Yet that's still not logical, because banning anything "icky" is not reasonable. We wouldn't be able to make any bans or would have to ban everything; because something is always "icky" to someone else.

Although I understand your point. My question was "Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?". It leaves too much room for interpretation, it's not clearly defining if logically illegal, logically immoral, just logical. And logically speaking some people find homosexuality 'icky' and they'd be against it. Just like in my example some people find cutting open bodies 'icky' and they too wouldn't do it.

The link between finding something personally "icky" and imposing that distaste upon others for no reason other than your personal comfort is inherently flawed and illogical. "B" does not follow logically from "A".

That is illogical the world is already overpopulated and also there are many heterosexuals that cannot reproduce

For this to make homosexuality logical, you must first prove that reproduction is logical.

Research indicates that the genes associated with producing homosexuality in some individuals increase general fertility along the maternal line, which is why homosexuality has persisted as a trait in the human species despite homosexuals often not having their own biological children (or at least not until recently).

Why is this a logical reason against homosexuality?

1. It is a logical fallacy to deny a group of individuals equal rights based upon an assumption that doing so may open the door to other groups claiming those rights as well. Each category that you have mentioned ought to be evaluated on its own terms as they are distinct categories. Furthermore, your assumption is quite erroneous itself:

-- Incest is different because it is clearly and explicitly linked to serious genetic inbreeding which has marked health effects born primarily upon society; this is not the case with homosexuality.

-- Polygamy involves three or more parties, whereas both heterosexual and homosexual partnerships involve two people. While some argue that polygamy necessarily opens the door for abusive relationships this remains a largely unfounded claim. At any rate, if two-member homosexual relationships were to open up that door then there is no reason heterosexual relationships would not do so as well.

-- Necrophilia necessarily cannot include consenting parties, whereas homosexuality can.

-- Bestiality likewise cannot include consenting parties, whereas homosexuality can.

2. Many homosexual partners do raise children, either through adoption or other methods. We also afford marriage/union to heterosexual couples who are not fertile or who choose not to have. Marriage was introduced not to ensure propagation of the human race (which is hardly a concern) or individual social populations, but to provide a stable household unit (whatever the side) which supports a stronger economy. Marriage benefits are specifically tailored to support a partnership, with or without children, through such means as shared health insurance and shared finances.

I've not seen a single argument for homosexuality that cannot be used to defend incest, polygamy, necrophilia, beastiality etc.

All of the scenarios you constructed to make incest, polygamy, necrophilia, and beastiality are very circumstantial and some would say highly improbable. And also completely negate the reasons those behaviors are illegal in the first place, i.e. what if the incestuous couple cannot procreate and thus there's no need to fear retarded children, or what if the dead person signed a contract allowing _____ to fuck their corpse after death, thus eliminating any unwanted desecration to the corpse via the necrophilia. So yeah, maybe in really special, regulated, and infrequent occasions those behaviors could be allowed, but not at all in the same way free, unregulated unrestricted, uninhibited, not-constantly-under-siege-by-bigots homosexual love should be allowed.

We don't make sure homosexuals sign contracts before they're allowed to fuck one another. We don't allow the same kind of mistreatment of humans as we do animals, so comparing slaughtering a cow to raping a cow and saying raping a cow is okay because slaughtering a cow is okay and then going on to compare that to homosexuality is false at best because we don't allow the slaughter or rape of humans. Some people are trying to regulate the homosexual community's ability to have children, but by and large even now we don't regulate sterility among homosexuals the way you proposed we would have to with incestuals so again it's a false comparison.

I find there to be nothing wrong with polygamy, so... no argument, there.

Also I find your statement kind of silly, really. Just off tops I can think of a few arguments, namely "they love eachother," "they have just as much a claim to the term 'traditional marriage' as heterosexuals," and "if they're going through life together as partners, they deserve the tax breaks etc," that cannot be said to all apply to necrophilia, beastiality, incest, and polygamy. Less so the last two, but then again the last two are less offensive; comparing homosexual love to fucking a goat or a corpse, on the other hand... not so much. Unless you're trying to assert that a goat and a farmer "love" one another, or that a necrophiliac and his corpse have a claim to the term "traditional marriage," and deserve tax breaks for, of course.

You also seem to have this the wrong way around; the "what happens behind closed doors..." argument for homosexuality is not a standalone argument for homosexuality, it's a response to the argument against homosexuality: "I think it's disgusting." The response is "well you don't have to see it." Nobody ever asserts that "the rationale used to justify homosexuality" is just "it's not my business what other people do in private." If that were true, it could also be used to justify things like torture, but there's a lot more to the argument for allowing two consenting adults to play around with one anothers junk, regardless of their gender.

The time that you are most likely to hear the "it happens behind closed doors..." argument is in response to the "I think it's disgusting..." "argument."

