Billboard proclaims "Nobody is born gay"

[robvalue]

I'm not sure how anyone would expect to police these things, even if they managed to make them illegal. I shudder to think.

[Brakeman]

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.

... that are contrary to natural law.

I don't eat hot peppers. I was once married to a latina and our biggest fight was over her "poisoning" my food with hot peppers. That being said..

The eating of hot peppers is against "natural" law. Our tissues redden and swell when exposed to their oil, and our nerves scream with pain. This is the plant's defense against being eaten.

One can clearly say that eating hot peppers is against the natural order of things and against your "natural law." The differing factor though is of course that the big book of ignorant superstitions and tall tales that you call the bible doesn't condemn the eating of peppers.

I don't eat hot peppers and I don't have a sexual attraction to men. I admit that I wince fairly equally at the thought of either, but I have no condemnation, as I've no need to. I fully understand that the world doesn't have to agree with me or my ego.

Your god is made up of your own ego and he only hates what you hate.




It just occurred to me, The human race is grossly overpopulated based on our pre-fossil fuel fertilizer environment. Maybe in this stage in human development nature needs fewer reproducing couples and it is the heterosexuals that are bucking the "natural order?"

[robvalue]

Good fucking point, I forgot to mention that earlier. We are overpopulated in an extreme way and there aren't very good or any plans to do much about it, depending where you are. So it really isn't the slightest bit essential, even for the survival of our species, to continue to spout out as many more humans as possible. Just another lame rationalization.

Be big enough to admit you're talking from emotion and I will get a modicum of respect back for you.

[Chas]

Being homosexual is a deficiency?

Yes. It is contrary to the natural order, since the defining desires of homosexuality are directed away from the proper use of human sexuality.

Except you don't get to be the arbiter of human sexuality.

[FatAndFaithless]

Nor does a dusty old fan fiction about a magic dictator in the sky.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Natural order" doesn't give a shit about the planet (or anything). That's why it can be found douching things up the world over. I certainly hope that no one is wasting their humanity by trying to become the jack boot of "natural order". The concept of a "natural order" as it's being used here is an antique from when we knew little but believed much. The "natural order" has always toed the line to whatever the prevailing cultural order happens to be. You never find a society that feels that they are going against the "natural order" even though that "natural order" differs depending on who you talk to. How convenient. It's almost as if the "natural order" had very little to do with what might be natural, and very much to do with preconceived notions of order. The defining factor of some "natural order" always seems to be : "that which has some example in nature". What a deliciously broad range of things we might invoke as "natural order".

What's the problem with gaybies? Cute little fuckin faces.....immobile, don't talk back.....you know you can even setup a lamb autofeeder - perfect.

[Ben Davis]

Chad, you don't get to say:

Anyone, other than ontological naturalists, can see that things are partially defined by their natural functions.

And then dismiss demonstrably natural behaviour from your analysis, like this:

That people pursue sexual pleasure without consciously thinking about procreation is of no consequence.

Sex is demonstrably not just for procreation. If it was, there would be no other biological or neurological responses other than those associated with procreation however we see that sex has many other benefits.

As for homosexuality, it is demonstrably not a choice. There is no longer any scientific argument about this. You information is out of date. Either update your information and adjust your position or admit that you're being intolerant due to personal prejudice. Anything else is plain dishonest.

All that matters is that it is directed toward its proper and natural end.

Pair-bonding is a natural end. Most people desire intimate relationships with other people, whether platonic, phillic, ludic, pragmatic or erotic. People who feel attracted to each other (another natural occurrence) express those feelings in terms of their sexuality and practice whatever acts they feel comfortable with. This is all completely natural and you simply can't expect to get away with suggesting otherwise.

You've been called on your bullshit. What are you going to do about it?

[Nope]

What is the proof that there is a natural order, at all? The very fact that some humans can form same sex attractions means that homosexuality isn't unnatural or humans wouldn't be able to do feel that attraction.

The question isn't if it is 'unnatural' but if acting on a same sex attraction hurts other people or society. As long as both individuals are consenting, there isn't any evidence that homosexuality hurts anyone

If sex was only about reproduction, women wouldn't have a clitoris and would have yearly heats like dogs do. There are only three species in the animal kingdom were the female stops being fertile years before her death..killer whales, humans and pilot whales. If reproduction was the primary aim of sexual activity, I wouldn't be driving my poor husband crazy with my increased libido now that I have entered menopause; infarct, I wouldn't be menopausal at all.

http://www.livescience.com/22574-animals-menopause.html

[DeistPaladin]

Your request is simple enough since 1) I have no prejudice against homosexuals as human beings ...

...and I'm guessing you'll tell me you have gay friends, right?

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.

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.

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. Unlike these, the possible transfer of feces and harmful bacteria make sodomy an unsuitable preparation for vaginal intercourse. In addition the structure of the anus made for defecation and is not a suitable receptacle for any foreign object.

People both homosexual and heterosexual engage in practices that go contrary to the function of sexuality and in so doing thwart the natural good.

As one who is bisexual, I can tell you there is nothing different between same or opposite gender attractions. On an emotional level, everything from falling in love, the rush during sex, the feelings of jealousy and the pain of heartbreak are all the same experience. The only difference between same vs. opposite gender relationships are some distinctions with body parts and the physical mechanics, which, though you spend a long winded several paragraphs obsessing over, are not much more than a variation on a theme.

The natural purpose to homosexuality is discussed in detail by biologists much smarter and more qualified to discuss the subject than you. As much as you put on a pompous demeanor to try to mask your bigotry, i suspect you have zero qualifications on the subject and have done no research whatsoever. Am I right?

One such purpose discussed by actual scholars who have done real research is the creation of couples that adopt children who have lost their heterosexual parents for whatever reason. We see such adoption take place in both the wild among animals as well as in human society where it is allowed. Since children are orphaned through either death or abandonment and since heterosexuals want to have their own children, the existence of gay couples is beneficial to society.

Now were I to look at human sexuality from a bigoted perspective similar to yours but biased toward my own bisexuality, I would view strict heterosexuality and homosexuality as a "defect" similar to partial color-blindness. There are those who can see some colors but others appear as shades of gray. "What a pity that straights and gays can only appreciate the beauty and sex appeal of one gender and how they might be missing out by limited their options to find a good partner and can this be cured, I wonder..." or such might be the prevailing attitude if society were dominated by a majority of bisexuals who adopted such bigotry.

This is not my view. People's taste in partners are what they are and its their business provided none are harmed. I merely present such hypothetical bigotry to provide a shoe-on-the-other-foot reference for you.

[Alex K]

But does he let them use his bathroom?