Animals also kill and eat each other. Should we follow their lead in that area, or just the one you agree with? Your main point is weak. We're not -blam!-ing animals.

We [i]are[/i] animals. Just because we've morals, doesn't mean we're that different from them. Animals of the same species look out for each other. And kill other species for food, which is exactly what we do.

[quote]Just because we've morals, doesn't mean we're that different from them.[/quote] Yes. Yes it does. That's kind of why we rule the kingdom. [quote]Animals of the same species look out for each other. And kill other species for food, which is exactly what we do.[/quote] That don't always look out for each other. They fight each other as well. Sometimes eat their own kind. Which is kind of frowned upon amongst humans. So what is your point?

We rule because of our intelligence, not morals. Animals kill each other. And humans don't? We're not that different.

But we are human, so we should not behave like animals. That includes not being aggressive towards things that are different, which is what homophobia is.

That makes no sense RC.

Animals don't like things that are different. Different species of animals don't mix well for the most part. Often, animals that are born with different features are abandoned by their mothers. They aren't tolerant of things that are different. You basically implied that we are above animals, which I suppose is true in many ways. I would hope that one of those ways is tolerance of things that are different. Homophobia is more animalistic than homosexuality because it is intolerant.

[quote]Animals don't like things that are different. Different species of animals don't mix well for the most part. Often, animals that are born with different features are abandoned by their mothers. They aren't tolerant of things that are different. You basically implied that we are above animals, which I suppose is true in many ways. I would hope that one of those ways is tolerance of things that are different. Homophobia is more animalistic than homosexuality because it is intolerant.[/quote] I see your point RC, but tolerance isn't what's in question here. Nor is homophobia. The question here is homosexuality right. It is possible to believe that homosexuality is indeed wrong/not right and not be homophobic or intolerant of it. My only point is that using "animals do it, so it [i]must[/i] be natural" is a horrible argument to promote the idea that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, as you have already stated in the first part of what's quoted above, that just because animals aren't tolerant of something that is different, does not give us the right to be. The same can be applied to their homosexual tendencies. Just because they do it, doesn't make it right.

The statement "homosexuality is unnatural" is arguably an even worse argument against it than the aforementioned rebuttal. Whether homosexuality is natural or not is entirely semantic, and every conclusion you can possibly come to using the various definitions of natural in no way suggests that homosexuality is wrong, unless you also concede that any modern technology is wrong, which I think that we can all agree is stupid. I'm not sure if you said that it's unnatural and therefore wrong earlier, but yeah.