Homosexualism illogical or logical

Homosexuality is logical even in the context of procreation -- it's in nobody's best interest for the population to explode, and it is good to have adults who don't have their own offspring to look after available to help out with other people's kids. (The aunt/ uncle effect.)

Other than that, it's all equally illogical [heterosexuality or homosexuality].

hormones make us male or female.
hormones are not always correct or inline with the physical body.
this is not anyones control
this can happen in any species. I dont think it is illogical at all.

Soz has a good point. I never thought of it that way.

Nobody forceds heterosexual couples to have children and add to this the matter of artificial insemination which means any homosexual man can be part of procreation. A homosexual woman can also procreate even without the benefit of modern science since all it comes down to is sex with a man, no enjoyment is needed on her part (sorry to be so crass but it's a simple fact). Even a homosexual man can create a new life with sexual contact with a woman..it does happen. And when it comes to having people to look after the children which heterosexual couples have created, why aren't birth parents doing this? The idea that you have of reducing homosexuals to merely care givers is shameful.

Who cares ? As long as it is fun !!

Good point. Is it fun and not hurting anyone or anything then what more matters?

Wha? Reducing them to merely carers?

I'm going by the evolutionary perspective -- what is the evolutionary benefit of gay and lesbian people?

I'm saying that, species-wise, there are a lot of evolutionary benefits to having gay and lesbian people in the mix.

It doesn't mean that every single gay or lesbian person needs to care for his/ her nieces, nephews, and neighborhood kids. Just an answer to, does the species as a whole benefit if say 10% of the population is homosexual? And I think the answer is yes.

On an evolutionary scale, artificial insemination much too recent. On an evolutionary scale, a group of hominids living together had a certain number of offspring who were cared for by available adults -- and the ones who had their own offspring were less available. So there was a benefit to the group if not all of them had offspring. Does that mean that every single one of them actually did do the caretaking? Of course not.

Just pointing out how it makes sense even within the "natural law" framework.

Not sure what's shameful there.

Ultimately, I completely agree with your last sentence.

I think we've strayed into the either/or trap. As I understand it human sexuality is on a spectrum and not opposite sides of a coin. We can range from being exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual, but it's a sliding scale. That being so then I think from an evolutionary perspective it complicates things.

Human sexual behaviour is diverse. I'll settle for that.

<<nodding at goodfielder. Definetly a sliding scale.

Sorry to be the jerk here; but what does it matter if it is logical or not?!
Thankfully, life isn't all logical. And often; seemingly illogical 'things' work.

I suppose nothing in life is really logical when you look at it.....

The Discipline of Logic
Human life is full of decisions, including significant choices about what to believe. Although everyone prefers to believe what is true, we often disagree with each other about what that is in particular instances. It may be that some of our most fundamental convictions in life are acquired by haphazard means rather than by the use of reason, but we all recognize that our beliefs about ourselves and the world often hang together in important ways.

If I believe that whales are mammals and that all mammals are fish, then it would also make sense for me to believe that whales are fish. Even someone who (rightly!) disagreed with my understanding of biological taxonomy could appreciate the consistent, reasonable way in which I used my mistaken beliefs as the foundation upon which to establish a new one. On the other hand, if I decide to believe that Hamlet was Danish because I believe that Hamlet was a character in a play by Shaw and that some Danes are Shavian characters, then even someone who shares my belief in the result could point out that I haven't actually provided good reasons for accepting its truth.

In general, we can respect the directness of a path even when we don't accept the points at which it begins and ends. Thus, it is possible to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning independently of our agreement on substantive matters. Logic is the discipline that studies this distinction?-both by determining the conditions under which the truth of certain beliefs leads naturally to the truth of some other belief, and by drawing attention to the ways in which we may be led to believe something without respect for its truth. This provides no guarantee that we will always arrive at the truth, since the beliefs with which we begin are sometimes in error. But following the principles of correct reasoning does ensure that no additional mistakes creep in during the course of our progress.
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm