[Deckard]

Originally Posted by myrrh

we are both as a sex, either male or female. Therefor the natural disposition of a male species is to be with the female of that species and vice versa.

The above premise/conclusion is decidedly shaky, mostly I think because of that phrase 'natural disposition'.

Yes we can deduce that we are split into male or female, because of natural reproduction, because that's what has enabled the continuation of the species. So yes, obviously there is a reason for the two separate sexes, absolutely. Not only that, the majority of our species has a natural disposition - or inclination, if you like - to members of the opposite sex. Again, obviously, and the reasons are apparent to anyone.

However..... what is ALSO natural - and this is what you're glossing over - is that there exists a fairly significant minority with a disposition towards members of the same sex. A disposition that occurs just as naturally, even though it doesn't contribute to sexual reproduction.

You're effectively only commenting on what you think should be the universally natural order of things - based on procreation. I think I'm providing a more realistic and honest account of what the natural order is. Ie. for whatever reason, there exists a certain percentage of us who are gay.

Insisting that there exists a single 'natural disposition' actually doesn't tell us anything of substance beyond what I've been willing to acknowledge. All it does is imply - in a somewhat vague way - some higher purpose that things should be universally this way. Well maybe they should and maybe homosexuals are - from an evolutionary perspective - defective. I'm not offended if anyone wants to speculate in that way because it's essentially a scientific and philosophical question. Evolutionary biologists have some interesting things to say about it. But the point is, things are not universally that way, and protesting "but they should be!" is pretty pointless.

Originally Posted by myrrh

I am just stating this because I am not sure if you meant that a virgin can be both a homosexual and a heterosexual (as in the same time), or they can be either one or the other.

The virgin reference was to make the point that you don't have to have ever had sex to still be classed as, say, heterosexual. In other words, homosexual and heterosexual usually refers to sexual orientation rather than sexual activity. I was just trying to establish a common definition (and trying to avoid that godawful phrase "practising homosexual").

Originally Posted by myrrh

This I wholeheartedly disagree with. So there is no point in debating what followed it because it is based off your belief in the above.

OK, but I think I've explained elsewhere the reasoning behind it.

If we're getting hung up on that natural disposition phrase, then let me ask you: would you agree that same-sex attraction occurs naturally to the 6% or whatever of the population? By natural, I specifically mean in the sense of being hard-wired into us. For the moment, don't think about whether or not we choose to act on our feelings, or dwell on the fact that such activity is not compatible with sexual reproduction - just tell me whether you accept that same-sex attraction occurs naturally - in nature?

If it does, it is natural. The fact that homosexuals still happen to have genitals that can fit into the genitals of a person of the opposite sex does not change the fact that the same-sex attraction is still naturally occurring and possibly genetically-predetermined.

If you don't believe it occurs naturally and isn't as hard-wired as opposite-sex attraction is to you, then who or what is responsible for this sexual orientation? The devil?

And what of the 1,500 or so other species in which homosexual activity has been recorded?

Originally Posted by myrrh

I would say that it is our natural disposition that instinctually tells us what is right and wrong.

I think you would be interested to study the origin of ethics - specifically, the evolutionary origin, or at least ethics in the animal kingdom generally. It's quite humbling. That's not to deny we don't each have our personal code of morals, whether it's rooted in the golden rule or the idea of consenting adults and not causing harm, etc. But it's useful, if for no other reason than to keep our egos in check.

But with regard to homosexuality, you have still not laid out how or why not contributing to sexual reproduction prompts a moral dimension to take over once we act on those feelings. Why does a biological issue have to become a moral issue? Or at least, acting on our biological inclination - given that no harm needs to be caused to anyone else, and both parties consent? Why the heck does morality have to be introduced at this point?

I know you're keen to emphasize that these are all your own personally held views, but in truth I think you're not being completely honest with us, and the moral dimension is in fact introduced from your religion. You're just trying to make the beliefs sound more reasoned than they are by avoiding referring to Islaam explicitly, which I guess is understandable given all the times we've criticised you for it over the years. However, the strangely arbitrary point at which morality lands into the argument is, I think, the point at which the influence of your religion's teachings is exposed.

Feel free to convince me otherwise though, that there is a rational basis for this moral angle that can be explained independent of religion.