As I pointed out, you lack any kind of historical perspective. You are applying your modern perspective on it–dare I say you are inventing a dissention? Slavery was not just supported by the Constitution. It was supported for hundreds of years by large numbers of churches, a number of Christian nations (Spain, Portugal, Brazil, England, France, and the good old US of A) and large numbers of church-going individuals as G’s will. Likewise, the burning of witches. Likewise, the Inquisition. All OK according to the laws of G and man, so we were told.

I acknowledge that there is a law according to the nature of things. The laws of physics, chemistry, biology, you name it. But human laws are not natural laws in that sense. Natural is a word applied to them in an attempt to make them not what they clearly are– human inventions. Homophobia and prejudice and bigotry have no genetic basis, and are also not a part of natural law, but they are a part of nature. Human nature.

Timothy’s point is just that. There is no homosexual gene, true. But there is no heterosexual gene, either. This is where you are using “natural” to mean “this is what I think and it seems right to me.” It is natural to think that the world is flat, but it isn’t. Homosexuality is natural, and it has always existed in every culture and every time.

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is an inborn as heterosexuality, despite the testimony of tens of thousands– if not millions– of gay people, despite the simple logic of “who would choose this”, you believe that homosexuality is a choice. Your beliefs about us are more important than any amount of actual evidence– natural evidence.

You wrote: “Either you are going to acknowledge that there is a law according to the nature of things, or you are going to be a legal positivist which leads to the conclusion that slavery is okay, or abortion on demand is okay, or gay marriage is okay, or discrimination against and imprisonment of people of Catholic or Mormon faith for speaking and living their beliefs is okay simply because the laws say it is.”

This is a false dichotomy, irrelevant and illogical. I don’t have to be a religionist to know that slavery is wrong, or discrimination is wrong. I can be a perfectly moral human being without religion to tell me what is right and wrong. And as far as I can tell, if I relied on religion to tell me that, I would be most immoral indeed. In the immortal words of Mammy Yokum (and yes, I’m showing my age): “Good is better than evil because it’s nicer.’

Very little is black and white. Abortion is a good example here. I’m not fond of it. To me, the moral position is not to eliminate abortion, but to eliminate the need for it. Equally immoral is people bringing more people into the world when they neither want them nor can provide for them. Immoral is back alley abortions that occur because legal abortion is not available. Women pay the price. Immoral is spending literally billions of dollars to rob women of that choice, yet somehow never actually doing anything about abortion. The anti-abortion industry, like the ex-gay industry, is a major cash and power cow for the religious right. How many children died in Darfur while the Mormon church was fighting my civil marriage? how many children could have been fed and immunized for that money on an issue which has absolutely no effect on any Mormon’s ability to worship and believe as he chooses? How many abortions could have been avoided if the Religious right and the catholic church supported birth control? How many could have been avoided if these so called defenders of right said simply, and put up the money for it: “don’t have an abortion. We’ll take care of you and your medical expenses, and make sure your baby is adopted into a loving home. except not the gay ones, of course. Those children are better of as products of abortion.”

Do you really want to talk about immorality? I don’t think you have a moral leg to stand on.

Here’s some natural law, some morality for you, and you can decide which is worse. I’m sick to death that the course of my life, and my happiness, and those of millions of people just like me, can be subject to your prejudices, whether or you prefer to call them your religious beliefs or just admit them for what they are. I am equally sick that gay people are imprisoned, attacked, murdered, executed, used as political fodder, vilified, condemned, persecuted, jailed, slandered, libeled, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because someone doesn’t approve, or believes their God does not approve. What about the immorality of what is done to gay people every day in many parts of the world to satisfy that belief?

As i wrote earlier: “Homophobia and prejudice and bigotry have no genetic basis, and are also not a part of natural law, but they are a part of nature. Human nature.”

That doesn’t make them right. It just makes them sad.

You list things that you think are immoral due to the “nature of things”.

I find discrimination against gay persons to be as immoral as those things which you list. Let’s consider from a natural perspective (not the Pope’s version of Natural Law).

Some persons are same-sex attracted. This is not something they select nor, from all present evidence, something they can change. Thus it is evident that same-sex attraction is their natural state.

Further, we see that same-sex attraction, in and of itself, does not have negative consequences. It is neither a handicap nor a burden except to the extent that external forces make it so.

Nor does a marriage between two same-sex attracted persons have negative consequences on the parties. In fact, it is quite evident that a committed monogamous relationship supported by the community is very much a benefit to the two same-sex attracted persons.

It honors their individuality, it respects their free will, it enhances their lives and enriches the lives of those who know them.

In fact, the only real objection to the marriage of two same-sex attracted persons comes from those who, for religious reasons of their own, seek to interfere. The only negative aspect of same-sex marriage is completely external and completely unnatural.

