Homosexuals can still have children (using surrogates, invitro, adoption, whatever), none of those are natural...
Adoption is natural and fairly common among animals that live in groups. Surrogates and such are an unnatural work-around to a natural desire, but there is a difference between means and motivation.
...neither is your food, neither is your lifestyle, car, house, whatever, if we're using technical prehistoric ideas of what nature is...
There is a clear distinction between an item and a behavior. How something is made has nothing to do with why it is made. Food for example, regardless of how it is produced and of what it's made, provide nutrition which satisfies a basic biological urge (or tricks my body into thinking it does). How you manage to connect the dots between those two are beyond me.
...but did anyone ever stop to think maybe NATURE is what we EVOLVE into, what we become, not what we were traditionally supposed to be.
Which of course brings the question; is homosexuality the result of evolution? Fact of the matter is, we're still not sure what the exact cause of it is. For all we know, it can be a disease or a defective gene or God having a boring century. Show to me that it serves a biological purpose and it's just dandy.
Homosexuality has been found to be "naturally ocurring" in several other animals, so why when we stuffy self important humans do it, is it suddenly unnatural?
It has been observed, but it's not very frequent. I wouldn't consider that natural either. If anything, I'd say the frequency of these observations indicate that it's a defect rather than a natural occurrence.
I am in a long term relationship with a bisexual woman who gets all wet and horny over bautiful women, there is NOTHING unnatural about the passion and desire for the same sex experienced by homos and bis, anymore than the passion and desire experienced by heterosexuals.
Ah, here we go. You seem to have trouble separating "natural" from "good" (and by extension, "unnatural" from "bad"). If not, I'm not sure why you're bringing this example up at all, it's just an iteration of the same things you've already said but cast from a subjective viewpoint. Fact of the matter is, just because you don't see anything
wrong with it, it doesn't make it natural. I don't see anything wrong with it either, but from a biological point of view it's still genetic suicide.
Imo science has evolved beyond what you consider science to be, and a lot of scientists I know would agree with you, which is more to do with scientists being unable to adapt to the rapidly evolving puzzle that is humanity.
That's certainly one possible explanation. Far from the only one though.
By the same logic most of everything we do would be unnatural, and if there were any other creature on the table, by definition, "most of what that creature did" could not be unnatural, it would by definition BE that creature's nature.
You'll have to give me examples here because quite frankly, I can't say I can think of many things that I would say goes directly against basic biological urges.
