This is the question in question, right? Without the bible all you have is nature to go on. nature dose not have morals. We humans have the ability to reason in a manner equal to no other hominoid. We arent animals the mate at first urge. We make love. We are ment to be with a partner. As far as morals that is not for me to judge. Nor will I ever. However physicaly, men are not ment for eachother sexualy.
You talk as if nature is a perfect factory line, pumping out clones.
It isn't. Nature adds all kinds of wonderful and wild variety to it's creations.
..and as you correctly state, nature has no inherent 'morals'. So why do you assume nature
intends for all people to be hetrosexual, when the clear evidence is telling you that it's perfectly OK for some people to be homosexual?
...the OK bit being verified by the fact that the
species survives. As has been clearly pointed out to you, nature does not intend ALL organims to reproduce. The only imperative is that the species survives.
Thats all good. But this is not a thread on TOE, aspeciation, abiogennissis or what have you so I have not gone into great detail, and I might know just a little.
It's good of you to admit you dont' know much on this subject. It makes you wonder why you were so confident in telling the rest of us WHAT natural selection will and will not do.
Do you often make such strong statemnts on subjects you're not well educated on?
And with all due respect...
My point in hand is that no matter what animal is doing it, it is perverted in nature.
No.
YOU think it's perverted in 'nature'. There is a difference.
Also:
Tell me please what the function of the penis and vagina are?
Waste disposal and reproduction. If one function is not brought into action, it does not mean the 'organs' are useless. They are dual purpose.
And as has been stated
time and
time again, it is NOT the imperative of every single organism on this planet to reproduce.
I really hope this sinks in at some point... it's quite important...
You make it sound as if the ones making proper intercourse are weird.
Then you don't understand a word I'm saying.
Since your on TOE, were primates correct?
Unpolitically correct, but biologically - sure, I'd consider it a sensible grouping.
What is the sexual oriantation of the majiority of any primate population?
Hetrosexual of course. Your point being...?
If the majority is having intercourse with women, and only a few with other males. Arent the same sex relations the other than normal?
Yes, of course. But other than 'the norm' or 'minority' doesn't equal 'perverted'.
What's next? Shouting 'Ohh - look at the disgusting
left-handed person..'?!
If then they are other than normal, they are perverted in their sexual act.
Perversion has been established in a sexual context by history - not by logically analysing biology.