I think you should read a bit about the history of Christianity. It in itself was invented by a dissenter by the name of Paul. It has been continually re-invented by other dissenters, most prominently, Martin Luther. But there were many before him, and many after. Here is an interesting link on the Baptists, for example.

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2009/05/sbc-president-albert-mohler-abandons-baptist-tradition/

and then, here’s another idea about “invention”. A growing number of religionists– not a majority, but a sizable minority– are coming to the conclusion that the traditional “beliefs” about G’s will and homosexuality are yet another in a long sad line of mistaken ideas that have been attributed to G and not to the religionists who have forever remolded G in their own image. “Good” Christians used to burn witches with exactly the same moral certainty (and assumption of superiority) that they understood and did G’s will with which they now attack gay people. How many people were tortured and murdered for that slight mis-apprehension of G’s will? 2000 years of G-sanctioned anti-Semitism (both Jew and Arab) led to the murder of 6 million people, and the mess and danger to the WHOLE WORLD that is the middle east today. Slavery and segregation have certainly been church-and-bible supported, but only an unashamed racist would admit it today.

Don’t tell me that this is different. It’s not. You just have no historical lens to look at your current position with. You’ve inherited it, very much like racial segregationists inherited their rock-solid certainty about G’s will. Yet another thing that turned out not to be true, though some will cling to it fiercely until they die. Just like Islamists are in full possession of the full truth– yet another group of dissenters.

I suspect that these people who are obsessed with homosexuality to the exclusion of all other concerns constitute a very small, but powerful group of religionists. I also suspect that the vast majority of religionists frankly don’t care, and will care only if the former group makes them afraid enough, or excites enough dormant prejudice, to get them to act. And since there is so much money and power at stake– something that almost always seems to attract some religionists– you can bet the incitement will be there. “Render unto Caesar” is yet another inconvenient commandment that is cheerfully ignored. Just like the commandment against divorce.

Just like the commandment “Judge not lest ye be judged”. There’s a good one that good Christians frequently dissent from. how about John 3:17: whoopsie.

But the whole idea that being gay and living a gay life is somehow a sin, especially as it is portrayed as the WORST sin, especially displeasing to G, is yet another matter of opinion. So many people are willing to state “The Bible says THIS about homosexuality.” with no biblical or even extra-biblical justification for it. This is because they look at the “relevant” (they are not) biblical passages only through the filters of “these are about homosexuality”, “these are about homosexuality as we understand it today”, “these are clear condemnations”, “we have always been told that these passages refer to homosexuality and therefore it must be true”, and worst of all, “we claim expertise and authority in this matter because we speak for G.”

Funny about that, because if you don’t make those assumptions, if you apply a little bit of logic and perception, and especially, look at what is there is terms of scholarship, a vastly different picture appears. The bible may or may not condemn some aspects of gay sex. It is amazing to me how unclear G manages to be on the subject, when he is so clear on so many other subjects. So coy: “sleep the sleep of a woman” (literally from Leviticus– do you know what it means? I don’t, and neither does anyone else.) to “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV on words we don’t know the meaning of. Luther thought it had to do with masturbation, but what did he know?)

If it were as important to G as it is to you, he would have said: “two men or two women together shall not have sex in and way, shape, or form. They will not be naked together and touching each others’ skin. They certainly will not be bumping nasties. Penis into vagina, that’s it. And you shouldn’t enjoy it too much.”

Now, that is clarity befitting the Creator of the Universe. “Sleep the sleep of a woman”? Your guess is as good as mine. G managed to be pretty clear about governing heterosexual behavior. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” That’s clear, but the opposition to adultery is usually limited to “Tsk Tsk”, not “let’s pass constitutional amendments to make sure your family isn’t recognized as one and your kids don’t get health insurance.”

Perhaps G was just embarrassed to talk about homosexuality, so he couldn’t be clear on it.

you wrote:”it cannot be controverted that homosexual sexual activity is a choice, and as it always outside of a true marriage, it is objectively sinful.
”
Let’s see. i was married by a Christian minister. The state of california, at least for the time being, recognizes my marriage. So in some snese– clearly not yours– i have a true marriage, as i would in a number of states and a number of countries.

Personally, I think it is a far greater sin to assume that G could be caught between the covers of a book, and that somehow, you have access to his mind.

there is nothing whatsoever in any way to support the idea that same-sex attractions are the “choice” of the person experiencing them. Not in “some cases”, not in any cases.

Further, it most certainly can be controverted that homosexual sexual activity is in all instances outside a “true marriage” or objectively sinful. Many faith leaders controvert that claim on a daily basis.

So basically, nothing you said is supported by fact. But thank you for joining the conversation. I encourage you to stick around and do some more listening before you state your opinion. And when you do state your opinion please be prepared to substantiate any facts that you claim.

Their is one thing I would like to know, however: How exactly will same-sex marriage have dire consequenses in a pluralistic society? Box Turtle bloggers, any thoughts?