aleatório pergunta #1: Is being Gay emotionally based or Physically based? How

I don't think I ever said anything about animais engaging in homosexuality purely for the sake of physical gratification, nor did I say that animais don't feel emotions. I think you're inferring quite a bit from my answer that isn't there. I mentioned the physical aspect entirely separate from the fact about animais engaging in it, those are two separate points.

So if it's not a problem, you're okay with infertile ocuples, couples who don't want children, and homosexuals having sex, right?

i don't care who has sex, I just have an opinion on the functionaity of the sex and who is doing who. So yes, I am ok with it, but I can be ok with something but have my own personal opinion of it, if you want to have sex for precreation or to have kids its your choice, i just chose wither, I want to seek understanding of or I have an opinion of it

To many being straight is naturally as child birth, which is why I asked if being is also "natural" then what is it emotional or physically sense it technically isn't "natural" I have my own opinion on a gay mindset but I wanted to hear others opinion

I really don't know how to explain it to you any other way either, if you don't understand the point of sex outside of procreation. The "benefits" as you say can be the main goal of sex for an individual, and ergo it becomes the primary purpose. I imagine with almost a guarantee that at some point in your life - perhaps after you are happily married - you will have sex where procreation is not your primary purpose. Maybe you already have. There is no primary purpose, except in the intention of the actor, because it is multipurpose and all benefits from procreation to mental health can be a primary purpose. Maybe the purpose is simply orgasm - fine. There's nothing wasteful about that if that's the goal. Reproduction - yes, great, if that's your goal then fine. But also intimacy, love, bonding, maintaining a closeness in a relationship, relaxation, exercise, and entertainment, or even all of the above at the same time. Humans have sex... for ALL of these reasons, sometimes one, sometimes many, which is why there is no primary purpose. As do many other species of animais (dolphins, pigs, bonobos, etc), not solely for procreation. I feel like you see sex as a means to an end - the end being babies. It's so much mais than that. We are at an impasse, as far as I can see, regarding the purpose of sex. I know I can't convince you if I haven't yet that it's mais than just procreation, and that's fine. I accept your stance. But returning to your original pergunta - the act of sex is physical, I concede, but the consequences are emotional. You fall in amor with someone due to an emotional AND physical attraction. Take one away, and it's either friendship, or lust, but not romantic love. I am capable of falling in amor with just about anyone due to my specific orientation. But gays CANNOT fall in amor with the opposite sex. TRUE - they may amor them. But as I've explained time and time again, there's a difference between platonic - or filial, fraternal or familial amor - and romantic love. The kind of amor that's inspired great poesia and novels. That amor is different, and it absolutely requires a physical element, true. But it requires an emotional one as well. Both are inextricably intwined with each other. If you do not have one, it is not "true love," if you'll pardon the cliche.

I can agree with your answer to the question, I thank you for taking the time in commenting back and forth, have a good day...ro night depending on your time zone

so if it is not emotional, then can it be called a "choice"? if it is not physically base, then the notion that homosexuality is also in nature is slighty wrong because animais that partake in the act of sexing another animal of the same sex has little to do with being "emotionally" attached? Or am I off

So if people who are infertile have sex, don't thier sex lack a purpose? Is that what you are asking. I guess I would propably say yes in the sense no one is having a baby, however it it's not like they are lacking tools to have one do while the "act" is not different functionality of hetero people is still there while a gay couple lacks the functionality bit. Idealy man and women have sex and it makes a baby but if you are infertile that doesn't mean a baby can't be made but it can't be born. So to answer your pergunta the purpose of sex is to have bebês writer you want them or not, I see what you saying and yes people who have sex without wanting a can sex that I'd not purposeful however again it's still possible for a baby to be born from thier union. My answer is that there is no difference but it's not a absolute yes .

That's straightforward enough, I think we can close this line of discussion and put our focus into the other one.

If it is no different then why is it you can't have kids with one another or there is only a mutual benefit and not an external benefit

The problem is, tiagih, that heterosexual couples often don't choose to get pregnant. There's a lot of unwanted pregnancies that occur from heterosexual sex. Homosexuals can certainly be bad parents, but they'll almost never be parents of unwanted kids.

i am not saying gay people can't be good parents, they aren't aliens