“I do not think that word means what you think it does.” :dubious:
Since when does normal mean “something necessary for the species to survive?”
In that case, cities, cars, education, travel, television, computers, and Dingdongs are all not normal. Altruism and self-sacrifice would not be normal.
Have you had sex, Wildfire? Was your motivation for sex pleasure/intamacy or child-bearing? If you’ve had sex yourself for any reason other than reproduction, you’re a hypocrite.
Not to mention that people can get to old to make babies. My wife, who has borne four children, is now too old to have any more. So, I should stop having sex with her, and find some fertile 30-year-old with who I can make more babies. I’m just wasting my time with my wife, since I’m still capable (I think) of procreating.
OK, what about natural science backs up your claim? You have yet to provide anything beyond your opinion.
on the basic level: sexuality excist only for breeding-purposes
Again, do you have sex only for “breeding purposes?”
There’s more to reproduction than breeding. Maybe it’s useful to a population to have a certain percentage of adults that will not produce offspring of their own, and instead focus on other community tasks like hunting, gathering, and helping to raise children?
no, just for joy actually
what would a person educated in biology and reproduction say about this? from a scientific viewpoint
Wildfire,
I’m trying to give you the benefit of doubt here, thinking you may not be fluent in English and the connotations affixed with certain terms.
When you use the word “normal,” the dictionary definition of “standard, common, conventional, mainstream, common, etc.” does apply.
However, to most people, “not normal,” “abnormal,” etc. implies that there is something wrong or bad about it. And the casual, tossed-off brevity of your OP doesn’t give people a whole lot of reason to believe you aren’t just picking a fight.
If this is a serious post and you’re not just stirring up shit, I’d recommend you put more effort into making a point that you know is going to attract the ire of the majority of this board.
Well, that’s the same reason gays have sex! You’re no better or worse than them!
No, the task you’re thinking of would be “survive,” which gays and lesbians can do as well as anybody else.
The OP is correct that homosexuality is not normal, at least, from the standpoint that a relatively small portion of the population is homosexual. But so what?
To what end? It probably can’t be done
For your answer, WildfireMM**, see my above post.
They say, e.g., this:
Well it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that gays never have joyless sex … but a lot of straight sex is joyless too. 
(Not that that has anything to do with whether “abnormal” sex is necessarily wrongful.)
By the way, there’s been about 100 years of any sort of gay rights advocacy in Euro-American cultures. All the rest has been pretty much executions and asylums.
My last post in this nonsense thread will be to point out that homosexuality is not unknown in the animal world.
Seems to me most of what we do is for personal survival, with reproduction being a minor instinctive imperative we get around to when we have the time. Since stress is detrimental to personal survival, we pursue activities that relieve stress. Sex reduces stress. Therefore sex is more important than reproduction to the individual and thus more “normal”.
Using capital letters and standard punctuation, though, is a mere hobby.
One a person educated in biology would not say is that humans or any other species has a “task” to reproduce. Evolution has no directed goals. A person educated in biology would also tell you that homosexuality is found in many other species besides homo sapiens.
WildfireMM**, this is a Forum for debate. So far, you have posted a declaration of little substance (and less coherence) and failed to actually support your position other than in a rather primitive semantic argument.
If you do not post an actual issue to debate very soon, I am simply going to close this thread.
[ /Moderating ]