Thread: Homosexuality, how can it not be considered an abnormality?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

when the side you are arguing with puts the point across that


and


You just give up.

Yes. Yes. Yes. I know that technically cancer is 'natural' due to cause and effect, and I know good and bad do not have objective meanings.

But you know sometimes you've just gotta stop being a smart alec, and live in the real world for a second, where people consider cancer a bad thing and unatural thing.

Alright, lets take a step into the real world, where cancer and homosexuality share nothing in common except the fact that they are both features of biological life.

Your "cancer is bad and abnormal and homosexuality is abnormal too and therefore bad" is the weakest strawman argument anyone could possibly come up with, and you are right to give up.

When I say cancer is neither good or bad, I am talking biologically, not morally or whatever other standard that people base their opinions of it on, just like you were claiming to be doing in the OP. Disease, cancer, viruses are all part of evolution. They don't hurt species, and often times aid them to adapt more quickly. What you don't seem to be getting is that when talking in terms of biological evolution, individuals do not matter. Individuals getting cancer, being reckless and falling off a cliff not reproducing because they've taken a vow of celibacy or not reproducing because they are homosexuals do not have any real effect on the evolution of the species at all, for good or ill.

Let me just make this last point clear, if you claim that homosexuality is bad because homosexuals rarely reproduce, then whatever influences people to become priests is also bad because priests rarely reproduce.