1. Since when we're airplanes against something we were meant to do as a species. Irrelevant point
2. Gay ppl cannot reproduce with each other. A group of homosexuals will die out a group of heteros won't
3.You missed my point
4. Ok? Homosexuals cannot reproduce, heteosexuals can also have birth detective babies and as I stated a million times before, there are ways around inbreeding
1. Your point is that a species were not designed to do it, therefore it is wrong. Our species was not designed to fly, therefore airplanes should be wrong by your standards. The fact that you see nothing wrong with flying in an airplane, despite our species not being designed to fly, shows that your point is hypocritical.
2. Not true. Sure, a group of gay men living on an island will eventually cause the island's population to die out, same with women, but they still have the capacity to reproduce and the potential too, same with a group of gay women on an island. But, mix the groups in with society, and they are still able to contribute to the species' goal of continuation through reproduction. They can receive sperm from donors, and the men can give sperm. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you can't contribute to the world's population.
A five year old boy and girl have even less capacity to reproduce than a group of gay men on an island, but the same potential. Would you then go to tell those two that their existence, as it is, is wrong? That it's harmful to the species, just because they have even less capacity to reproduce than gay people? No, you wouldn't, so to do so with gay people is hypocritical.
3. No, that's part of your argument. You don't get to make an argument that contributes to your overall point, then when someone counterargues it, just say "You missed my point." That's not how debating works. If one of the arguments you make that contributes to your point is faulty, then your point as a whole becomes less credible and more faulty.
Now that debate 101 is over, back to the argument itself. You said homosexuality once being considered a mental illness contributes to your outlook on why it's wrong. Not only is it not a mental illness, as Songbird pointed out, due to homosexuality not impeding on any mental functions of those who possess it, but just because that's how society viewed it at one point does not mean that is correct or the way it should be viewed. Black people and women having less rights at once in society's history is a testament to that. It is not a credible argument.
All aboard the retard train.
Asexuality literally means non sexuality, thus they have no sexual orientation. It's not a sexual orientation period, seeing as they have none. DUH.
No, incest doesn't fit the definition.
Asexuality is a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is what you're attracted to, and asexuals are attracted to none in particular. Asexuality is the sexual orientation of being attracted to none.
You are right, however, in saying that incest is not a sexual orientation. Incest is a sexual act, not the orientation itself that causes people to commit the act. I don't know what the orientation for sexual attraction between family members is called.
