Neckie
Point #1
You argument about a serial killer had NOTHING to do with My point. Please understand. That which exist in nature is natural. Homosexuals exist in nature therefore they are natural. A individual which serial kills its own species is NOT found innature. It merely exists. Therefore serial killers are NOT natural. Nice try but totally wrong.

point 2. OI never said that sexuality wasn't a spectrum. however that also misses the point. Sexuality is formed at or close to birth. That being so it is unchangable. To make people lead miserable in order to "influence them" is reprehensible at best.

You also assert that homosexuality is peculiar. Evidence please. You do have some I hope. Otherwise it's merely just some more unsubstantiated assertions.

Bosk
To develop my earlier comment:
I grant you that once the hetro. males are out of jail they tend to revert to hetro. acts.
But in our society we have many subcultures (or even minisubcultures) which can act very much like mental prisons. People in such subcultures although (in theory) free to move and free to mix, are constrained by group thinking & norms & in some of these subcultures homo. appears to be the norm.

Equally much of the homo. activities you see expressed in nature are by way of young males who are blocked from having access to females by the ruling alpha male(s), if and when they displace the alpha male, they revert to hetro.

The invoking of 'nature' as a basis for acceptance of homosexuality has a few flaws. I will suggest those below. In doing so I am not using this to attack human homosexuality. I personally take a Christian viewpoint on homosexuality, but I also recognise that Christianity cannot make a claim to being the sources of all laws in this society.

There may be instances of 'homosexuality' in nature, but these are in the very small minority. If the majority of nature is to be examined there is very little evidence for marriage either. Most species have the 'parents' come together for a mating then the 'father' departs. In the case of some insects and spiders the male is eaten. This is a logical biological situation, as it means that the mother receives sufficient nourishment to reproduce, hence in dying the male becomes reproductively successful.

In other species the dominant male of a group is the sole male allowed to reproduce, leading to a form of 'polygamy'. This system has been used in many human societies, and therefore can be considered, if the example of nature is to be followed, as justification for polygamous human relationships to be just as acceptable, if not more acceptable, than monogamy.

Nature is replete with examples of males moving in on re-existing relationships and killing the offspring of those relationships, before mating with the female. Unfortunately this also occurs in human societies, as the two types of people most likely to kill children are their mother or their mother’s new partner who is not the father. If we are to follow nature then we should condone, from a purely evolutionary-biological perspective, this behaviour amongst humans. Fortunately we do not follow nature in this way.

Humans are a part of nature, yes, but are not restricted by the biological urges that are inherent in our genes and hormones. We hope that we have moved, in an evolutionary way, past that. If and when we claim the justification of nature alone for our actions we are reducing ourselves to the roles of beasts instead of sentient beings.

Neckie

The Oxford Dictionary defines “nature” as:

• noun 1 the physical world, including plants, ANIMALS, the landscape, and natural phenomena, as OPPOSED to humans or human creations.

Now homosexual animals exist in the physical world.
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

It follows therefore that homosexuality is part of nature & to quote the Oxford Dictionary again the word “natural” is defined as:
• adjective 1 EXISTING IN or derived from NATURE.

Since homosexuality exists in nature &, according to the Oxford Dictionary, anything which exists in nature is natural, then homosexuality is natural. Get it!

Horus
You assert that the animals which were observed performing homosexual acts were merely forced to do so because of the lack of willing females due to an alpha male. Totally wrong I’m afraid.

The latest scientific studies tested for homosexuality [i.e. attraction to the same sex] NOT just homosexual acts. To quote from the latest study:
“Around 8 percent of domestic rams display preferences for other males as sexual partners. Scientists don't believe it's related to dominance or flock hierarchy; rather, their typical motor pattern for intercourse is merely directed at rams instead of ewes. “
"They're one of the few species that have been systematically studied, so we're able to do very careful and controlled experiments on sheep," Roselli said. "We used rams that had CONSISTENTLY shown EXCLUSIVE sexual preference for other rams when they were GIVEN A CHOICE between rams and ewes."

Since you contend that homosexuality is the result of environment you might also try to explain why physical differences in the brain linked to sexuality have been detected between homosexual & heterosexual sheep? Physical differences indicate a physical cause.

Conclusion: Homosexuals are born that way.

Hamlet
You contend that we should rise above our animal instincts.
I would argue that the enjoyment of our sexual nature [not merely for reproduction] is a precious part of what makes us human. After all our human sexuality influences EVERYTHING we do, say & think. How more central to our being can sexuality be?

Bosk,

Nature also contains numerous examples of incest, after all, even domestic cats from the same litter, if not desexed, will breed.

However natural incest is, it is nearly universally condemned amongst human societies.

As humans, rather than beasts, it would be hoped that if we make decisions about relationships and what is 'normal' we should not fall back upon nature.

Nature usually involves the strong dominating the weak, and the 'laws' of nature usually involve no measure of the human qualities of mercy and compassion.

If you want to argue for the legitimacy of certain types of human relationships that do not specifically involve breeding, then nature is not the way to go.

However, in terms of reproduction, the human child is essentially born prematurely in all cases. In nature most newborn animals can, within say 5% of their lifespan, look after themselves and even breed. In humans this figure is around 10 to 15% of the modern western lifespan, and maybe 35% of the 'natural' human lifespan of around 30 - 35 years. In nature, humans require at least two mature humans to get them to the point of self sufficiency. Almost a million years of experience has indicated that this is best carried out by humans with genetic investments in that child.

That is, two parents, by nature male and female, and their relatives.

This is nature at work, and has resulted in the institution of marriage.

That is not to say that two people who cannot breed should not be together. All I am saying is don't claim nature as a precedent for homosexual marriage. By all means, let, even encourage, homosexual marriage, but don't claim that it is 'natural'.

It is a shame that people persist in rendering gay civil unions, based on consensual and legitimate love between two adults: a "crime". To say that consensual love could be a "crime" is in itself hateful. Their lives are none of you freakin business anyway.

The real stinker of a statement above: "Sodomisings little boys I thought was a homosexual activity no matter what your marital status and it is this ill disciplined attitude in the gay community that is perpetuating it". This is utterly wrong and possibly a hate crime itself. Most paedophiles are heterosexual, and molesting girls is equally as bad as mostering boys. Get over this fact. You have no basis of this claim: most lesbian and gay people I know are sickened by paedophilia.

BTW If any paedophile touched my children I would be violent towards them. That is a natural parental instinct. But hateful people are bad role models for children! Let lesbian and gay men live their own lives.

They don't wear victim politics on their sleaves, they just want a life. How can you possibly have "a life" when society says you can't have a loving relationship: "a life" with another consenting adult? No one is asking you to understand them. The proposal does not mean having orgies and wanton sex, and pocking the wizzer where-ever possible, or behaviour in jails. It is about a commitment to one person. This is the opposite to perverse behaviour as it is love and commitment. The proposal does not mention children or adoption either.

Lesbian or gay people are probably gay at birth. This may not be genetic, it may even be truama in pregnancy. This theory doesn't really matter. There will never be a cure, it is impossible. I hope it never comes.

I think the world would be a very dull place without lesbian and gay people, and I would be sad for my children to live in a world without such wonderful people. Otherwise, we will really look like a communitst state: dull, grey and fashion would naturally die. Yuck!