The Nature Argument Pt 1

So please tell me how some Christians can argue that homosexuality is wrong because it’s against nature, but some Christians insist on abstinence until marriage? Nature says we are supposed to procreate as much as possible and have sex as soon as we are reproductive until we cannot reproduce anymore.

Nature dictates that men should have sex with as many female partners as possible and spread their seed while females are supposed to be as narrowly selective as possible when choosing a mate and to only mate with the strongest alpha to produce the strongest offspring.

To a degree many aspects of human society reflect these actions.

However I will say that using the nature argument to be against homosexuality becomes very hypocritical considering there are plenty of actions “required” within the church that go against the sexual nature of most human beings.

Priests and nuns within the Catholic church are not allowed to get married or have families or have sex.

They aren’t procreating.

But homosexuals get all the heat for that right?

I’m just making a point that if not having sex or children is within the context of “serving God only” and “abandoning the desires of worldly pleasures” then people are put on a pedestal.

And both homosexuals and priests and nuns are all not having procreative sex.

But one is held in high regard for abstaining while the other is ostracized for refusing to procreate.

Now I can already point to several instances within nature where homosexuality as well as sex change is a natural occurrence but that isn’t the point of this blog.

The point of this blog is to simply point out that the nature argument is only used when we’re talking about a marginalized group’s actions.

When we talk about situations that are against nature, that we approve of, then we never mention that.

Also keep in mind that biblically Jewish children were considered “men and women” at age thirteen and there was no such thing as a “teenage-hood”

They were expected to get married and have children as soon as possible and the life span was much shorter back then.

According to nature they were following the proper reproduction and procreation time clocks.

In our society we would call that pedophilia.

Girls these days become reproductive around age 9.

So pardon me but the nature argument is a very weak one and I do not think that people fully realize what they are implying when they make it.

Because if we followed nature’s rules, a whole bunch of things we do as humans would be deemed ridiculous, like marriage.

Some animal species do mate for life but many do not. To my knowledge animals are not capable of “falling in love” even though they express affection towards one another.

Nature is harsh. Nature cares about protecting and producing the best of the best.

According to nature any disabled or “special” people would be murdered by their own parents.

Animals discard anything they consider a weakness to the species.

We as humans attempt to save and make compensations for those who are special or elderly when if we followed “natures” rules they would be discarded.

So I really have had it with the “it’s against nature” nonsense, and this is just one part of the argument. In another blog I will site several instances in which homosexuality and sex changes are completely natural.

But even if they weren’t that obviously has not been the full reason as to why some of the church stands against it.

It’s just another one of those faux reasons to discriminate and keep God’s children from the pews, but thank goodness that God is everywhere, and accessible to anyone and everyone, church or no church.