pulled this from one of my posts. for some reason it didn't get any further comment.

thought it would make an interesting thread starter.

nature, sexuality, biology:
when I say natural I'm reffering specifically to sexuality vs biology.
you have two entities:
1) sexuality
2)biology.

Now in the case of a heterosexual man (and woman for that matter, but men are the focus of this topic) both sexuality and biology are in cohesion. It would be fair to state that "nature" (however one wishes to define that entity) intends the human race to survive by reproduction and that is backed up by the form and funciton of the reproductive organs/system of the body. The very reason they exsist is to fulfill this objective of reproduciton. However having the physical means to reproduce would be redundant on its own if their was no attraction between males and females on an instinctive level would you not agree?

Hence the purpose of sexuality is to provide a means of this, or to put it another way our heterosexuality is defined by the inherent attraction to the opposite sex hence within that context heterosexuality is natural since the need to reproduce is natural which is backed up by the fact that "nature" has gone to the trouble of ensuring that the biological systems exsist in the first place for this to happen.

Now homosexual men will state well "i'm born this way therefore it's natural" well this is where the contradiction between sexuality and biology comes in. Here we clearly have a situation where a man's sexuality is saying one thing, but his biology is saying another. Which of the two entities takes precedance? sexuality or biology? why do we put more credence in what the man knows and says on a cognitive level, over what the body is saying on a biological level? For if we are to accept the man's statement and equate that to "natural" is it not also valid to take what the body is exhibiting and also equate that with "natural"? are we saying that yes the man is right, he is indeed homosexual but the body has got it wrong?

compare this with the heterosexual man that for some biological reason cannot have childeren, we define that as an "anomaly" a problem which may or may not be "treatable" but why when we put forward the equal scenario that the sexuality of the hemosexual man could also just as equally be defined as an "anomoly" a problem which may or may not be treatable all hell breaks loose and you're crucified for being homophobic?

It's an anomaly if you look at it through the reproduction lens that you mention. And I don't think anyone can deny that. However, stating that is one thing. Using the statement to discriminate against gays is entirely something else. And that's what can cause all hell to break loose.

Because really, there's no reason why we should have to follow the reproduction angle when it comes to homosexuality. We're constantly in defiance of it with condoms, the day after pill, etc. And I promise, if you try and use the reproduction angle to try and argue against birth control for heterosexuals, you'd be crucified for that too.

Whats the real question you are trying to ask here? Why cant we classify homsexuality as a condition? Why treat something that people who are "afflicted" with the condiontion dont want treated? It causes no real dysfunction other than the inabililty to have offspring.

It's an anomaly if you look at it through the reproduction lens that you mention.
i'm not looking at it through any sort of lens.
i'm merely stating fact.
the fact that testes produce sperm is irrefutable, as is the fact that the fumction of sperm is for reproduction.
similarly for ovaries/eggs

However, stating that is one thing. Using the statement to discriminate against gays is entirely something else.
no, i'm discussing the nature of the concept of homosexuality, trying to elucidate what it actualy is through reasonable, objective discourse. this does not equate to discrimination of homosexual men.
two different entities.






Because really, there's no reason why we should have to follow the reproduction angle when it comes to homosexuality.
what we consider reason to be or not to be is irrelevant here.
the fact remains that gay men still have functioning testes.
so biologically the body is quite clearly saying something different to what the gay man is saying.
which takes precedence?
which carries more inherent validity?


We're constantly in defiance of it with condoms,
different matter.

what we consider reason to be or not to be is irrelevant here.
the fact remains that gay men still have functioning testes.
so biologically the body is quite clearly saying something different to what the gay man is saying.
which takes precedence?
which carries more inherent validity?



Is not the brain part of the body? What drives us as human beings does not lie solely in our reproductive organs. I trust the brain over the genitals any day.

so biologically the body is quite clearly saying something different to what the gay man is saying.
which takes precedence?
which carries more inherent validity?

The answer is definitely "what the gay man is saying" takes precedence over the biology. Like I said, our inherent biological functions when it comes to reproduction are commonly ignored via birth control, or vows of celibacy.