Yes we humans, in fact, all animals come from Nature, therefore we are natural and anything we do is also, Natural. Natural is defined as existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. Humans didn't invent homosexuality. I'm sure had someone invented it, it would have been patented and licensed out to people, but that's another issue.
It seriously pisses me off when someone makes this ignorant claim without a foundation to stand on. You have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up such claims. No, apparently all you have is the "Word of God" as defined by The Holy Bible. Well since I live in reality and don't eat spoon fed nonsense, and actually care about how the world and the universe works, I don't presume that some magic man in the sky sprinkled fairy dust one day and the world and everything in it just appeared out of thin air.
Wow, it kind of sounds ridiculous when I say it, doesn't it? Yet, that's what a lot of ignorant people believe. The claim that homosexuality is unnatural cannot be backed up by anything but conjecture, where as the claim that homosexuality is perfectly natural is supported by overwhelming evidence.
Bruce Bagemihl writes in his book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species. It can be found in Mammals, Birds, Fish, Reptiles, Amphibians, Insects, and other invertebrates.
- Mammals observed displaying homosexual behavior
- Birds observed displaying homosexual behavior
- Fish observed displaying homosexual behavior
- Reptiles observed displaying homosexual behavior
- Amphibians observed displaying homosexual behavior
- Insects observed displaying homosexual behavior
- Other Invertebrates displaying homosexual behavior
Mistakenly many people on that side of the argument like to say you can't have homosexuality in non-humans since the term homosexual refers to human sexuality. However, they would be wrong, the etymological origin of the word homosexual is derived from the Greek word homos 'same' and not the Latin word homo 'human'. Some say it was the Greeks who invented homosexuality, however as I've already pointed out, its part of nature, a part of evolution.
This may be hard to swallow for some, particularly those on the evangelical side, but sex isn't all about reproduction. Evidence shows that while sexual reproduction is both a requisite and beneficial part of existence, it cannot be the primary driving force for that existence. If reproduction were the primary driving force, than all life would reproduce asexually. Asexual reproduction is the purest, simplest, and most efficient form of reproduction. But if asexual reproduction is the most efficient form of reproduction, than why did males and females evolve?
Sexual reproduction involving males and females is both costly and highly inefficient. Natural Selection dictates that all life, the simplest to the most complex, must exist for a reason. Even if we do not fully know or understand that reason, it still exists, just out of the reach of human understanding. So I surmise that somewhere along the evolutionary line, asexual reproduction was discarded in favor of sexual reproduction because it benefited that life.
We are only now starting to understand some of the benefits of sex, including a reduction in overall stress, an increase in the production of immunoglobulin A (boosting immunity), the consumption of calories, improvement of the cardiovascular system, the production of endorphins (decreasing pain), and the promotion of better sleep, not to mention the benefits you receive from those benefits. So sex has a cascading beneficial effect on the body.
This may be hard to swallow for some, particularly those on the evangelical side, but sex isn't all about reproduction. Evidence shows that while sexual reproduction is both a requisite and beneficial part of existence, it cannot be the primary driving force for that existence. If reproduction were the primary driving force, than all life would reproduce asexually. Asexual reproduction is the purest, simplest, and most efficient form of reproduction. But if asexual reproduction is the most efficient form of reproduction, than why did males and females evolve?
Sexual reproduction involving males and females is both costly and highly inefficient. Natural Selection dictates that all life, the simplest to the most complex, must exist for a reason. Even if we do not fully know or understand that reason, it still exists, just out of the reach of human understanding. So I surmise that somewhere along the evolutionary line, asexual reproduction was discarded in favor of sexual reproduction because it benefited that life.
We are only now starting to understand some of the benefits of sex, including a reduction in overall stress, an increase in the production of immunoglobulin A (boosting immunity), the consumption of calories, improvement of the cardiovascular system, the production of endorphins (decreasing pain), and the promotion of better sleep, not to mention the benefits you receive from those benefits. So sex has a cascading beneficial effect on the body.
So in closing, Evolution is natural. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are both part of evolution. For reasons we don't fully understand, some animals prefer homosexuality to heterosexuality and vice versa. As I've already pointed out Natural Selection dictates that everything exists for a reason, even if we don't know why, so even if you don't understand it, just assume that homosexuality is beneficial to humans, if it were not, than Natural Selection would have discarded it long ago.
Kirk Cameron on Piers Morgan Tonight...
0 comments:
Post a Comment