okeyxyz:

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.

wiegraf:

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

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

wiegraf:

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.

Kay 17: 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.

okeyxyz:

Your questions don't seem to have any bearings on my postings and judgments here, perhaps you mistake me for somebody else?? so you are not addressing(or you misunderstand) them. Your argument was that homosexuality is "ubiquitous" amongst other species and I agree(though it's still debated in the scientific community, but let's suppose it's true..), but your flaw is in justifying the correctness of homosexuality based on it's ubiquitousness, this is bad reasoning, borne more out of political appeal rather than a scientific one(being that you guys --atheists-- purport to be the defenders of science). I have already stated(and of which anybody whether a scientist or not can observe) nature is very flawed both in a spiritual and scientific context and that these arising mental and biological diseases/disorders/deviations and in this case--homosexuality, are the result of these flaws.

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

me:
Let's ignore that homosexual activity, including full intercourse, is ubiquitous in nature. We'll also ignore that primary/exclusive homosexuality has also been observed, for now..