3/17    I thought this was interesting: In nature, there are hundreds of
        documented species that engage in same-gender sex, but there is
        one kind of "lifestyle" that is not found in nature: lifelong,
        voluntary abstinence.  So, the next time some bible-thumping
        individual rants on about gays being "not natural", think about how
        celibate priests don't have an even remotely "natural" sex life.
        \_ There are also many documented cases of species engaged in
           infanticide and cannabalism. So are you suggesting that
           humans should engage in these activities with the sanction
           of society and the state? With loopy thinking like that
           I can justify just about anything. Anyway, the Old
           Testament preaches that humans are differentiated from
           other species, so your argument pretty much falls
           flat on its face. When religious types talk about homosexuality
           as being "unnatural" they mean it goes against their concept
           of what god meant for people, not animals. -- williamc
           \_ So homosexuality, infanticide, cannibalism are all natural.
              Shouldn't people condemn homosexuality by calling it 'sinful'?
              That would be much more accurate.  The only problem is that it
              exposes the fact that their objection is religious, not that
              it somehow hurts society or nature.
              \_ Ummm... The only people I've heard call it "unnatural"
                 are crazy rednecks.  I've have heard people say it's not
                 normal and it's harmful to society though...
                 \_ When you say "only crazy rednecks call it unnatural" you're
                    pre-defining the debate.  It's a cheap rhetorical tactic
                    that would get you kicked out of rhetoric 1a.
        \_ Sorry, you've mixed up your religions.  Any "bible-thumper"
           would be a baptist or some such protestant religion.  Not
           Catholic.  Therefore, they would probably agree with you.
           Priests not being able to marry was one of the arguments for
           the reformation.  Besides, depending on what kind of bible
           thumper you're talking to, they might just say that humans have
           all sorts of "natural urges" that should be quelled, and
           just list Homosexulality under that.  Sorry.
           \_ Catholics disapprove of homosexual marriages.  Please don't
              mislead.
        \_ You also have your sociology mixed up with your animal sciences.
           No one has tried to claim celebacy is normal.  And one of those
           bible thumpers you hate so much would tell you that because Man is
           above Beast that we should not look to the animals for the correct
           way to behave or be closer to God.  Sorry but you're not going
           anywhere with this stuff outside your own self reinforcing social
           circles.
           \_ I think the point is that the "unnatural" label doesn't work.
              You can still call it "sinful" if you wish.
              \_ Can I call it abnormal? I think unnatural works. How else
                 would you describe the obvious disparity between how sex
                 works, and how homosexuals practice it? Our organs and
                 reproduction are clearly designed for opposite sex partners.
                 There are cases of two-headed animals in nature but that
                 doesn't mean that's "natural". Now homosexual attraction
                 is more common but you can't just dismiss the unnatural
                 argument as crazy.