Quote:
Originally Posted by wind
From an animal viewpoint, the purpose of sex is procreation. From a human viewpoint, the purpose of sex is more than procreation. It's about play, connection, joy, delighting in pleasure, relationship.
Homosexuality is natural. Even animals engage in homosexual play. Boy and girl animals of the same gender 'hump' each other, lick, nuzzle and nip in play.
|
But I'm not focused on the human viewpoint - I'm focusing on the strictly biological standpoint. Forget the artificial insemination that Sadistic-Savior proposed, the bottom line is that we humans reproduce through sexual - as opposed to asexual - means. It takes one sperm gamete and one egg gamete to create one zygote - two sperm gametes cannot initate the process of mammalian reproduction, nor can two egg gametes. Two male homosexuals cannot reproduce without the presence of a female (egg gamete), two lesbians cannot reproduce without the presence of a male (sperm gamete).
Homosexual sex does not and cannot lead to reproduction of the species, only heterosexual sex provides the ability to reproduce.
So, from a purely 100%
biological viewpoint - homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't lead to reproduction of the species. Male or female mammals may engage in homosexual behavior for a variety of reasons, some of which you've listed above. - but it doesn't lead to reproduction of their particular species. Only heterosexual sex can.
And as I stated above, from a
moralistic viewpoint - I could care less what two or more consenting adults do with or to themselves. There's too much hate in this world as it is. If Adam and Steve, or Jane and Jill find happiness in a homosexual relationship with each other - who am I to say it's wrong?
If Melissa Etheridge is happy with Lou Diamond Phillips' ex-wife, I'm happy for them. I don't see why they'd choose David Crosby to father their child - personally I'd have gone after Dennis Hopper - but if they're happy,
ca plane pour moi! 