Quote:
Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination
Perpetuating the species is not a moral obligation. People didn't fuck every generation due to social responsibility, they did it because it felt good, or from an economic standpoint they did it because children = free labor. Either way it's a poor argument and serves to highlight my point: Without citing religion there is nothing immoral about homosexuality.
Human sexuality is one of the most intricately complex parts of our neurology and I don't think it's healthy to repress it, as long as it isn't hurting anybody else. Hell, if you look at some of the more extreme fetishes out there homosexuality seems pretty bland.
|
It's like this: I tried to come up with a reason why homosexuality could be immoral by non-religeous terms. I came up with a very witty tongue-in-cheek response, and everyone is too fucking stupid to read the sarcastic undertone, so I'll be serious.
All morals are evolutionary from the get-go, so why should homosexuality be any different? Not spreading your seed when you have every ability to do so; when you have every ability to raise another human being and support that human being fully (so that he/she will have the fullest opportunities in life) could be a bit selfish. And your ancestors worked so hard to get you these genes, and I'm sure they want them passed on.
It's not a super-good argument I know, but it's a non-religeous argument for how homosexuality could be immoral. Note: in my argument bi-sexuality is just fine so long as you are having and supporting children, and have the means (IE the ability to provide ample parental support, wealth, stability, etc.) to raise a child well with the opportunity for a good life.