Homosexuality is a product/fruit of the sin nature. Whatever mindset/nature a person is occupied with will eventually produce effects on that person. These effects includes all manners of complexes and disorders like inferiority complex, OCD, all manners of phobias and phillias, including se.xual disorders such as bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, homos.exuality, etc.

The sin nature or imperfect/flawed nature occurs in two aspects of life. Firstly; you are born into this nature and it's effects are evident in biological flaws like all forms of diseases and physical disorders and ultimately death in accordance with Genesis 3:17-19 .

The second aspect of the sin-nature is a spiritual/mindset one. This also has it's origins from Genesis and is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil referred to in the garden of Eden (Genesis 2:17). The knowledge(or law, or mindset) of good and evil is actually the law of Moses that interpretes good and evil in what God himself has declared to be good and fit for use by man. But this tree of knowledge of good and evil says otherwise; It declares Gods creation as evil and forbids man from using this creation and knowledge, instilling in man the conscience of sin for things that are perfectly natural for him. This is the spiritual aspect of the sin-nature that takes away man's god-nature and subjects him to a mere mortal, and producing in him all manners of fears, shame, failures, diseases and disorders. This is the nature that christ died to set us free from. Everybody who is subject to the Laws of Moses is prone to eventually suffer se.xual deviations, it's only a matter of time. Because when you suppress your natural se.xual interpretations(enforced by the laws of Moses), then the unnatural values would eventually take root in your minds and rule your physical bodies.

So bottom line, homos.exuality is not the sin itself, but is a fruit of the sin-nature/mindset.

This is an interesting Biblical approach to the understanding and probable cure/emancipation from paraphalia such as necrophilia, pedophalia and -of course - homo.se.xuality

However, paraphiliacs were not born with the pre knowledge of the law of Moses. Everybody that has that knowledge, or feels affected by its provisions, does so through social interactions. These interactions are usually "forced down the throats" of unprepared children in their formative years, thereby causing psychological anomalies such as guilt, repression, and so on. And this brings us to the sociological/psychological approach to this discuss.

While I may not be able to profer solutions to someone who is suffering from any of these psycho se.xual problems, I would advise parents/intending parents to bring up their children in a loving, yet well disciplined environment, which is devoid of blame, guilt, rancor and other domestic/social vices which can easily sway children from having a happy and healthy psychological approach to life.

Localamos: necrophilia, pedophalia and -of course - homo.se.xuality

Are you actually grouping these together in a secular sense? I hope you mean amongst you bigots, yes?

okeyxyz: Homosexuality is a product/fruit of the sin nature. Whatever mindset/nature a person is occupied with will eventually produce effects on that person. These effects includes all manners of complexes and disorders like inferiority complex, OCD, all manners of phobias and phillias, including se.xual disorders such as bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, homos.exuality, etc.

The sin nature or imperfect/flawed nature occurs in two aspects of life. Firstly; you are born into this nature and it's effects are evident in biological flaws like all forms of diseases and physical disorders and ultimately death in accordance with Genesis 3:17-19 .

The second aspect of the sin-nature is a spiritual/mindset one. This also has it's origins from Genesis and is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil referred to in the garden of Eden (Genesis 2:17). The knowledge(or law, or mindset) of good and evil is actually the law of Moses that interpretes good and evil in what God himself has declared to be good and fit for use by man. But this tree of knowledge of good and evil says otherwise; It declares Gods creation as evil and forbids man from using this creation and knowledge, instilling in man the conscience of sin for things that are perfectly natural for him. This is the spiritual aspect of the sin-nature that takes away man's god-nature and subjects him to a mere mortal, and producing in him all manners of fears, shame, failures, diseases and disorders. This is the nature that christ died to set us free from. Everybody who is subject to the Laws of Moses is prone to eventually suffer se.xual deviations, it's only a matter of time. Because when you suppress your natural se.xual interpretations(enforced by the laws of Moses), then the unnatural values would eventually take root in your minds and rule your physical bodies.

So bottom line, homos.exuality is not the sin itself, but is a fruit of the sin-nature/mindset.

Your last line got me confused.
What does it really mean?

wiegraf:

Are you actually grouping these together in a secular sense? I hope you mean amongst you bigots, yes?

Natural inter.course is between a man and a woman. Any variance from that is paraphalia.

Inasmuch as I would not be judgemental against people with alternative orientations, my definition of a natural affinity and se.xual Congress is derived from my perceptions from the Bible. Any variation from one-man-one-woman conjugal relations, as specified in the Bible, is paraphalia.

No prejudice.

Localamos:


Natural inter.course is between a man and a woman. Any variance from that is paraphalia.

Let's ignore that homose.xual activity, including full intercourse, is ubiquitous in nature. We'll also ignore that primary/exclusive homose.xuality has also been observed, for now..

Is this what you mean?

googlord:
par·a·pher·na·lia
/ˌparəfə(r)ˈnālyə/
Noun

Miscellaneous articles, esp. the equipment needed for a particular activity.
Trappings associated with a particular institution or activity that are regarded as superfluous.

Synonyms
equipment - outfit

So, butt sex between heteros, BJs and the works fit that definition of paraphernalia by your definition. Actually, anything other than missionary is superfluous, including say (especially tongue) kissing. Please add them to your illustrious list, along with necrophilia, pedophalia and -of course - homo.se.xuality, else, you're a bigot.

Localamos:
Inasmuch as I would not be judgemental against people with alternative orientations, my definition of a natural affinity and se.xual Congress is derived from my perceptions from the Bible. Any variation from one-man-one-woman conjugal relations, as specified in the Bible, is paraphalia.

No prejudice.

lol at no prejudice, see above.

Good, so please make sure to highlight that your views are those of one peering through the 'loving' googles of xtianity, and in no shape, manner or form objective.

wiegraf:

lol at no prejudice, see above.

Good, so please make sure to highlight that your views are those of one peering through the 'loving' googles of xtianity, and in no shape, manner or form objective.

Please see en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

And like I said earlier, I do not reserve the right to criticize or condemn anyone based on their se.xual orientations. Nonetheless, I subscribe to the one-man-one-woman approach. And I believe a healthier parent-child relationship will help a child's orientation.

forgive me if this makes you touchy, But this is my position.

wiegraf:

Are you actually grouping these together in a secular sense? I hope you mean amongst you bigots, yes?

What do you mean by "in a secular sense"? I would have thought that a secular sense wouldn't discriminate between any sexual preferences.

P/s: The if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you-are-a-bigot style of argument is really immature. If you truly had some intellect, you wouldn't need to employ the ad hominem fallacy in your rhetoric.

Localamos:

Please see en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

I see, basically, any sexual activity that is atypical qualifies as paraphilia? Looks like good and proper foo.lishness to me but that's not your fault, it's the fault of whatever eediot psychologists (probably guided by religion, but still) decided he was the arbiter on what was acceptable. That said, it seems the word is not always used pejoratively within the scientific community, but of course the general public will miss that.

Regardless, here's a nice long list of parphilia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias

No ho.mosexuality there anywhere. It used to be there, but was taken out

wiki:

Homosexuality was at one time discussed as a sexual deviation.[16] Sigmund Freud and subsequent psychoanalytic thinkers considered homosexuality and paraphilias to result from psychosexual regression to an infantile state.[17]

By the mid-20th century, mental health practitioners began formalizing "deviant sexuality" classifications into categories. Originally coded as 000-x63, homosexuality was the top of the classification list (Code 302.0) until the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. Martin Kafka writes, "Sexual disorders once considered paraphilias (e.g., homosexuality) are now regarded as variants of normal sexuality."[18]

A 2012 literature study by James Cantor, clinical psychologist, comparing homosexuality with paraphilias found that homosexuality was sufficiently dissimilar from the paraphilias as to be considered an unrelated construct.[19][20]

Would you look at that, they changed their minds. It's not like psychologists have never had to back peddle or vomited obvious nonsense (I'm looking at you, sigmeund freud). I suspect a lot more of those fetishes will be tossed out of the DMC as well, they aren't disorders. While often useful, psychology isn't exactly as objective as pure sciences

wiki:

No consensus has been found for any precise border between unusual personal sexual tastes and paraphilic ones. There is debate over which, if any, of the paraphilias should be listed in diagnostic manuals, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases.

