If homosexuality is natural, then why can't gay couples have kids?

Straight couples have kids naturally. Gay couples can't, they have to adopt. Doesn't this tell us something? I'd like to see someone who can answer this seriously please.If homosexuality is natural, then why can't gay couples have kids?
old people and infertile couples cant have kids naturally either so are they unnatural?If homosexuality is natural, then why can't gay couples have kids?
Well, having children isn't the only mark of a natural attraction. Besides, many straight people are not naturally good parents, either. It's also natural to breast feed, and some people don't or can't. It's also natural to have bowel movement everyday. Some people don't. Nobody is 100% ';natural'; in that sense of the word. In fact, some things that aren't natural are actually great things.


Lance Armstrong's more effective cardiovascular system isn't natural, but it certainly is good. Double jointed people aren't natural, but their flexibility is amazing.





It's really all relative. If you look at something as unnatural and wrong, that's how you'll see it. Unnatural isn't wrong, and it certainly isn't a bad thing. =)





Also, I'd like to say, that as a gay man, being gay is the most natural feeling thing in the world for me.
I have know several man-women couples who don't / cant have children. Are you suggesting that they lives are also unnatural.





I have also know lots of man-women couples who have had children and have stuffed it up something bad. The unfortunate child has received no guidance.





Personally I would rather be a part of a gay couple with no children than be one of a couple who have raised a bunch of no hopper children.





Yet all that aside.


What I don't understand is why your concerned about any of this. It just does not make sense unless your also that way inclined. Honestly if you were straight, you would be focused on your own relationship, not on what the guy down the road is doing.





You are attempting to cloud your own sexuality/sexual desires by discrediting others.
I guess you simply don't understand how nature works. Look at the animal kingdom, where things are allowed to work without ignorance interfering: Homosexuality acts as a natural protection against overpopulation. In many species, same-sex couples will adopt orphaned young and raise them.





I guess perhaps you haven't seen the function of homosexuality because your vision is too narrow. Try looking beyond your own mindset.
The purpose of life is to love, not just to make more babies.





In case you had not noticed, there are *plenty* of babies out there, and a few of us not reproducing like rabbits will not lay the earth waste.





Besides, I already produced kids when, in a frantic attempt to be straight, I married a woman. We had kids. Later I fell into depression, and she divorced me. I'm still gay.





If I were you, I'd make my mental box a little bigger.





Try to include monks, nuns and priests.


Try to include infertile and elderly couples.


Try to include the 8% of the animal kingdom that is exclusively same-sex oriented.





And try to include gay and lesbian human beings as well.





Maybe we are a minority, like left-handed folks.


And maybe we won't overflow the world with children.





But we can spread love, generosity, fun, art, science, truth, beauty and joy wherever we go.





And, we can help out our brothers, sisters, and friends who have kids.





Is that so bad?
Your two points have nothing to do with one another.





This can be natural without childbirth.





I have a better question for you: Is it still ';natural'; for a man and a woman to be together if they are unable to have kids? There are lots of couples who have problems or are entirely unable to have kids. What does your analysis say about them? If childbirth is the standard to judge by, then they aren't ';natural'; either.





Love has nothing to do with childbirth.





Unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, rape, and all sorts of other things like that don't equal love....





Point being, you can have kids but not be in love. You can be in love but not have kids.





No, it does not tell us anything. Your logic is flawed and your evidence does not have a connection to your implied point of gays being ';unnatural'; which is a proxy for ';wrong'; here.





Even better question. Why does anyone care? It doesn't affect you unless you're gay. Some people have a strange way of being against things that really don't effect them at all.





Edit: Thumbs down for logic. Sad really....
arsenic is all natural, does that mean it can reproduce? as is cancer.





something being ';natural'; and meaning it can reproduce are unrelated definitions. some people have speculated those same genes that may be responsible for homosexuality in males, may also increase fertility in females: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3685鈥?/a> and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/373566鈥?/a> -- and by and large, ultimately beneficial to the species.





saying gay people aren't natural because they can't reproduce is a specious argument.
Since when is everything about procreation? The human population on Earth is most certainly not dwindling. If anything, the Earth is grossly OVERPOPULATED. Homosexuals cannot create offspring in the same manner that heterosexuals can, yes, but that does not make homosexuality unnatural. The two are not related.





