Biologically speaking, being gay is a defect since it doesn't encourage a living organism's primary function which is survival of the species and gene diversification
who cares about dawkins? the way one lives their life is non of your business. and from a moral standpoint... aslong as it's not hurting anyone... i fail to see how having kids or not having kids is a good or a bad thing.
Biologically speaking, being gay is a defect since it doesn't encourage a living organism's primary function which is survival of the species and gene diversification
ok. what about straight people who don't wanna have kids?
What about them? Want to attribute subjective morals to biology? Read some Dawkins, will you
who cares about dawkins? the way one lives their life is non of your business. and from a moral standpoint... aslong as it's not hurting anyone... i fail to see how having kids or not having kids is a good or a bad thing.
Who cares about non-religious models of interpreting reality? Not you as long it goes your personal values
Your responses are illogical and appeal to emotion, you are closer to the religious zealots than you'd like to admit
We've discussed this before. If you want a starting point homosexuals trigger a feeling of discomfort in non-homosexuals