Someone suggested you take an anthropology course... Taking an evolutionary psychology course would also be beneficial in terms of aiding your obvious lack of understanding. No one with a decent education would take this piece seriously. That is, if you intended it to be serious.

But... the writing was good, at least. Nice and coherent. So, props?

I don’t know if you're being serious or facetious, but I'll play the ballgame your way.

If nature does everything with a purpose… "to make more" isn't the only objective. Nature, the natural world, is also about being born, living, dying. And as the cliché goes, simply to breathe is not to live. Cliché no. 2 reads you can't help who you fall in love with. If you love a person of the same gender, and against all odds, even if for five minutes, it brings something into your life, then it's called living.

Can YOU imagine living just to procreate? (Unless you think with your, uh, reproductive organs,) it's not funny to live without enjoying that yummy Italian dinner, or falling off your seat watching Steve Martin embarrass himself on "Bringing Down the House."

On the other hand, if nature IS just about putting blinkers on and "to make more," if THAT'S a definition of naturality, I think I'll swing with all things abnormal. Being homosexual sounds so much more appealing in comparison.

I agree that homosexuality doesn't produce offspring.

But love is not always about offspring.

And it's a good reason to adopt a child.

Huh. My answer: Scientists have been complaining about overpopulation for awhile now, right? Maybe humans (and possibly other organisms) have a sixth-sense to each other, and know when there's too many. Thus, some babies are born gay?

A viewpoint that I didn't come up with myself, but that some scientists actually believe: Male babies are treated as slightly more foreign than a female baby (proven fact). So scientists think that the more babies a woman has, the more likely it is to be gay, since the woman becomes more immune to the masculine genes and make it a bit more female (this is supported by the fact that most gay men have many older brothers). There is no evidence for lesbianism, so I go with the above argument!

I love science, and I thank you for the thought.

I'm not going to lie. This story served to amuse me greatly (no sarcasm intended).

Your argument isn't alltogether facicious, but consider this:

hy would nature condone something that would inevitably lead to the extinction of life by not creating it? The answer is simple; nature, in itself, inevitably leads to it's own extinction.

The whole reason life is a "cycle" is because it starts, and it ends (more than not in an ironic way)

For instance, man creates a car, the car pollutes the Earth, causing a hole in the O-zone layer, global warming, etc. etc.

it seems that man in itself seems to love digging our own grave (and you and I are no exception to this rule)

You can also consider homosexuality as a "malfunction", but I don't support this argument at all because I find it uncourtly.

Now, I assume that from the last words "derive what you will" you realize that I'm not trying to rebut/disprove anything you've written, and take this review graciously. Factually it's all pretty much correct, so there's no reason to argue against it. I rather like the simplicity of the question, however easily it can be countered.

I'm just giving you something to ponder, as well.

Overall, an interesting essay, albeit an overused argument.

--Z

I suggest you take Anthropology 1 at your nearest community college or university. It might enlighten you a bit.

Here's another way of thinking of it. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, and thus have to adopt an already living child. Thus, it is a way to temper overpopulation.

I disagree with you in thie point. First of all, natures sole purpose is NOT to make more, it is to just live on. Yes it is true that because of this species are inclined to interbreed, but no that is not the sole purpose. If it was, then let me ask you why we waste so much of our time with doing things like this and not spend it all 'making more'. The concept of what you suggust is absolutely false. As for asking a naturalist that, depends on who because everyone percieves things differently.

It's all very simple, Me as like a genius and such, know that Homosexuality is a genetica error in the humman brain causing love for one of the same gender. Hope I answered your question.

I agree with you 100%. I guess great minds do think alike. I'm not going to express my personal views and opinions on the subject because it would take too long and I'd offend a lot of people.

Interesting thought. But all your facts are leaning towrds an oblivious state. Where really other types of sciences come into play, pieces and sections of the mind, effected, distraught, processed, etc. Any type of natural science couldn't possibly bve expected to survive so many years of inhuman types of existences. Humans themselves bend many unthought things. Bending existence is the true underlying goal of being, not making more, that's simply an assumably inevitable type of thing, though myself being a mere boy, I give myself no sexual boundries, but I also dont care much for sex anyways. so, what does that itself say, just abstinence? It says to me there's simply another reality for another person, unfortunatly nothing can be standard. -Coon

Ah... now I understand. You hate homosexuality so you don't like a story about homosexual love (though a fairly strange form of it). Well that's great. Please don't spam my writing in the future. Thanks.

Interesting, and probably most commonly asked question about homosexuality. I don't think I should realy tell you my opinion, because I will be biased, considering I'm a Voluntary Human Extinction supporter. I will give you this question to ponder: if homosexuality is unnatural, than why do people find themselves attracted to the same gender as them?It might be nature's way of controlling over population. What you're doing is questioning the unnaturality of not reproducing in general, not the unnaturality of homosexuality.

an interesting standpoint.

as to why nature would create such an 'illogical' thing as homosexuality: if it's sole purpose is to make more, therefore rendering homosexuality illogical, why would nature have creatures of the same species kill each other off? humans are, as you must know, apt to wage wars and to pursue mass genocides. other species are known to do such as well, such as chimps who engage in war on rival tribes. though, on the lesser-than-sentient species side, such war is more of a battle to make sure only one set of genes survive in a certain species, why would nature 'allow' such a thing at all if it 'wants' to produce as much as it can, assuming it can 'want' anything [being inanimate and all]. not to mention that nature can't be just for reproducing like mad, because then whole ecosystems would be thrown into utter turmoil. overpopulation is a very destructive force and can devastate an overpopulated species’ niche very quickly, starving said species and leaving it vulnerable to predators with lack of free shelter until it dies back down to the surrounding environment's carrying capacity. if nature wants life to reproduce continuously because that is life’s only logical purpose, then why include such a failsafe? a lot more goes into the workings of the planet than just your one 'truth' that reproduction is key. it's a complicated system and i don't think that naturalists would call homosexuality illogical based on such complexity. we can't even begin to pretend to know all the rules of nature, since we are still busy learning the ins and outs of it all.

still, an interesting standpoint, and an interesting question. you simply need to work on your punctuation and proving your question/thesis. you also need more viable proof of what you feel, because right now your question and its backup are rather flimsy. nice try though, even if i do not agree. I hope you work on your essays and good luck!

well actually many choose to be homosexual, but often there is not a choice in it, wrong or not, enviromental factors, such as the way they have been treated their life if they have been mollested or not, lack of females in the general area all come into account. Is it natural no, but does it occur in nature yes I have seen I male dog try to breed with a male goat, so though it can be a choice it is not always.And losing the politeness, I don't give a ** about what you think about others but don't crowd up fictionpress.com like it is a goddamn message board.