Regardless, even if indulged, the consensus in the scientific community is ho.mosexuality isn't paraphilia, they do not back you up on this. I am therefore inclined to wonder as to why you conclude that ho.mosexuality is such, especially considering its prevalence through nature (including our species btw, despite millenia of persecution by abrahimics/hinduism)

Science doesn't back you up, I simply want you to be clear with that. These are your subjective opinions, nothing in any shape or form objective, agreed?

Localamos:
And like I said earlier, I do not reserve the right to criticize or condemn anyone based on their se.xual orientations. Nonetheless, I subscribe to the one-man-one-woman approach. And I believe a healthier parent-child relationship will help a child's orientation.

This is your opinion, and again, not backed up by science.

wiki:

A number of studies have examined whether the children of lesbian and gay parents are themselves more likely to identify as lesbian and gay. In a 2001 review of 21 studies, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz found that researchers frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender, sexual preferences and behavior, suggesting that an environment of heterosexism has hampered scientific inquiry in the area. Their findings indicate that the children with lesbian or gay parents appear less traditionally gender-typed and are more likely to be open to homoerotic relationships, which may be partly due to genetic or family socialization processes or "contextual effects," even though children raised by same-sex couples are not more likely to self-identify as bisexual, lesbian, or gay and most of them identify as heterosexual.[35] According to US Census, 80% of the children being raised by same-sex couples in US are their biological children.[36] When it comes to family socialization processes and "contextual effects," Stacey and Biblarz point out that children with such parents are disproportionately more likely to grow up in relatively more tolerant school, neighborhood, and social contexts, which are less heterosexist.[35]


A 2005 review by Charlotte J. Patterson for the American Psychological Association found that the available data did not suggest higher rates of homosexuality among the children of lesbian or gay parents.[37] Herek's 2006 review describes the available data on the point as limited.[7] Stacey and Biblarz and Herek stress that the sexual orientation of children is of limited relevance to discussions of parental fitness or policies based on the same. In a 2010 review comparing single-father families with other family types, Stacey and Biblarz state, "We know very little yet about how parents influence the development of their children's sexual identities or how these intersect with gender."[8]

Lets just say it's inconclusive at best. But regardless; one woman-man, your opinion. Hope you don't expect others to indulge you, or think yourself the arbiter on how people raise their children?

I wince whenever I meet an 'xtian' or 'muslim' child, that's impossible. They are simply being indoctrinated into becoming xtian or muslim adults. It's like calling a kid a PDP member, exactly how is he old enough to understand the implications of that? I don't however go around preventing the (oftentimes deluded, frankly) parents from raising their kids as they see fit. Or would you appreciate a muslim showing up to tell you your kaffir kid must accept allah? That you must have 4 wives?

And all this assumes sexuality can be indoctrinated, obviously not backed up by any evidence as well. Were you taught to be hetero? If it wasn't taught to you, would you be hom.osexual otherwise? You're more attracted to men?

Localamos:
forgive me if this makes you touchy, But this is my position.

This is what you did

Localamos:
Black men are ra.pists

Why? Pe.dophilia (and necrophilia in this context; the dead partner did not give consent) are predatory. There's nothing of that sort, at all, in healthy hom.osexual relationships, just as with healthy hetero relationships. There is absolutely no difference between ho.mo and hetero except for, of course, the sexes of the participants.

And again, ho.mo isn't even classified as paraphillia, so why you find it fit to mention it as such befuddles me. That, considering the way the word is used pejoratively, reeks of bigotry, you understand? Not to mention talk of 'curing' ho.mosexuality...

Your views are your views, nothing objective. I just want you to be clear

Mr anony:

What do you mean by "in a secular sense"? I would have thought that a secular sense wouldn't discriminate between any sexual preferences.

