Hello ALTRAV,
You don't see to have much of a clue about biology. Personal reproduction in social species is not necessary. Social species have a "division of labour". For example, in bees and ants most females [the workers] do NOT produce eggs or mate. That is the job of the queens. The workers tend the young, defend the nest, etc, etc. Some mammal species, like Meerkats and Naked Mole Rats also reproduce cooperatively.
So there is nothing "biologically" "sinful" about non-heterosexual behaviours.
In biology one is only on very firm ground with FORM and FUNCTION. Inferring PURPOSE is more difficult. Take an "easy" example, like the wings on a bird. yes, these organs have the FORM to allow the FUNCTION of flight, but birds can use them for other purposes. Penguins use their "wings" to "swim" in water, but flightless birds do not use wings for flight.
So you can see how assumptions can get us into "hot water" very quickly.
And how about haemoglobin and red blood cells? Essential for complex animal life yes? Well, no, not always. For example, take the family of fish called the Channichthyidae. These bloodless "ice fish" live in Antarctic waters. They have no need of haem or RBC's because the ice cold waters are rich in oxygen.
The "take home" message from this is that in evolution, "context is everything".
So no naturalistic fallacies, if you please. Is that really the best you have got?
So far you have not produced any rational argument either biological or theological, that would support your bias against non-heterosexual folks

Rob, I will take your last post as an attempt at humour, or at best a scattering of biological babel.
You have given us examples of the intricacies of some of natures more unusual animals.
So what.
I am discussing the human animal, and it's flawed examples.
I am not swayed by 21st century PC rubbish.
I begin with the basic forms of human, MALE and FEMALE!
Anything else is a flawed example or abnormal or compromised, either physically or mentally.
This is where gaiz slot into one of these imperfect, or broken categories.
You and others may not want to hear it, but the specifications and terms of reference of a 'normal', healthy human, is well and truly cataloged and confirmed some many years ago now.
Medically speaking, gaiz do not conform to what is described in medical circles as normal human beings.
They may look normal physically, but not in other areas, such as mental or emotional.
I reject any attempt at trying to call them normal, simply because they exist.
They would be considered normal in a group of other gaiz, but not the greater majority of the population, who are not flawed and therefore ARE typically normal.
Your examples of various forms of different animals, may be of interest to you, but it has absolutely no bearing on the topic of what is considered or regarded as a NORMAL human being.
I find your stance as incredulous, and that you are unwilling to accept that ANYONE who is gai, is not mentally or psychologically ill or abnormal.
I am not assuming anything, I am clear about the fact that there are only two types of humans, male and female.
The rest are something else, such as gaiz, hermaphrodites, midgets, albino's, and many more different life forms that try to identify themselves as a human, with flaws of course, (if they were being honest).
And they are human, but until they and others accept that they are a sick form of human, we can never settle this impasse and move on.

"Anyone familiar with biology should note that the 'binary sex' concept is flawed."

Anyone familiar with biology will understand that it requires both an XX chromosone and and XY chromosone for human procreation.
XX and XY is the natural union for procreation in human beings.

If 2 gay men want to have a baby, they need to go rent a womb.
(Before they can raise that child together with the likely mentally disturbed outcome)
Any idea that deviates from XX and XY is itself flawed.

This isn't about deciding whether to choose a bum or a vagina for your personal pleasure.
It's about the natural order of procreation in human beings.

Now maybe you think humans can somehow continue to populate the planet by rubbing penises together, but I have to say I'm very sceptical.

But XX + XX creates nothing.

And XY + XY creates nothing.

God didn't necessarily create gay people any more that the union of an XX and an XY did.
Gay people are not procreated through the practice of gay sex.

"So you can have males that think more like females, and vice versa. This is because development of the sex organs and brain may not always be in 'sync'."

If your explanation is it's 'not in sync' then by your definition should one not accept or conclude that something is wrong or abnormal?

"So far you have not produced any rational argument either biological or theological, that would support your bias against non-heterosexual folks"

Why does he have to?
Is there some reason or law that states he's not entitled to his own opinion?
There's no law that states he can't hold bias towards non-heterosexual people, just in the same way there's no law you can impose that forces him to celebrate non-heterosexual people.

Hi Rob,

Back in the seventies, Edmund O. Wilson put forward his theory of 'Sociobiology':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology

The Left quite properly debunked it. Amazing that it's now being used by some to justify, well, practically all human behaviour. I remember quite violent reactions to it on university campuses, and to the related racist theories of Hans Eysenck.

Joe

Loudmouth, I had a quick read of your link on Wilson, and I find his main field was, ants.
I'm not sure how that would qualify him to comment on gaiz.
Also what was he suggesting that was debunked on campus or by the left?
I cannot find the jist of the point you are making about the reference leading to violent reactions to "it" on university campuses.
Could you please explain what are you referring to?

Hi Altrav,

He was suggesting that we can learn a lot about human behaviour by studying plants and animals, and their behaviour. Seriously. Much of what he asserted seemed to suggest that any human behaviour was inevitable and could be explained - determined - by our links to other animal and plant life and how they behaved.

That was (I think correctly) seen by the Left as outrageous, but I recall opposing any need for violent reactions (at uni, where I was a 'mature' student), and the shutting down of discussion, so the whys and wherefores were never really discussed, certainly not by the Left. It was perceived as a Right-wing view of human behaviour, which excused everything as inevitable, and that as all that needed to be said about it.

So now, homosexual behaviour and gender preferences (and so much else) are being explained in the same way as Wilson would have done forty years ago, as natural, unavoidable, and prope, nothing we can do about itr. Yes, I know the Right (and the Left too) are very broad churches, but it's fascinating to see what was regarded correctly as Right -wing back then is seen as somehow Left-wing now.

Cheers,

Joe