They don’t need to reproduce. Reproduction is optional.
Nope. At least one of the men need to have sex with at least one of the women and have enough children resulting to propagate the species. They do not all have to do so.
In any case, so what? Even if I was to grant that homosexuality is abnormal and/or unnatural (which I am not prepared to grant), by that reasoning everyone is abnormal in some respect (there are so many attributes of humans that if you were normal in each individual attribute that fact alone would make you extremely abnormal overall), and there are innumerable unnatural characteristics of our society - travelling faster than a walking pace, swimming underwater for extended periods of time, surviving diabetes, getting parts of your body replaced, etc. etc. etc.
Whoa, tents?! That’s not natural - those are Satan Houses!
In an attempt to be serious, there’s no need to “diverse” this issue, any more than “diversing” any issue of individual freedom. The key question is how (or should) society regulate the behaviour of individuals when there is no evidence the behaviour of those individuals causes harm to society? This can call into question laws and customs that punish homosexuals, or people who like consenting but kinky/non-marital heterosex, or people who like (or produce) unusual music, or people with religious beliefs not shared by the majority, or people who are left-handed. A lot of time and effort has gone into persecuting and hassling these people, to what end?
Actually, it’s that gay bashing does not deserve debate, and the person making the OP should be called up on it.
They don’t “need” to reproduce.
However, even if you argue that they do, it’s pretty much a doomed enterprise unless they find a larger group to reproduce with pretty soon. This is not a viable population group.
If the argument is that homosexuality is unnatural because humans are supposed to have kids, all I can do is point out that homosexuals do, in fact, have children. “Gay” is not the same thing as “infertile,” and the instinct to reproduce is no less strong in homosexuals than it is in heterosexuals.
So if “natural” means “having children,” then homosexuality is not, by definition, unnatural. But being female and post-menopausal is.
Needless to say, this definition of “natural” is not particularly useful. Or accurate.
No, of course it is not unnatural. It appears to be an innate behavior, and thus is a great deal more “natural” than using a computer to post on a message board.
Is it “abnormal”? Well, since it is not found in a majority of the population, I suppose it is “abnormal” to some extent. But then again is so is being left-handed or wearing eyeglasses.
With respect to biology, homosexuals indeed will tend not to have so many offspring as heterosexuals (although they will probably have some). But the same is true of people who are celibate for religious reasons, or because they are really shy, or excessively geeky, or really really ugly. Unless you advocate that these latter groups be treated differently from other people, I fail to see any point in your question.
It’s unnatural to do it on the steps (8 people on a flight of stairs, someone is bound to get hurt), they should do it in a bed the way normal folks have group sex.
CMC fnord!
Yes, I’m getting that feeling in this “debate”.
Why do they need to reproduce?
They don’t need to reproduce. The human species, if it is to survive, needs to have them reproduce.
I think your general point is that, when looked at from a strictly biological standpoint, heterosex has an obvious purpose: to propagate the species. Homosex (again from a biological point of view), if it has a purpose, has one that’s far less obvious.
But you have yet to respond to the followup question, which is: so what?
Something to do with peasants and sheep and lack of living space in central Europe.
You haven’t answered the question about something being “unnatural” if it’s inborn. Do you accept that some people are born gay? If you don’t accept that, what is your evidence that they are not? If you do accept it, then why is it not “natural”?
I think the OP is really just saying something that’s been said around this forum many times, usually without prejudice - and the language barrier is getting in the way.
Left-handedness is not ‘normal’. So fucking what?
As much as I would like to believe that, his track record here doesn’t lend itself well to that interpretation.
I’m not sure I follow your meaning. Could you link to an example?
Maybe gays and lesbians are like worker bees. They perform some function in our society that helps ensure our survival despite not actually reproducing? Well, I know gay guys are really good with style 
All joking aside. I can KINDA see where this guy is coming from, but I just feel like he’s trying to take a swing at gays and although he may want to give them rights, would like it to be known that they aren’t right. But anyways, I’ll try to entertain the sane part of the question.
The purpose of basically any species is the perpetuation of itself. We are all essentially competing designs that reproduce and improve themselves. So, he’s saying that the point of humans, like all species is to reproduce, and since gays aren’t a part of it (although we’ll leave out lesbians which CAN reproduce) then they are abnormal.
But you have to then realize that Homosexuality isn’t solely a human trait. It’s been found in animals as well. Following the logic that our jobs are to reproduce, then birth control, and any form of sex that doesn’t result in a realistic chance of pregnancy is abnormal. In this regard, if you are going to punish or castigate homosexuals, you have to castigate those who are infertile (not their choice, like homosexuality). And if you want to look further in the future, would it be okay to allow men to get pregnant (like in that awful Arnold Swartzenneger in Mr. Mom?!?!) The point is that the OP is saying that homosexuality is something that occurs in a small percentage of the population. True, but that doesn’t make it wrong. It similarly isn’t wrong to be black, short, tall, or stupid or smart. We’re all different. Homosexual men can reproduce with the help of artificial insemination and a surrogate mother.
I also agree with the idea that something that is inborn can’t be considered unnatural. Not every single aspect of a species is geared towards successful mating. Dolphins mate for fun. Monkeys have been known to masturbate. There’s a pair of gay penguins in New York City!
The logic he’s used is this:
The purpose of a species is to reproduce
Humans are a species
Gays do not reproduce
Therefore gays have no purpose in the species.
However, it has to be said that doing something that doesn’t contribute to reproduction doesnt’ necessarily mean it’s a bad thing. Gay people do plenty of things that indirectly contribute to reproduction. Let’s say that in your hypothetical world of 4 men and 4 women. If one of the men is gay, he can certainly help by farming, in order to feed the others. Anything he does to help, helps in some way. Or let’s take it a step further and say there’s a lesbian in the mix too. Would it be good to have all four women pregnant at once and hardly able to forage for food? You’ve got three pregnant woman and one to help them as well as the four men. Maybe it isn’t the optimum for maximal reproduction, but these people have to survive to an age where they can reproduce too. You could hypothetically construe a world where having a certain population that wouldn’t reproduce as a good thing to limit growth to sustainable levels. The optimum way to do it would be to have a ten woman to one man ratio, or even higher, but that’s not how it works, is it? The goal isn’t to have the fastest level of reproduction.
Aside from the obvious lack of interest shown by the OP in the topic, I wish people would stop getting confused when thinking about evolution or natural selection or whatever, thinking that you can presuppose what creatures (including people) ‘have to do.’ You just can’t say anything meaningful like that looking forward, only backward.
An analogy - a man is at the bottom of Mount Everest, and another man is at the top of Mount Everest. Looking at the man at the top, you can say that he ‘had to work hard to climb’; ‘had to have sufficient rations to let him make it to the top’; ‘had to be fit’; ‘had to strenuously work his arms and legs in the right way in order to let him climb all the way’; ‘had to set his mind in a particular way to achieve that momentous goal’, etc.
Looking at the man at the bottom - he doesn’t have to do anything. He can walk away. He can climb without being prepared and die half way up. He can keep standing there waiting for a helicoptor to get him to the top the easy way. And nature/the universe/whatever you want to call it doesn’t give a damn. It simply doesn’t matter.
Back to the stupidity …
I am a woman who has not reproduced. Therefore, I am without purpose. Oh, useless me. I have failed in my task!
:rolleyes: