Exactly. Remove the religious element altogether and homosexuality is still an abomination under “natural law” alone. Biologically it makes no sense. Physically it makes no sense. It is, by definition, abnormal — an aberration that many people find naturally repugnant. No one has to be taught to be nauseated by the sight of two homos tongue-wrestling, anymore than anyone has to be taught to cringe at the smell of feces. The repulsion is innate.
12 comments
Think about feces a lot, shit for brains?
I got news for you: When overpopulation occurs, nature compensates .
Look, sexual stuff is objectively gross, okay? All those body fluids and gunk. It's just that when you see something which isn't interesting to you personally, there's nothing to override the inherent squick factor for you. But this is a subjective experience, not objective reality.
(Yeah that's oversimplified, but you gotta start with the basics.)
First: What "natural law"? The one that doesn't exist? There is no inherent "rule" in nature against homosexuality and quite a few possible reasons for why it evolved despite being a (superficially) fitness-reducing (i.e. reproduction success over lifetime lowering) quality. Those exist elsewhere in nature as well and most of the time they only SEEM to lower fitness when looked at without thinking about it (for example not taking into account group fitness, genetic relationships to reproducing individuals, ressources etc.). Would you also say that worker bees are aberrations because they don't reproduce? Because that's what I take away from this! It only shows that your understanding of biology is severely lacking.
Well, 'IronJack' [suppresses smile], if you find the sight of gay blokes kissing horrid, DON'T LOOK. If you feel compelled to spend time staring at gay blokes kissing each other, you may... have something to share with the rest of the class. If you get my drift.*
*My drift is 'closet case.' That's what my drift is.
What "natural law"?
Biologically and physically, it makes just as much sense as masturbation, as humans being the only animal with permanently swollen mammary glands. We clearly have sex for many other reasons than just to reproduce.
Many people find the thought of their parents having sex naturally repugnant too; is parents-to-be having sex abnormal?
No-one has to be taught to be aroused by the sight of two lesbians tongue-wrestling, any more than anyone has to be taught to like breasts. The attraction is innate. (Yes, it's as prejudiced as the concept of being nauseated by gays making out.)
Besides, is it an abomination under "natural law" to defecate? You seem to infer that it is, Jackie-boy...
You know, cremating or burying our dead is not very natural either. Most animals tend to leave them behind for predators, allowing those things to eat. But the way we do it, we deny those resources form returning to nature. Does that mean that we should start doing that too, desecrate our dead? After all, it's not according to "natural law", is it?
Regardless, my point is that, just because animals do or don't do it doesn't mean we should too. Some of those things are morally good, yes, but others not so much.
Besides, animals don't have breasts either. Does that mean that all human women should have theirs amputated? Especially since big breast (as nice as they may be) are believed by some to be dangerous to nursing infants.
No one has to be taught to cringe at the verbal poops by IronJackass.
Nice comments, guys!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
