"Nature does n't allow homosexual sex to create life , to reproduce , and though humans use sex as entertainment , it obviously was meant for a greater purpose . Biology shows us we need both male and female to create life , that male and male does n't create life , that indivdual gratification does n't create life . If you want to attach relgious or philosophical significance to sex you may at this juncture . That is why I think it is wrong . Humanity would n't be around if homosexuality were the standard , homosexuals would n't exist without heterosexuals . You may be looking for a more fundamental `` morality `` to my basis . I choose to validate my beliefs on science and years of living proof of heterosexualitie 's superiority , and when I mean hetero superiority I mean strict hetero adhearance , no socially unacceptable behavior being thrown in like `` cheating `` or `` rape `` ."
"Really ? If `` nature `` meant for all things to reproduce through heterosexual methods then maybe all other forms of reproduction would not exist , hmm . They would have been `` eliminated `` because heterosexuality is far superior . Think again . The majority of organisms on this planet reproduce using binary fission ( bacteria dividing ) , asexual reproduction ( there goes your `` individual gratification argument ) , and zygotic reproduction . None of these things require sexes of any type . Even animals that have `` normal `` sexual reproduction can reproduce using a process known as parthenogenesis , in which only a female is required to produce offspring ( turkeys and lizards do this ) . If homosexuality is n't natural or is inferior , then why do we see examples of it in nature . The bonobo ( closely related to the chimpanzee ) exhibits heterosexual and homosexual activity in both genders in the wild , and the bonobo and humans share a very common ancestor . Look , you ca n't say that one way of reproduction is `` the standard `` since it is clear that different species reproduce in a variety of ways . You also ca n't say that homosexuality is a disorder if you follow your previous logic that what is `` natural `` is valid . Also , you said that heterosexuality is superior because it has a `` greater purpose `` . By implying that something has a purpose , you stray from the realm of Science by assuming a teleology . If you want to assume that things were given `` purpose `` by some higher being , that 's fine , but you 'll have to stick to religion to defend your argument . In science , it is impossible to assume a purpose . For example , what is the purpose of a river ? To flow to the ocean ? To carve a canyon ? To carry sediment ? You can say what something is good at doing , or what it does , but you can not say what it was `` made `` for ( purpose ) without implying some grand design that can be easily provided by your local religion . As for hetero and homosexuality , it can be said that heterosexuals are better at producing offspring than homosexuals . Does that automatically make heterosexuality superior based on the arbitrary criterion of number of offspring produced ? So in the eyes of a value system that believes that something is valued higher that creates more offspring or `` life `` , heterosexuality would be superior . But in the eyes of science and reason , your argument does n't hold water ."
"Nature does n't allow homosexual sex to create life Humanity would n't be around if homosexuality were the standard , homosexuals would n't exist without heterosexuals . ``"
"heterosexual methods then maybe all other forms of reproduction You also ca n't say that homosexuality is a disorder if you follow your previous logic that what is `` natural `` is valid ."