It looks clear to me. Ask @okey, it's his general speak. Can't be too bothered with your shenanigans at this moment.

Mr anony:
P/s: The if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you-are-a-bigot style of argument is really immature. If you truly had some intellect, you wouldn't need to employ the ad hominem fallacy in your rhetoric.

If you truly has some intellect, my good sociopath, you realize that is not "if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you-are-a-bigot style of argument". I clearly show why he's a bigot, kindly refute else stop with the silly accusations of ad hominem.

LightningLord:
It looks clear to me. Ask @okey, it's his general speak. Can't be too bothered with your shenanigans at this moment.

If you truly has some intellect, my good sociopath, you realize that is not "if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you-are-a-bigot style of argument". I clearly show why he's a bigot, kindly refute else stop with the silly accusations of ad hominem.

Why is he a bigot?

P/s: dodging the request to explain yourself but instead employing the ad hominem fallacy by calling me a sociopath is more testament to the fact that your rhetoric is weak.

Please feel free to tell us why you think he is a bigot and why it is ok to discriminate between sexual preferences in a "secular sense" (whatever you mean by that) whenever you are ready....or you can always amuse yourself by replying with another insult. I won't bother to respond to childish mockery anymore it gives your words much more credit than they are worth.

Mr anony:
Why is he a bigot?

P/s: dodging the request to explain yourself but instead employing the ad hominem fallacy by calling me a sociopath is more testament to the fact that your rhetoric is weak.

Please feel free to tell us why you think he is a bigot and why it is ok to discriminate between sexual preferences in a "secular sense" (whatever you mean by that) whenever you are ready....or you can always amuse yourself by replying with another insult. I won't bother to respond to childish mockery anymore it gives your words much more credit than they are worth.

It's not rhetoric bros,

Mr anony:
I am only firmly pointing out to you that God is not being unfair. Since the whole universe is His property, He is under no obligation to give you what you want just because you want it.

It's hard to believe that someone with empathy would utter such nonsense, so I'm inclined to believe you're a sociopath. Feel free to ignore me, it's a very free world. And note, I never, ever claim to be mature.


@op, post hidden, mods should clear it up soon

LightningLord:
It's not rhetoric bros,

Two questions you are still evading
1. Why is he a bigot?
2. Why is it ok to discriminate between sexual preferences in a secular sense (whatever you might mean by "secular sense"?

It's hard to believe that someone with empathy would utter such nonsense, so I'm inclined to believe you're a sociopath. Feel free to ignore me, it's a very free world. And note, I never, ever claim to be mature.

There is no nonsense in what I said. If a person totally owns, creates and sustains a thing solely by his will, he/she is under no obligation towards it.

P/s: since you never claim to be mature, I will stop relating with you based on the assumption that you possess some maturity.

Mr anony:
Two questions you are still evading
1. Why is he a bigot?

Are you blind?

me:
So, butt sex between heteros, BJs and the works fit that definition of paraphernalia by your definition. Actually, anything other than missionary is superfluous, including say (especially tongue) kissing. Please add them to your illustrious list, along with necrophilia, pedophalia and -of course - homo.se.xuality, else, you're a bigot.

And he replies (fairly decently tbf), which I reply. In which I state it's not fully his fault, seeing some eediots in psychology caused the confusion (historically), but he's still being bigoted, as by consensus today, the scientific community does not classify hom.osexuality as parahilia. It's more involved than that, but I doubt you'd understand. The op can read it when it's unhidden.

Mr anony:
2. Why is it ok to discriminate between sexual preferences in a secular sense (whatever you might mean by "secular sense"?

Where do I say this?

Mr anony:
There is no nonsense in what I said. If a person totally owns, creates and sustains a thing solely by his will, he/she is under no obligation towards it.

So you agree it's sociopathic? Especially this

anony:
God has the right to do as He pleases with what belongs to Him. He is not unfair at all.

Of course, sentient human beings 'belonging' to him as well, yes?

Mr anony:
P/s: since you never claim to be mature, I will stop relating with you based on the assumption that you possess some maturity.

And my whole world just came crashing down...anony isn't going to take me seriously anymore. I feel like I've just been castrated....

If I were mature btw, I wouldn't waste time with you.

@wiegraf. I wonder why you choose to smear another person with a derogatory appellation such as bigot. I thought this was an intellectual discuss aimed at enlightening others.
.


If you feel I've erred in my comments, why don't you point it out instead of resorting to name calling.
.


BTW, talking about name (calling). I'm confused here... is Wiegraf one and the same as this Lightning guy?

I see lightninglord laying claims to wiegraf's comments. mpd.

Localamos: @wiegraf. I wonder why you choose to smear another person with a derogatory appellation such as bigot. I thought this was an intellectual discuss aimed at enlightening others.
.


If you feel I've erred in my comments, why don't you point it out instead of resorting to name calling.
.


BTW, talking about name (calling). I'm confused here... is Wiegraf one and the same as this Lightning guy?

I see lightninglord laying claims to wiegraf's comments. mpd.

Obviously, I guess he forgot when he changed his handle?

Localamos: @wiegraf. I wonder why you choose to smear another person with a derogatory appellation such as bigot. I thought this was an intellectual discuss aimed at enlightening others.
.


If you feel I've erred in my comments, why don't you point it out instead of resorting to name calling.
.


BTW, talking about name (calling). I'm confused here... is Wiegraf one and the same as this Lightning guy?

I see lightninglord laying claims to wiegraf's comments. mpd.

Yes, you're the persecuted one here.

You clumped these together

localomos:

necrophilia, pedophalia and -of course - homo.se.xuality

despite the fact that ho.mosexuality is NOT even considered paraphillia, notably by the scientific community, which I believe is where you think your authority comes from. And more importantly, p.edophilia and necrophilia (without consent) are intrinsically predatory, nothing of the sort with ho.mosexuality. Not to mention condescending talk of 'healing' them.

You might as well have lumped black people, or heteros, with ra.pists and murderers. But no, you're not smearing the good name of a whole population. On the other hand, "Calling a bigot bigotted? That's bad wiegraf!"

Like I said earlier, spambot got my post. Trying to get it free

LightningLord:



You clumped these togeter... ho.mosexuality is NOT even considered paraphillia, notably by the scientific community, which I believe is where you think your authority comes from... Not to mention condescending talk of 'healing' them.

.
1. I am "persecuted" because I "clumped these together". Now I understand your aggression toward me. so, I took the bullet for the OP!

2. Since you so claim that my "authority" is drawn from science, please go and read Sigmund Feud's material.

3. Reputable journals and researchers discuss homose. xuality as a disorder. Not me! Again, you can search for the reports of Sigmund. You can also visit this link, amongst others: news.priyo.com/health/2012/01/10/how-deal-psychosexual-disorder-45248.html
.

Localamos:

.
1. I am "persecuted" because I "clumped these together". Now I understand your aggression toward me. so, I took the bullet for the OP!

The op is crazy, arguably as mad as buzugee. Reason with him is a waste of time. Despite this, and importantly, he's rather careful to separate reality, or the 'secular' world in his parlance, from his delusions. Simply put, he can separate his religion from his politics despite his eccentricity, so why should I bother him? I want to make sure you understand that, yes?

Localamos:
2. Since you so claim that my "authority" is drawn from science, please go and read Sigmund Feud's material.

3. Reputable journals and researchers discuss homose. xuality as a disorder. Not me! Again, you can search for the reports of Sigmund. You can also visit this link, amongst others: news.priyo.com/health/2012/01/10/how-deal-psychosexual-disorder-45248.html
.

I already addressed all this, specifically mentioning freud even, but it seems the spambot has it in for me.

They've not done that for at least 40 years and you should know this, so excuse me if I find this disingenuous. Let's not even get started on herr freud and his id, ego and superego nonsense. Virtually NO psychologists today subscribe to his ideas even, unlike say a Jung, and psychology is not exactly a pure science.

