Does Science show that Homosexual behaviour is immoral?

[McCulloch]

It has been argued that science shows that homosexual behavior is immoral. Anatomy and physiology and biology and DNA can help deescalate the words "ignorance" and "bigotry" about the sexuality of the human being. And of course sticking a penis into a rectum cannot find any scientific justification unless the person is mentally feeble, or a fumbly lover. In either case, science cannot support wrongdoings with the body's design. Someone putting their genitalia into the anal opening or into the mouth is empirically wrong. And female homosexuality is even more deviant to the norm. Any woman that ovulates is by physiology or anatomy or biology, heterosexual. Their body is expellinh an ovum that was not fertilized. Sexuality can only be defined by anatomy. That is perfect logic. Anything else is faith-based beliefs. And we all know that is a big no-no. [..] yet, when anyone thinks that the digestive tract is part of the sexual organs, it is laughable when they are protected by people who demand science be the final say in all matters of faith.

The argument runs like this:

1. Homosexual behavior is not procreative.
2. Non-procreative sexual behavior is not natural.
3. Unnatural sexual behavior is immoral.

therefore

• Homosexual behavior is immoral.

Is this argument true? Does science condemn homosexual behavior? The logic is flawless. If you accept these three premises, you must accept the conclusion. So, lets view each of the three points:

1. Homosexual behavior is not procreative. This premise is true. I am unaware of any anatomist, psychiatrist, biologist, anthropologist, sociologist, parent, gay activist or plumber who would argue against this premise.

2. Non-procreative sexual behavior is not natural. This premise is false. Psychiatry, anthropology and sociology all show that sexual behavior is far more than for procreation. Sexual behavior has social and psychiatrical functions in human society. This can also be shown in other primates. In nature, primates exhibit sexual behavior, even homosexual behavior, which is not procreative. Therefore, is is very clear to me that non-procreative sexual behavior is not necessarily unnatural.

3. Unnatural sexual behavior is immoral. I have not seen any support for this premise. Some natural sexual behavior can be shown to be immoral in human society. Forced sexual submission, rape, does occur in a number of mammalian species in nature including humans. It is immoral since it violates the will of one human by another. But, I have not seen any reasoning or logic which shows that unnatural sexual behavior is immoral. If someone were to show that unnatural sexual behavior is, in fact, immoral, then there might possibly be many common sexual activities which might be thus condemned. Could one say, "Lips are made for keeping food in your mouth when you chew, closing off the airway when you breath and forspeechh. Kissing is not natural. It is wrong to teach my children that kissing is a valid life choice. I don't want my children to learn to tolerate those left-leaning-bubble-headed people who have a kissing agenda."

Conclusion It cannot be shown that science proves that homosexual behavior is immoral.

[thenormalyears]

I don't know if men are supposed to enjoy it or not. I slam it in a book. I didn't take the bible sex classes. But if they withdraw (onanism?) you get struck dead. Isn’t an orgasm (by men) needed to deliver the sperm? Of course women having orgasms is like men having nipples they don’t need them.

Biologically you need women to have orgasm, it motivates the female to take part in procreation. If women derived no pleasure of sexual intercourse they would be completely uninterested in advancing the species and the species would have to evolve or die.

Men have nipples because nipples are one of the key features of humans, and it isn't relevant to male/female differentiation. (both men and women have ten fingers ten toes two arms two legs etc etc) and since there is no pressure to delete male nipples from the gene pool, they will never go.