implies not only doesn't have a system in place that facilitates it, studies have shown it to be quite dangerous over time. If homosexuality has been around for that long, why hasn't nature/God/evolution facilitated homosexuals with genitalia prepared for the sex that the pair bonding implies? And since homosexuality isn't anything new, who is to say that homosexuals discovered prostate pleasure and told a hetero to try it?

I'm sure there are other points to debate. I just didn't do an outline before I started. Please excuse my spelling and bad grammar. It's been over 15 years since I was graded on writing.

Interesting points... but I would ask one simple question in retort...

What's wrong with it?

I mean, how does homosexuality harm anyone?

I wish this format had a 'rec' function....


BRAVO!!!

A 'rec' function?

LOL

On Yahoo boards, if there is a post you particularly like, you can recommend the post, or 'rec'.

Ahhh... I see...

We had considered implementing a reputation system, but decided that it would not be terribly useful, and would likely lead to abuse and division...

But I digress... Back to the subject at hand...

Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone...Yet just because something "is" doesn't justify it. And it also doesn't mean that everyone has to accept said condition as something that nature intended. Homosexuality is a socially viable genetic miscue. That's the only logical conclusion that fits nearly all arguments that I have seen that support it.

If something just 'is' it doesn't need to be justified.

I disagree. There are many things that other cultures do that we don't have here. Socially viable is a fluid concept. Nature isn't quite so ambiguous in her intentions.

For example most plants are pretty much the same, chlorophyl, green, leaves...Then you have the unearthly venus fly trap...It's obviously intended for something other than just hanging around in the sun. My theory asserts that if homosexuals were supposed to be homosexuals nature would have done something evolutionary as it did for heterosexuality. A homosexual shows no physical difference from heterosexuals. Which goes on to further my theory that the sexual activity that homosexual animals practice would influence less intelligent hetersexual animals. Since gratification is a strong instinct. That's why some humans show a strong tendency to abuse drugs even to the point of suicide.

Not everything needs to be justified.

And no one ever said everyone has to accept it. But you can not discriminate against those who do. Nor should you try to change those who are homosexual just because you don't accept it...