Luckily I back up my longer posts so more on that below, provided spambot allows it this time (unlikely though)

Localamos:
However, paraphiliacs were not born with the pre knowledge of the law of Moses. Everybody that has that knowledge, or feels affected by its provisions, does so through social interactions. These interactions are usually "forced down the throats" of unprepared children in their formative years, thereby causing psychological anomalies such as guilt, repression, and so on. And this brings us to the sociological/psychological approach to this discuss.

The normal values and definitions by which every society governs itself are all based on the Laws of Moses. Like I said before: This law was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, back in Eden which man(Adam) adopted to rule himself. So if we believe that all men are descendants of Adam, then we have also inherited this same mindset by which Adam was ruled and convicted and we all also share of Adam's flaws and glories deriving from this law/mindset/nature. This law is universal(deriving from our common ancestor), not just a thing of christianity, islam and judaism; The label: "Law of Moses" is associated with the Jews(and follows to christianity and Islam) because it was a legal document for them, but it's mechanisms has been active in all men since Adam, It is human nature as stated in the book of Romans:

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. (Romans 2: 14-16)

wiegraf:

Are you actually grouping these together in a secular sense? I hope you mean amongst you bigots, yes?

But necrophilia, pedophalia, bestiality, etc and -of course - homo.se.xuality are se.xual orientations. You disagree??

Reyginus: Your last line got me confused.
What does it really mean?

I believe my writings are clear. Hom.ose.xuality(se.xual disorders) are effects (fruits) in the mind and body resulting from the sin-nature , either from birth or through social interactions whereby one is subjected to antagonize his natural dispositions, resulting to guilt, shame, complexes until one's mind is re-wired to exhibit the unnatural behaviours, of which hom.ose.xuality is one of them. I call all these anti-nature subjections(through birth or through society) as derivatives of the same laws of Moses which society and religion enforces.

wiegraf:

Let's ignore that homose.xual activity, including full intercourse, is ubiquitous in nature. We'll also ignore that primary/exclusive homose.xuality has also been observed, for now..

All disorders/diseases are "ubiquitous in nature", That doesn't make them the natural(nature-designed) course of biological or mental development. They are Malfunctions of the biological/mental systems.

okeyxyz:

I believe my writings are clear. Hom.ose.xuality(se.xual disorders) are effects (fruits) in the mind and body resulting from the sin-nature , either from birth or through social interactions whereby one is subjected to antagonize his natural dispositions, resulting to guilt, shame, complexes until one's mind is re-wired to exhibit the unnatural behaviours, of which hom.ose.xuality is one of them. I call all these anti-nature subjections(through birth or through society) as derivatives of the same laws of Moses which society and religion enforces.

Frankly speaking, I still find it hard to understand your point. But don't wear yourself out replying if you lack the patience/strength to reply.

Reyginus: Frankly speaking, I still find it hard to understand your point. But don't wear yourself out replying if you lack the patience/strength to reply.

My point is that hom.ose.xuality is an effect of flaws in our nature(sin-nature). These effects can be active from birth or they develop over time during our growth and development. By flaws, I mean our normal, natural characteristics are suppressed/interrupted by opposing(and abnormal) forces/mechanisms so that our natural characteristics (in this case: se.xual interpretations/characteristics) are either totally or partially defeated and the opposing characteristics are domineering and influencing our interpretations, so that we respond se.xually to people of the same sex instead of the natural response to the opposite sex.

By suppression, our organic systems can be interrupted and malfunction during development in the womb so that we are born with a disposition to interpret (se.xual) stimulus in a contrary(to the natural..) manner like hom.ose.xuality. Likewise, even when we are born normal, social interactions also enforce values and interpretations that are contrary to our natural dispositions, forcing our developments to take alternative paths because the natural paths are suppressed, condemned and shamed. This is a sub-conscious formation and by the time we realize it, we are already fully formed into these alternative se.xualities.

