Other than religious, what reason is there to ban homosexuality?

I offer my veins up to you

I think that's called being a vampire

Like most things our body does, it serves a number of purposes - pleasure, showing our love of someone and reproduction. Why would your sentient idea of nature have made non-reproductive sex pleasurable and desirable if it only intended sex to be reproductive?

The most successful method of Sperm meeting Egg and therefor mos species to survive is due to the sexual feeling - otherwise Sex is pretty pointless right? Animals or people will get this sexual pleasure in any way possible to put it bluntly! But the actual reason and this was done via Natural Selection, Survival of the fittest throughout the amazing Natures design to always find a way for things to work.. like the wind blowing pollen or bees transporting pollen.. also great methods! So the actual purpose of these methods is for life to continue. Everything else to do with Sexual pleasure is pointless, like jumping out of a plane or taking drugs.. not what life intended really!!

The core reason for eating and drinking is survival. Yet, we also derive pleasure from eating and drinking different types of food and drink, which in turn makes us happier, contributes to socialising, etc. Eating food for pleasure is pretty "pointless" under your logic, but I doubt many of us would deem it against nature or something which should not be encouraged. Who wants to eat gruel forever? Would you be happy to eat gruel forever (which contained just the necessary nutrients to survive) because eating for pleasure is "not what life intended really"?

Same-sex pleasure does not lead to life just as straight couples engaging in non-reproductive acts does not lead to life, yet there is nothing wrong with it.

LOL.. no we eat to survive.. SOLE purpose..

I prefer to suck from the finger This way I can slowly enjoy the taste of the blood

Nonsense. If you ate purely to survive you would only eat gruel or some watered-down powder with all the necessary nutrients and vitamins. Why do you have a roast dinner when gruel with nutrients would satisfy your hunger and also be healthier? Why do you have a snack when you have eaten a meal which means that the snack is not necessary for you to survive?

Have you ever had a desert or snack in the evening when you have already met your healthy calorie intake for the day? If so, you are eating for pleasure, not to survive.

Humans, being so intelligent, is what gave us this opportunity to experiment with food. Most species will eat the same foods daily in order to survive.. The fact is that we COULD survive eating the same things daily.. no matter on the taste. Nature only requires us to eat and drink to stay healthy. Just like Sex to reproduce! Survival is all that matters... getting fitter, stronger, bigger, better, etc are just products of survival of the fittest.

I am still yet to determine what you are trying to conclude with your arguments here. You've accepted that we eat for pleasure/enjoyment and that we have sex for pleasure/love, so what is your belief about those things - things which don't directly result in "survival" - are they wrong? Unnatural? Should be banned? What is your view on homosexuality in line with the OP?

My view is that homosexuality is unnatural - in that nature REQUIRES male and females to mate in order to reproduce and species to survive i.e. the intended purpose of sex. Yes there are other methods of sex.. but this does not result in reproduction.

Now after saying that.. of course people will choose how they prefer to build a relationship with or what food they prefer.. we have a lot of choices in life.. whatever choice makes you happy, that is what matters.

The OP asked, other than Religion what other reason might we ban homosexuality.. and I said that Nature could be a reason due to sexual reproduction is not possible. I would never actually say that we should ban homosexuality for this reason.. but that it COULD be another reason. I was kinda throwing it in because what other reasons are there?!!

Nature does not "require" that or else males and females wouldn't have the option of never reproducing in their entire lifetime, and then there are of course infertile people (which nature also created). This just shows why nature is not sentient and how there is no intelligent design behind it. Why would nature intentionally create infertile people if it also required people to reproduce? It does not make sense.

So are you saying sexual acts which are not aimed at reproduction are "unnatural"?



Good.



But that logic suggests that there could be a reason to ban all "unnatural" things.

I have already explained this many times.. in order to reproduce (survival) sperm need to get to the egg (male and female sex) any other sexual activity is just a product of sexual organs being used in other ways.. not the INTENDED purpose whether designed or not.. in my opinion nature is designed, however I understand you don't believe this and I accept that.

OK so now i will explain why BANNING homosexuality due to it's natural intent or natural reason, however you need me to word it. This also brings the Religious element back in.. IN theory, what if 100% all Christians suddenly decided to be homosexual.. it wouldn't take long for Christianity to be wiped out.. the Religions that BAN homosexuality would have a much higher birth rate - due to NATURE - So survival of our species is threatened to some degree.. yes a small degree and to be fair, reducing this is needed in any case!

Then I guess most people are guilty of using their bodies in ways not "intended" under your logic, whether engaging in non-reproductive sexual acts or eating food for pleasure.

As I said, the fact that nature "created" infertile people contradicts your theory.



People can convert to religion. Also there is no evidence the survival of our species would be threatened, given that homosexuality has never made up more than 10% of societies in which it has existed.

Over 6 billion people on the planet supports my theory! The only way to procreate is if a sperm meets egg.. I can't explain it any easier.. this is the reason for sex in nature. It doesn't matter about anything else.. it's unfortunate for some people who are infertile but this is irrelevant! Clutching at straws won't change my theory.

My THEORY of 100% of a certain religion or race even to decide to be homosexual would threaten the existence of that religion or race..

it has certainly become a lot more accepted in the last 10 years.. and will continue to do so so what's 10% now could soon become 20% and so on.. therefor an actual threat to the group who do not ban homosexuality.

It's not irrelevant because it contradicts your entire theory. You are suggesting nature is sentient and designs life in someway. If this is the case and nature "intended" humans to reproduce, then why did it also create infertility?

That's essentially an impossible hypothetical. If 100% of people decided not to have children then the same thing would happen. Is that a reason to force people to reproduce or punish those who decide not to have children?

Also, homosexuality is not a choice.



Again a hypothetical not supported by evidence.

Everything in life is a choice.. if we prefer something then surely we make that choice.. choices can change throughout your life.

Yes people do choose to have children or not.. China are forced to have 1 child..

Don't need evidence to support a theory.. the fact is it is possible no matter the odds..

Homosexuality is not a choice given that most gay people cannot choose whether or not they are attracted to or become sexually aroused by members of the same sex.



The one child policy is a limit on how many children they can have, not forcing them to actively have one child...



You do if you want it to be taken seriously. Anyway, it's a ridiculous theory which is about as possible as 100% of people choosing not to have kids. It's certainly not a sensible basis on which to choose whether to ban things or not.

It is a choice even if you do not find it appealing.

Many straight people who have been in relationships start a homosexual relationship.. you would declare this as bi-sexual no doubt, but this isn't the case for some.

My China quote regarding one child I presumed wouldn't need explaining.. let's not get silly.. they are forced to have no more than 1 child thus yes they are being punished.

It is a theory.. that eventually could start to have an impact over time..

Citation needed.



Yes, I would declare that bisexual; sexuality is a scale.



On the basis of the very real and documented overpopulation in China, rather than on the basis of some hypothetical theory with no supporting evidence.



As I said, it is about as valid as the theory that 100% of people could choose not to have kids. There is no evidence for it. Do you really want our governments to start basing decisions to ban things on hypothetical theories backed with no supporting evidence?