(December 11, 2014 at 10:40 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(December 11, 2014 at 8:52 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Until you can demonstrate that this alleged "natural law" 1) exists in the context of this issue and 2) comes down against gays, I feel fully justified in calling you a bigot.
Your request is simple enough since 1) I have no prejudice against homosexuals as human beings and 2) my position has rational support.
Anyone, other than ontological naturalists, can see that things are partially defined by their natural functions. Living things are, by their nature, directed toward the things that allow them to sustain life and thrive. For example, the heart is directed toward pumping blood.
Likewise, it is a biological fact that for the human race to exist it must reproduce and that is the natural purpose of the genitalia, i.e. to get semen from the penis into the vagina. The pleasure of copulation and the inordinate strength of the sexual appetites serve to motivate people toward productive union.
Indeed, evolution has favored that. But what evolution favors does not become right and moral purpose of any part of a human just because evolution has favored that use. There was a time when children and the more the better were a very good thing. Now, for most couples a plethora of children would be a burden and not very good for the individual children either. Hence the popularity of birth control.
But society still benefits from couples, even childless ones.
(December 11, 2014 at 10:40 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Now because human infants are not self-sufficient for years, conjugal love also serves the purpose of strengthening the bond between parents to sustain the children that depend on the family for their mental and material support. These are biological facts.
And gays impede this natural order among heterosexual couples in what way? If gays served no role in child raising, there would shortly be no gays. Natural selection works that way. The maiden aunt, the grandmother, and society as a whole all aid child rearing.
(December 11, 2014 at 10:40 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: That people pursue sexual pleasure without consciously thinking about procreation is of no consequence. All that matters is that it is directed toward its proper and natural end. There is nothing inherently wrong with kissing, petting and oral/genital contact to the extent that it increases arousal in preparation for intercourse.
So sex is good only if it leads to intercourse and procreation? Hardly. It is an end in and of it self, like many human activities such as art, discourse, unfortunately worship. It also serves as a social glue even among childless couples.
(December 11, 2014 at 10:40 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Unlike these, the possible transfer of feces and harmful bacteria make sodomy an unsuitable preparation for vaginal intercourse.
I agree, but there are a number of ways to make that safe including not proceeding to sexual intercourse at that time.
(December 11, 2014 at 10:40 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: In addition the structure of the anus made for defecation and is not a suitable receptacle for any foreign object.
Well that is it's primary function yes. But it was not "made" for anything. And it does provide sexual pleasure. Your mouth's primary purposes are eating and drinking. That it also provides sexual pleasure is a bonus, though kissing and oral sex will increase the chances of spreading disease.
(December 11, 2014 at 10:40 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: People both homosexual and heterosexual engage in practices that go contrary to the function of sexuality and in so doing thwart the natural good. I am not against LGB people specifically because I believe it is just as wrong for heterosexual people to engage in practices, like sodomy, necrophilia, pederasty, and bestiality that are contrary to natural law.
You forgot masturbation yet it would very "naturally" go on your list. Because you masturbate perhaps? Not long ago anyone arguing as you do would have put oral stimulation on that list too.
Necrophilia and bestiality, on the other had serve no bonding purpose whatsoever. Both are dangerous. And the later is cruel.
Pederasty is just a subset of child molestation. All child molestation is bad, even if heterosexuals engage it it. Though in that case it isn't called pederasty is it?
What you are really saying here is it's good and natural if it's what I want to do, and not if I think it's icky.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.