- Thread starter
- #2,681
He's using number 2 alright...Depends on how you define natural.The ratio of gays to straights must be static, or gays would not continue to exist.Humans are omnivores, and have the teeth for it, they are not vegetarians of any kind. They are predators, meat-eaters.
Gays can't reproduce, so their natural act on their own accord would lead to their doom, heterosexual sex saves them from extinction. Doesn't sound very natural
There will always be plenty of breeders, so allowing gays to legally marry will not change a thing about long term human viablity
I agree with that, but my point was I am challenging Paint's standard of "natural" which still strikes me as completely arbitrary
I guess I'm using #1, and it sounds like your using #2nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural
- 1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
.- 2.
of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
"alright" isn't a word, spell checker
And your standard keeps changing. Gays are natural because gay happens in nature. But when the only meat I eat is fish and seafood, suddenly other standards appear...