Being gay is a fetish.

[Esquilax]

Esquilax – “...one could equally say that the natural function of human genitalia is to provide pleasure, considering they're filled with nerves dedicated to that purpose.”

And why do you suppose that sex is pleasurable other than to motivate people to procreate.

Sure, I acknowledge that we're both drawing lines there, only my point was that you hadn't given a reason for why you'd drawn your line so narrowly, when a broader notion of what constitutes the purpose of genitals is equally true. The difference between us is that when I drew my line, I knew I was being arbitrary.

Besides, our sexual desires and drives aren't tied to our procreative drive either; people don't get aroused only when they want a baby, in fact it's often the reverse. If you want to talk about purposes and the realities of our sexual nature, there's plenty more in favor of "sex is for pleasure," than there is for "sex is for babies." We're still ignoring the naturalistic fallacy in what you're arguing, but there it is; what you're saying isn't even the best possible fallacious argument to be made.

Esquilax – “...that function determines the moral dimension of their use is... well, to begin with it's an is/ought fallacy, since what something is in no way determines what one ought to do with it. “

Not so because the physical facts about various things have assigned value to the extent that they are linked with something of essential value. For example, everyone to greater or lesser degree values their life. Therefore those actions that contribute positively to their life, such as using their faculties in accordance with nature, is considered what one ought to do.

Or, in other words, people's lives have value because everyone values their lives. Do you have any other circular arguments to trot out?

There are, of course, reasons why people value their lives, first and foremost among them being the simple reality of the discussion; those who don't value their lives generally aren't around to contribute to the conversation in the first place. In order to have positions on values, one must be alive, after all.

But your argument is trivially simple to rebut too, as again, the physical facts regarding sex are broader than the procreative act you want to focus on; sex, and the physical intimacy it brings, are efficient means of bonding. Sex is pleasurable, if you want to go visceral. It's psychologically and physiologically beneficial. It is more than just procreation, and you fundamentally know that, because you made sure to list "conjugal love," among the reasons to have sex. You've just decided, arbitrarily and without presenting any justification, that the only conjugal love that counts is the one you like. I don't understand why on Earth you think that should be a sufficient argument.

Your argument of convenience actually works against you. Since you consider living organisms, including humans, complex electro-chemical reactions, then you have no basis for attributing value to one physical system over another.

Yeah, I'm not going to respond to strawmen. You don't get to tell me what my position is, and then demand that I dance to your tune. Either respond to what I'm actually stated as thinking, or don't respond at all. But you don't get to lie.

Esquilax – “...Homosexuality is more than sex, and certainly more than anal sex...”

Did I say otherwise? What were the words I used, oh yes, ‘psychological disposition’ and ‘proclivities’. That covers a pretty wide range I would say.

Interesting that you cut out the rest of that sentence, which explains precisely why I went there. I guess quote mining isn't beneath you either.