Someone in this group brought to my attention the 26th and 27th verses of Romans I. I wanted to know what the concordances had to say about it and was hardly surprised to find the following web site commentary, which contradicts itself in the first few paragraphs: http://carm.org/romans-1-26-27-homosexuality. Of course, anyone in the thrall of the most contradictory book in human history can be expected to employ contradictions in writing about it. But this one is just downright ludicrous. Anytime someone goes on about "natural" vs. "unnatural" when discussing human sexuality I find my eyes rolling like bowling balls. Ditto, "normal" and "abnormal." To me, if a person can do it, it is natural. The acts of Jeffrey Dahmer were natural. Use of "normal" is fraught with problems, beginning with the question, Who says what's "normal"? No, I am not willing to say that Dahmer was normal. But, then, that's just me and a few other people.
Interesting, James. In another string someone just recently put forth "It's unnatural" as a non-religious argument against the love that dare not speak its name. I think that's wrong. What would it even mean that it's unnatural? Unless the claim is that gay people are not products of nature in the same way that straight people are, which is patently ludicrous, I don't see how it could have any meaning whatsoever aside from resting on the Bible.
I think the guy who used it, he claimed to be an atheist, meant that being gay is a choice. Of course that STILL would fall under "natural"
I actually welcome the "unnatural" argument, a holdover from British laws referring to homosexuality as "the unnatural vice," and certainly what the great social critic Lord [Richard] Buckley meant in his side-splitting "hip" comedy routine on "The Bad Rapping of the Marquis de Sade"; in depicting "the Mark's" "buddy-cat, Prince Minsky," as "the baddest cat there was," Buckley showed the prince seducing a maiden and employing buggy whips to enhance the effect, all to the cries of the poor lass, "No, stop, it's goin' against nature!"
My argument is like yours: if it can be done, it is natural. It can only be labeled "unnatural" on the basis of human casuistry, the resort to dogma to "prove" something as "fact." In any case, what does the person arguing "unnatural" do to get up in the morning? Digital alarm clocks are unnatural. Drive to work or ride a train or bus. Unnatural. What is nature today unlike nature in the 4th century BCE (earliest the Buy Bull could have been written). Did the xenophobia of the Sodomites toward desert nomads seeking the comforts of your home (including use of wife or child) get mistranslated into a condemnation of same sex persons? Did the injunction against homosexuality in Leviticus alone get selected from other items in the cafeteria, such that beardless men like Rick Santorum can condemn marriage equality even as he devours his lobster? Can an orthodox rabbi sneak some Louisiana mud bugs cause they aren't from salt water?
Some time back on another board I wrote a piece which opined that "natural" is a PERSONAL concept, and that the more someone attempts to generalize natural behavior, the smaller that set of behavior will become and the less certain elements of that set will universally apply.
For openers, I am bisexual. It is natural for me to be attracted to sexual activity with men or women Because That Works For ME. For others, it might not work at all. It's natural for me to enjoy spicy food, while others may not care for it. It's natural for me to enjoy certain kinds of movies, music and activities, some of which may be shared by others and some not.
Meantime, the bible wants to assert what is natural by dictate, rather than by acknowledgement of personal preference or genetic predisposition, with its only justification being Because It Says So, without further explanation. More than likely, such a position reflected the point of view of a very few select persons (doubtless all male) than considering the wider population and, as has been observed multiple times here on A|N, was aimed not at liberating people or allowing to discover who they are, but at Controlling Them.
^ ^ ^ THIS! ^ ^ ^