Originally posted by NotlocTL
Read my posts before coming up with another retort. I said man + woman, DISREGARDING the fertility of either of them, is a natural relationship because under normal circumstances they would be able to reproduce. Man + man or woman + woman could not reproduce regardless. Think about it before you take my posts out of context.
1. Your prerequisite was ability to reproduce, and when I gave you a counterexample you dismissed it as an exception. Under normal circumstances an infertile heterosexual couple still can't reproduce. If you're going for ideals here, you could also say that under "normal" circumstances all people would be able to reproduce because "normal" eliminates homosexuality, therefore all people should be allowed to be with whoever they want. You're just taking an ambiguous concept and extending it to people that think like you (sounds like bigotry, doesn't it?)
2. How does ability to reproduce indicate that something is natural? If somebody is biologically predisposed to be sexually attracted to the same gender, then how is that unnatural?
3. You didn't address my other point. If another species mates with the same gender, would you also consider that unnatural?