I still don't believe I am in error. I think for some people it is a choice and some it isn't. Many gays will say that they are born that way, and I am fine with that and I agree it's true.
However, that does not make it natural. What about people that are born with 3 arms or other birth defects? Is that natural? Well, I suppose you could say it's natural. If by that you mean it is natural for nature to make mistakes. Then yes, its natural. But that is not the way that humans are supposed to be. Something happened and they weren't born right. And that is the same with being gay.
Craig you are a very well spoken individual, but your not selling me. No matter how hard you try to talk your way around it, being gay is not how any species of animal including humans are supposed to be.
OK, you seem open to some discussion and wanting to hear feedback, so let's cover some points (I expect to get just a bit of the lost post, it was a good sized note).
Let's start with the definition of the word 'natural'.
One meaning is something not determined by personal choice - and given homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is generally determined by at least toddler age, that qualifies as 'natural'.
The specifics of how, which are not understood, are not as important, what combination of genetics, hormones, or any other factor. It's something people just 'are'.
A second definition you use of natural is a sort of 'ideal human'. That's where you object to the procreation issue. There are all kinds of less than ideal traits people have - it's not reasonable to run around telling people they can't have right for no reason other than they don't have an 'ideal trait'. I use the first definition of 'natural', not your second.
The point about 'natural' is that people are generally 'born' or by an early age straight or gay, it's not a choice like a political party.
You agree that some have some choice and some don't; actually, if you check you will find that nearly everyone has no choice about those preferences.
Some people try to overcome them - and they can pick behaviors but there is no evidence almost anyone can change orientation. Behavioral modification can mess with people, but it's more damaging than anything in my opinion. From the outside a person can look like they are making a choice, but it really isn't. Someone who doesn't want to be gay might occassionally indulge in gay activities and it looks like choice - but the attractions behind that are there regardless.
If you were ordered at gunpoint to do a same-sex act, you could - but it wouldn't be gay, because you wouldn't have that attraction or desire. You can't choose to be gay.
As I've said, human sexuality is complex, so there are small numbers with different experiences than this, but generally, this is accurate about the lack of choice.
The question is when noting homosexuality is a trait among a small percent, and the 'birth defect' idea is discussed, how pejorative should that be?
There are all kinds of traits that are affecting a small percent of people - especially tall or short, red hair, albino, six fingers, homosexuality, especially 'attractive', a long list.
Some of these are viewed as positive, some neutral, some negative. For example, being born without legs is generally viewed as negative; red hair as neutral. The few people who are born with the ability to recall details of every day generally are viewed to have a positive unusual trait.
You bring up that if everyone were gay, it would threaten the species.
But first - while gay sexual attraction leads them away from having children, if they want to, they can, and many do.
Second, these is no apparent likelihood of homosexuality becoming 100% of people. It seems to have held pretty steady as a small percent in the history of mankind.
So what's the actual harm there? Are there so few people that you are saying it's a big problem to not have more?
If you attack them for not having children, do you attack everyone who does not have children? Are Catholic priests doing bad by not having children also?
You need to ask whether the differences with gays justify deying them equal rights, or you are simply discriminating for no good reason.
I've seen the presentation by the leading religious figure in Uganda who preaches hate of gays, where they want to imprison or execute gays.
He doesn't really have much substance to attack gays - it's basically one point, to stimulate revulsion about gay sex and use that reaction to build hate of gays. He goes into detail about the most disgusting-sounding things he can come up with, dwelling on each bit that gets a reaction, making faces, expressing disgust, saying things like they eat POOP, they eat POOP - and as the audience groans in disgust he says how they should not tolerate that, not tolerate those people.
But the fact is, you should understand that homosexuality has pretty much the same things as heterosexuals, in desire for romance, companionship, love, but just with the same things attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite sex. Is that harmful so you should deny them rights and treat them as second class citizens you're better than? Or just different where that treatment is unjustified? It's the same issue as people who have wanted to deny rights - breaking up slave families, denying marriage - to blacks.
The other difference is that some gays, not all, can have some 'cultural' differences - Liberace can be an example. On my list of good, neutral, 'bad' traits - these are neutral I'd say - and many might say they have some positivies. 'Appreciate the diversity'. Plenty of people value a lot from 'gay culture'. You'd have a hard time pointing at those differences and finding how they justify denying equality in rights.
When a straight person sees a gay person and wants to do violence, they should understand that they have a problem, not the gay person. In the past it hasn't been that way, but we've changed a lot to come to understand that's the case. Once it seemed natural to 'keep blacks in their place' - an extreme form of that being lynching - and now we understand the problem there was in the whites, not the blacks.
When you use language like saying how humans are supposed to be, remember you are saying you know better than nature. You don't judge everone who doesn't have children to take away their rights as you do gays, and you don't respect full rights of gays even if they have children. You need to consider where your feelings of hate, your feelings that make you think you are right to tell a gay couple they don't deserve equal rights to marry, come from. If you're just succumbing to letting a repulsion to gay sex make you hate.
Manknd's history is filled with groups who decide they're superior to other groups, and practice hate discrimination, and other things. You can look at a lot of these and see they're not justified. Isn't the denial of rights to gays the same sort of unjustified hostility when you think about it? Isn't it you who has the problem with anti-gay feelings, not the gay people?