You can also argue against gay marriage from the view that since homosexual unions, by their nature, are incapable of reproducing

Insemination and adoption. One of which is having a kid themselves (more than a sterile hetero couple could do, btw) and the other is adoption (cleaning up hetero couple's messes). They should defiantly get credit (and benefits) for both of these.

it makes no sense to offer homosexual unions the benefits attributed to marriage.

Do sterile hetero married couples still get these benefits? What about hetero couples that don't want kids? What about hetero couples who end up not having kids, do they get their benefits revoked? Would it be possible, perhaps, to change the benefit system so you get extra benefits when you have kids as opposed to you are physically able to produce children as a couple? Honestly I'm surprised it's not the former already... the government doesn't usually dish out money "because you might perhaps maybe do something we like in the future."

Marriage is mostly encouraged for the sole reason of creating families and thus, more offspring, which is vital for any society's continuance.

Families (married, what you would call "traditional" [lol, traditional, lol] families) are not required for more offspring, bro.

Moreover, we have a bit of a overpopulation crisis in effect. It may be too late already, but what we really need if for people to cool it on the breeding like goddamn rodents and focus on raising the kids we've already got (lots of whom don't have families) and work on making our future sustainable. The thing you're saying is vital for society to continue is already happening in abundance - in excess, and it's driving society to ruin.

Two people unable/reluctant to concieve a child together, be they straight or gay, do not deserve the stabilty of marriage?

You can also argue against gay marriage from the view that since homosexual unions, by their nature, are incapable of reproducing - it makes no sense to offer homosexual unions the benefits attributed to marriage. Marriage is mostly encouraged for the sole reason of creating families and thus, more offspring, which is vital for any society's continuance.

The bible does not count as logical. As for your alleged proof of it being an illness could I see a link?

Although this isn't a reason I do see it as slight favoritism. Heterosexuals don't get a parade, nor do black people, or females, other people who are getting their rights pretty recently.

Natural law and natural complimentary of biology is the first and most important logical argument against. It is obvious from the outset that it is not an intended use for the human body to have sexual relations with members of the same sex. It really shouldn't NEED to go farther than that, but thanks to the ruination of natural law, logic, common sense and pretty much every other facet of classical thought by a Godless, immoral, unethical, hoodwinked, lied to, and frightfully unaware modernist culture.

The very fact that homosexuality exists in nature renders this argument utter nonsense. "Natural law" is pure theology, not any sort of legitimate philosophy, "logic" works against you seeing as how what we are talking about is natural, and "common sense" does absolutely nothing for or against you. On top of that, our society is predominantly theistic, so "godless" makes no sense. Our society is hardly "immoral" or "unethical", and the rest of that list just makes no sense to me.

Seriously, just find a picture of someone of the opposite sex. Look at their bioligical features, then look at your own. Read the first few chapters of a middle school biology book on human anatomy, and reproduction functions. I'm not sure what more "logic" is necessary. Beyond that, you get into social and cultural experiments, and bad philosophy.

None of that provides any reason to be "against" homosexuality at all. Pointing out that our bodies are "designed" to be heterosexual is not itself a reason to be against homosexuality.

Wrong is wrong. It's not a relativistic notion.

The fact that you think it is wrong and others don't proves it is a relativistic notion. It is purely subjective.

We KNOW what is right and we know what is wrong at the base level of the natural complimentary.

There is no logic behind that, at all. You are only providing arguments as to why heterosexuality is normal, not why homosexuality is "wrong".

Everything else is politics and morals.

"right" and "wrong" are morals as well.

In this case both morals AND science line up. There is nothing redeeming or logical about homosexual sex, and much wrong with it. It

Actually, they don't. There need not be something "redeeming" in your eyes for something to be wrong, and homosexuality exists, whether you find it logical or not. It is a natural state of affairs in many species, and that is the science behind it. As for "much wrong with it", you keep insinuating that but are not doing anything to prove it.

It is just one of many ways, since the "sexual revolution" of the 60's that we have found to denigrate the prehistoric, and pre-religion, easily understood relationship of marriage between a man and a woman, and it's importance in the creation and continuation of families.

Homosexuality has existed since before the concept of marriage, before the sexual revolution, and before religion itself. It additionally does nothing to denigrate the concept of heterosexual families.

We have now defined marriage as a union between x number of people who love x number of people exclusively, to no apparent or functional end apart from sexual objectification, and satisfaction.

It is what it has always been in this country: The joining of two people in a legal relationship. That's it.

It is a deeply selfish reationship in which the fecundity of life isn't even a factor.

It never was. The fact that procreation (or even the ability to procreate) has never been a requirement for marriage proves as much.

Yes homosexuality was always around, and always will be around. It was just understood by all other cultures, epochs of history, governments, religions, philosophers, scientists etc. to be biologically unsound, morally unsound, ethically unsound, and to have no intrinsic value apart from sexual gratification outside of the reproductive and unitive value of sexual relation within a heterosexual marriage open to life.

There is absolutely no factual basis for that claim.