Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Now, Alma, I'm not sure exactly what you think your question implies. If I follow your logical pathway, you're saying that just because other species, including our closest cousins, exhibit homosexual behaviour this does not mean it is natural in humans. Is that what you're saying?
That wasn't the point of my blindness question, but that was CLOSE to the point I was making. My point in your statement was in reference to ANY natural trait. A human natural trait is defined by humans and humans only. It doesn't matter if that same trait is or isn't natural in animals.
Nilatai wrote:
No, it doesn't. You're right, animals can be blind as well as humans can. This...proves that...there's a natural explanation for blindness?
Nah you've completely lost me, sorry.
Nah you've completely lost me, sorry.
If your opinion of blindness didn't change after you realized (at one point of time) that it happened in animals and is completely natural, then why does it even matter if it's natural or not? You provided the fact of homosexuality occurring in nature as if it makes a difference. Rape occurs in nature too, does that change your opinion of rape?
The point I was trying to make to you that was that whether something naturally happens does not and/or should not change your opinion on anything. I'm sure MOST things(to include diseases, handicaps, etc.) happen naturally. The fact that homosexuality may occur naturally should not have any effect on your opinion on homosexuality just like it shouldn't with blindness, rape, incest,etc. AND NO, I'M NOT COMPARING THEM TO HOMOSEXUALITY AS BEING THE SAME THING.