Only someone with a distinct ignorance of sexual reproduction would claim that homosexual relationship can result in the natural birth of a child based on the combined genetic make-up of the individuals in question.
ROFL!
So that's what I was claiming!
Please review what I stated before you make outrageous statements that bear no resemblance whatsoever to what I said. Because the above statement certainly does not. Nowhere did I claim that homosexual acts will result in childbirth in homo sapiens. To claim that I did is very disappointing and not accurate in any way.
_______
Homosexual acts occur with high frequency among the great apes, in nature.
Sexual acts that do not result in childbirth are not inherently unnatural unless you dynamically reassign the definition of "unnatural" with regard
to sexual acts to mean "sexual acts that do not result in reproduction".
Which is of course, ridiculous given the rate at which humans reproduce in purely heterosexual situations.
An overwhelming portion of all human heterosexual encounters DO NOT RESULT IN CHILDBIRTH, even in the case of completely unprotected sex.
Even when the gametes do manage to fuse, a great deal of the time the offspring does not emerge from the womb.
Indeed, if you dynamically redefine your definition in this context to mean "sexual acts between oposite sexes that could potentially and likely result in the production of offspring" then protected heterosexual sex must be "unnatural", as must anal and oral sex. While this fortuitously partially agrees with the opinion of the Catholic church, I don't see it as particularly valid or defensible.
Of course, one could always use "unnatural" in the social context, whereas homosexual acts deviate from idiosyncratic social norms (which of course vary dramatically from society to society). That's fine and dandy.
Some apes / monkeys also kill their own too (children included), seemingly as a display of power. I guess because that's "natural", that should be accepted practice in the Human race as well...
What an amusing argumentative tack you have! Did I suggest that all actions made by simians in the wild should be considered acceptable practice for humans in a "free" society?
NO, I DIDN'T. I was commenting on what is natural, in terms of the standard, "natural" definition. Your "unnatural" definition of "unnatural" was not expounded upon.
"Accepted practice" (not AS&P presumably) in human cultures vary dramatically, and is often sculpted by often laughable religious proscriptions. But this is neither here nor there.
In the more "enlightened" Western societies we have a tendency to allow a certain amount of what is called "freedom" (freee-dohm, sound it out with me....) for our citizenry. In short, if actions do not infringe greatly upon the "rights" of others, they are typically well tolerated if not entirely protected. Sexual acts of any sort occuring between consenting adults are almost always considered legal. Significant portions of the population that do not engage in homosexual acts engage in deviant sexual practices, which are also protected with the same caveat.
Therefore, to equate sexual acts performed by consenting adults (legal, tolerated) to child murder (illegal, not tolerated) is downright sad. There are literally hundreds of thousands of different analogies one could have made, but unpsurprisingly, you chose this one.
Perhaps the next time you utilize a personal, non-standard definition of "unnatural", you
should state it UP FRONT. This was not done here, and indeed your definition is so very non-standard, that to castigate me for not addressing it specifically when YOU HAVENT bothered to state how it differs from the standard definition is pretty damn counterproductive.
Regardless, constraining governmental (no one is forcing religions to do this) definitions of marriage to what YOU define as "natural" is a limitation that I see as entirely contrived, particularly since you declined to state your definition up front. Homo sapiens have no trouble whatsoever reproducing when homosexual conduct is accepted, embraced or considered normal or even laudable.
Recognizing adult homosexual unions by allowing the same treatment under tax law seems only reasonable. Proposing that homosexuals are apt to be more promiscuous in the context of a governmentally recognized marriage is irrelevant - large numbers of hetereosexual couples engage in "open marriages" which are governmentally recognized, if not "natural"