Now my point is that all these biological and social forces that interrupt/suppress our natural paths to development emanate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was actually the law of Moses before it was documented and religiously/legally enforced on Israel, but It's effect has been active as part of human nature since it's adoption by Adam.

okeyxyz:

But necrophilia, pedophalia, bestiality, etc and -of course - homo.se.xuality are se.xual orientations. You disagree??

https://www.google.com.ng/search?num=30&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=RE&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=sexual+orientation+definition&oq=sexual+orientation+definition

googlod:
sex·u·al or·i·en·ta·tion
Noun
A person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.

The bolded are fetishes, or if you like (though si.lly when used pejoratively), paraphillia. They have NO business being in the same list. Or is your orientation big booty? Or lekpa, or you like feet as well? 'Kwak"? DAF? Sugar mommies/MILFS? <- Fetishes. Orientation is used to refer to gender

okeyxyz:

All disorders/diseases are "ubiquitous in nature", That doesn't make them the natural(nature-designed) course of biological or mental development. They are Malfunctions of the biological/mental systems.

Obviously, very false. Do you happen to know, say, birds with foot fetishes? You're welcome to point them out. Perhaps maybe fish that prefers big booties? Or goats that like to whip and tie themselves before they engage in some action?

There are gay birds (exclusively/primarily gay as well), gay goats (10% of all male goats are primarily ghey), and ghey fish.

As for not natural, lol. That's nature bleeping up badly it would seem, no? Let's indulge you, anything other than missionary is not 'natural', as everything else is superfluous. So get rid of all of it, rather then focus on the acts that you do not fancy, bigot. And if you need a 'natural' explanation, look at bonobos for instance, they use it as a means of bonding, a social tool. They aren't the only ones, dolphins, elephants, the other apes, basically any species with mental capabilities similar to ours, do so. This is even ignoring the fact that humans are ridiculously atypical due to our mental capabilities, or do you see any other species browsing the internet consciously? So why you apply their standards to us bewilders me.

Semi-random; Okey, I'm not going to waste time on you (I've not even read your op, tbh). Let's just say I have (perhaps misguided) faith in, whether you like being thought of as such or not, your being able to discern what should be private (spiritual, biblical) and what should be public (or 'secular' in your speak), ie you know how to separate your church from state. So, for all your talk, when push comes to shove, you'll be incapable of harming a fly. Sorry, I don't think you a threat. That is a good thing, but it might tickle your pride. Meh. So shift, let me make sure the rest understand this. Need for that spambot to free me first....

I would even have ignored this, considering I'm assuming you speak of biblical things, but that first post I read, and the bigotry just set me off.... I hope it was inadvertent

Upon reading the OP, Freewill jumped into my mind.

Freewill is the total self autonomy of control. Man equipped by freewill is in a position of power/authority. He can do and undo. Man can actively choose whether or not to follow the laws. The authority of all laws rests on their acceptance by the recipients.

NOTE: man through his freewill is sinless, because he can make and break moral laws, create and destroy such. Before man becomes a sinner, he must choose whether or not he wears the shame, must accept willingly the idea of sin. Hence sin is meaningless without acknowledgement.

2. It is lame for both (theists and atheists) to seek out moral basis from Nature! For atheists, it is implicitly accepting some form of external overarching purpose in Nature which governs man. It is a bad idea to behave as a plant.

Kay 17:

2. It is lame for both (theists and atheists) to seek out moral basis from Nature! For atheists, it is implicitly accepting some form of external overarching purpose in Nature which governs man. It is a bad idea to behave as a plant.

These are the same people who will whine about evolution implying some races are superior (a patently false claim) therefore it is bad, yet here they are using nature as an excuse. Okay then, if they insist on nature, then well, some would say black man is inferior naturally, as we tend to live in conditions less 'ideal' than those of caucasians the last few hundred years or so. So, shouldn't we be 'cured' of our blackness as well, isn't it abnormal as well? Isn't nature about bettering our lot, and black man doesn't seem to be good at that, therefore aren't we unnatural as well? This all assumes homosexuality is intrinsically 'bad' mind you, another false axiom.

It's more complicated than that, but meh