Posted: 04 September 2009 at 10:23pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro
Where do we go from there... well why not keep it simple and differentiate on a broader basis; Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. Just because humans doesn't adopt babies of orangutans doesn't mean we went down the whole path of differentiating as you suggested.
A heterosexual couple becomes a couple with the ultimate objective of propagation. So, if a heterosexual couple wants to adopt a child for whatever reason, then it can be said that the want is natural.
A homosexual coupling can never produce a progeny, which the homosexuals are fully aware of. Homosexuality is natural, I agree. But homosexuals wanting to have a child of their own is definitely not natural. If it was natural then nature would have provided some way for same sex coupling to produce an offspring, which I don't see happening.
But to be honest I don't really care. As long as the parents love the baby as their own, for me it doesn't really matter who adopts whom.
And welcome back. Nice to see you in DM after such a long gap.
You raise some interesting points.
One assumption is that the primary function of mating is propagation of the species. The importance of mating in the propagation of most mammalian species does make it seem that it is the primary function. However, vestigial sex as well as vestigial sex organs exist. Why do species that reproduce asexually still have sexual organs, and engage in vestigial sex. Also why do asexual species still have their sexual organs.
Secondly, a relationship is not necessary for propagation. In fact one can be committed to one and propagate with another. Propagation purely depends on the ability and desire of an individual to propagate. A homosexual person may prefer sexual relationships with a person of the same sex. However, preference with a certain sexual behavior does not equate to inability of a certain sexual behavior. A homosexual person is capable of choosing an opposite sex partner in order to propagate. It may not be as desirable and enjoyable, but it is possible. Some do choose to do so. Propagation is a matter of choice and chance and has nothing to do with sexual orientation or sexuality altogether in some species.
A heterosexual couple where one is infertile can choose to have the fertile partner copulate with someone else. However, since human relationships are often more than copulation many will choose methods like invitro, surrogation, adoption or just leave it be. Similarly gay people can too choose to sleep with someone and have a child, many do so, but those in committed relationships would like to have the other options too.
Finally, I think irrespective of ability to reproduce - there is a nurturing aspect in nature. Some creatures simply have the desire to nurture and raise another being. Homosexual couples are common amidst penguins and they will often adopt abandoned eggs or sometimes even steal eggs. Wolves and other pack animals often have nurturing instincts where they will often adopt a young one of their own prey, and nursing feeble young ones of a different species. Irrespective of the ability or desire to physically propagate people display nurturing tendencies. Thats perhaps why so many people continue to be foster parents or adoptive parents through their old age. The desire for children depends largely on the nurturing nature rather than ability and opportunity to reproduce. Some people even with ability and opportunity do not wish to propagate.
Human beings are also psychologically raised with the concept of family. Before reaching sexual maturity where a person starts thinking of propagation, children always make believe around the concept of family. Irrespective of what their sexual orientation turns out to be, those who psychologically believed in the concept will still desire that family.