dacontinent
Preacher
Wrong. The human species is unique in the animal kingdom. While sex is possible in nearly all humans, reproduction is not - no matter what the sexual experience is. However, since humans are mammals, the natural flow of reproduction is sexual. Homosexuality, while it may be deemed pleasurable by those who participate, has yet to reproduce a single human specimen.lil_j said:If one is born with a degree of sexual genetic ambiguity, you are saying that they shouldn't partake in any type of sexual activity right?...
What I say for humans is one man with one woman exclusively until at least one of them is dead.
lil_j said:...That falls back on religion. I can respect that stance even though I strongly disagree with the notion that sex should be limited to those who can reproduce and as a result against nature. There is a degree of 'observed' and 'documented' homosexuality in 450 out 2000 species of the animal kingdom which makes it natural. Three things:
1. Homosexuality is present and widespread in the animal kingdom
2. It has Biological causes
3. It can be accounted for by evolutionary theory
Hence part of the reason biblical law and natural law must be seperated. As a result I still maintain the unnatural argument doesn't hold any water backed up by evidence.
This is quite a lengthy discussion, but please understand that evolutionism, athiesm, agnosticism, et. al. are all religions. So, if we are going to separate natural law from one religion, we must separate it from them all. I am not sure that is possible.