Secondly, this is why you shouldn't learn to argue from the Internet. Bonabos aren't the ultimate answer to homosexuality. You can't say "BUT BONABOS DO IT!" to everything. Bonabos are hardly ever relevant.
If it were just bonobos in of themselves, this would be true. However, when using the "homosexuality isn't unnatural" argument by showing it occurs in other animals, you can point out many similarities. It occurs in other mammals and obviously isn't itself unnatural. It's not a stand alone argument, but it's not a faulty one either.
Moreover, whether or not it's unnatural or natural has nothing to do with morality. That's the argument you should be making, not ranting about bonabos.
This argument was being made in tandem, except that the other side wasn't giving us any reason on why it's immoral, so there was nothing to respond to on that front.
people using the fact that its natural dont say "its natural so its moral". they use it against the argument "its unnatural so its immmoral". people slowly forgot that its not an argument but a statement to counter an argument. besides, ill say it again: if not compared to animals what IS natural? we arent comparing it to one species we are comparing it to MOST species. if we wouldnt do that we wouldnt know what is natural. i could easily say that having red hair is unnatural because people with red hair are a minority in this world
Starting off, I don't know if nature/evolution really intended to make some of us homosexuals, as it can really hurt a species' chance of survival. However, genetic variation was I'm pretty sure meant to be there and I'm pretty sure that's how homosexuality started. So IMO homosexuality is mostly natural in the way that it is not defined by our choices but what we were born to be. However, it is also unnatural in its unusualness just as you could say having "green eyes and red hair" is unnatural because of how uncommon it is.
That being said, I don't think that homosexuality is a bad thing at all. Nonetheless, others are always going to discriminate against homosexuals and I think there are more discriminators in the world than there are homosexuals and people supporting them, based on what I've seen and heard in my town. Think about it, now "gay" is an insult to call someone. This is unfair to especially gays, yet it still happens. In the world, I think homosexuality is portrayed as a bad thing because of its difference from "normal" human beings. Hopefully, the world will accept them more and more which I think will happen.
However, it is also unnatural in its unusualness just as you could say having "green eyes and red hair" is unnatural because of how uncommon it is.
Rate of occurrence does not equate to unnaturalness. You could say that it's uncommon, but not that it's unnatural, because as you yourself said, genetics has been touted to play a large role.
Nature has no intentions, we are personally responsible for our moral values. Man is the master of nature and molds it according to his own shifting self-interest. Hence, he promotes or hinders natural occurrences as he sees fit and constantly uses one law of nature to defy another. Any use of the human body is as "natural"or "unnatural" as the other. "Nature" does not determine how the human body is to be used, but always the human will. Plus, the ability to modify and improve upon nature is part of the very human condition. "Nature" did not intend people to fly and so did not provide them with wings. However, very "naturally" they beat their "natural" disadvantage and invented the montgolfier, airplane, etc. Man alone determines what's natural for him, and he alone decides his code of moral conduct. He then projects these moral values into the natural world around him which has no -inherent- morality of its own. Nature as such is value-free. It has no favouritism, no direction, no ultimate goal.
Why do you care if someone is homosexual? People should just mind their own business and let the others do what they want. As long as it's not breaking a law.
There is a very clear distinction between legality and justice/fairness; what is just is not always written in law, and what is written in law is not always just. Simply put, law and morality do not always coincide. Thus, the people (in most Democratic countries) have the right to challenge any law that will limit any of their rights.
The Law like pretty much everything should not be followed blindly. The Law is not supposed to be taken at face value. Anyway, to paraphrase Dickens, some times the law is an idiot.
I there should be homosexual marriages. It's just two people getting married. What's the big deal!? Come on! They're just people! Would you like to be forced to not marry anyone?
and in those places people like that suffer. all i said is that the law isnt always protecting people and cause justice. i mean hey, not being able to marry still exists (and hopefully wont in the future) in us and remember the dont ask dont tell (cant remember the actual name) policy?