There are also heterosexual couples that are unable to have children.





Lastly, homosexuality is found in numerous animals and insects throughout the world. Giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, and whales just to name a few.
This question has all the intelligence of a medieval theologian.





Unfortunately, the study of genetics and modern psychology were not around back then. However, we don't have that excuse today. As far as variation in sexual preference goes: we have full confirmation of its origins as a ';natural'; human phenomenon, an aggregate of many different factors (genetic, cerebral, etc.).





Same-sex attraction is, on all accounts, then, a perfectly ';natural'; occurrence as far as contemporary science and psychology are concerned. As for its evolutionary implications (and there are many), the debate goes on.





Suffice to say, homosexuality does not exactly assist in the propogation of genes. But a true student of history, art, and literature can never deny that same-sex love has vastly enriched the human experience. It has writ the dialogues of Plato, been the muse of Michelangelo on many occasions, whispered sonnets to Shakespeare, and given strength and aid to Alexander the Great and King David alike. Need I mention also Tchaikovsky, Jonathan, Caravaggio, Leonardo, Cellini, etc?





Biological life is invaluable as regards the survival of our species. Without heterosexual unions, we would be doomed. But love is not therefore constrained to a singular form. Life is more than merely the ends of copulation. There is also poetical and artistic life: the things which give substance and meaning to our experiences as a species. Same-sex love, then, may be considered life-giving as well. Who--after all-- is not moved reading Shakespeare's sonnets or gazing upon that famous and mighty rendition of David?





And THAT is the feeling of truly being alive.
Oh my God it's obnoxious when people do this! You do realize that you logged onto a forum, sought out the correct section, and asked a question with the sole intent of stirring sh*t, right? Wow, what a big man you are!!! You know what makes me laugh? The fact that you are an ignoramus unaware of issues of population control. In addition, perhaps you should do a little research on the fertility rates of sisters of gay men. Interesting stuff.
Homosexuality isn't supposed to produce children, so that has nothing to do with whether it's natural or not. When I'm with a guy, I'm not trying to get him pregnant!





If I play with myself, no children will be produced. Does that mean that masturbation is unnatural? If it does, I'm in deep trouble.
ok


first


if its a boy.. they can get pregnant there bodies arent able to carry a baby they dont have the things a women does to help the baby like a uterous and stuff like that..


lesbians can have babies but they need a donor..


and gay couples can .. they can get a girl donors egg and then get a serroget mother..
OMG! this question always shows up! all the time it never fails.


How about you go educate yourself pleese. you are really setting yourself up to be disrespected right now.





here are some links...


http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/bor鈥?/a>





http://www.livescience.com/health/060224鈥?/a>





http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/dis鈥?/a>





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PooEhBxh0鈥?/a>
because thats horrible to do to your child


imagine how your child would feel when you tell them that their family is different from everyone else %26amp; that they have 2 daddies....


it tells me that guys have d i c k s and to make a baby you need a d i c k and a vag. ........


idiotttt.
Some couples can't produce children because the girl can't get pregnant. Maybe that couple would have to adopt, too. I think that tells a lot.
Homosexuality has been evidenced in almost every other mammalian species on Earth. Just because homosexual couples don't procreate doesn't mean that it's unnatural, nor does it mean that they cannot raise children effectively.
I fail to see how the ability to reproduce, or lack thereof, has anything to do with something being ';Natural';.
it is natural ppl just dont like to see the same gender with kids because they think the kids inturn will turn gay as well which is tottaly ubserd.Gays can have children its just ppl think its wrong.But i think its right!
Sterile straight people can't reproduce either. Are they also unnatural?
That's a silly question.


So you're saying that if a guy is having sex with his girlfriend, he's trying to make her pregnant?
I want someone to tell me why you asked this question. It should been posted in another forum.
If killing people is unmoral why do we have wars?
I'll bet you stayed up all night thinking up this little bit of inanity. The definition of natural is appearing in nature; homosexuality is found in most animals with backbones
wow, that's a reasonable question, right?


lol. please!





shay
My partner and I have children, we did not adopt.








L