Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

[Dakota_Roberts]

Hi, Dakota,

Please stop rationalizing!

The behavior you have just described is also objectively disordered - because it can not lead to procreation. And, that is why it is also wrong.

God bless

I forgot to write the word “no” between “also” and “better”, mea culpa. I concur that both cases are objectively disordered. It seriously annoys me when people keep shouting that a man penetrating another man’s rectum/anus is morally wrong and yet entirely neglect that a man penetrating a woman’s rectum/anus is also morally wrong. What really annoys me is when people shout how evil those who do homosexual acts are when they are masturbators and fornicators.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And you will need to admit that the man who likes to shove his penis up his wife’s rectum is also better

I forgot to write the word “no” between “also” and “better”, mea culpa. I concur that both cases are objectively disordered. It seriously annoys me when people keep shouting that a man penetrating another man’s rectum/anus is morally wrong and yet entirely neglect that a man penetrating a woman’s rectum/anus is also morally wrong. What really annoys me is when people shout how evil those who do homosexual acts are when they are masturbators and fornicators.

Calling you on the tu quoque logical fallacy. (Which doesn’t only relate to the fallacy that 'two wrongs make a right," but also that supposedly one’s personal failings – including in the same category – discredit the objective moral standard being affirmed.)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dakota,

It really is difficult to make a simple statement that clearly identifies - not only where one stands on an issue - but, to consistently back up one’s statements by reaffirming previously made statements.

In my opinion you appear to have one foot firmly planted on the rail that sees homosexual persons needing to be defended and affirmed and the other foot that moves between the rail Church’s documents/statements, criticizing other disordered behaviors and simply not committing to anything else. Essentially, lke the guy try to walk along a rail road track by jumping between the two rails one can go a distance … until there is a fork in the road and the rails start to become more distant. The rails of ‘Belief’ and ‘Behavior’ are like that… and most people find it so much easier to change their Belief to match their Behavior rather than the other way around.

Yes, Dakota, there is disordered behavior in a lot of areas - and while we could branch out to the new topics you have introduced, I suggest that we just stay on the thread before us and clearly address those issues.

Now, I am a little unclear about this … so, if you would just tell me the answer, I would appreciat it… Just what is your position on homosexual behavior? I have really read so many posts, I am just having a hard time keeping the poster’s positions clear in my mind.

Thanks.

God bless

I forgot to write the word “no” between “also” and “better”, mea culpa. I concur that both cases are objectively disordered. It seriously annoys me when people keep shouting that a man penetrating another man’s rectum/anus is morally wrong and yet entirely neglect that a man penetrating a woman’s rectum/anus is also morally wrong. What really annoys me is when people shout how evil those who do homosexual acts are when they are masturbators and fornicators.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Elizabeth502,

I had totally forgotten about Tu Quoque … thanks for reminding me

And, yes, that is just what we are looking at in his post.

God bless

Calling you on the tu quoque logical fallacy. (Which doesn’t only relate to the fallacy that 'two wrongs make a right," but also that supposedly one’s personal failings – including in the same category – discredit the objective moral standard being affirmed.)

 

[RobbyS]

I forgot to write the word “no” between “also” and “better”, mea culpa. I concur that both cases are objectively disordered. It seriously annoys me when people keep shouting that a man penetrating another man’s rectum/anus is morally wrong and yet entirely neglect that a man penetrating a woman’s rectum/anus is also morally wrong. What really annoys me is when people shout how evil those who do homosexual acts are when they are masturbators and fornicators.

When men and women indulge in oral and anal sex, it is pretty much the same as when homosexuals do it, except the latter is even worse, because the latter are incapable of doing it “the right way.” But of course the general tolerance of homosexual acts arises from the notion that any sex act “with consent” is OK. That’s a product of the sexual revolution.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Calling you on the tu quoque logical fallacy. (Which doesn’t only relate to the fallacy that 'two wrongs make a right," but also that supposedly one’s personal failings – including in the same category – discredit the objective moral standard being affirmed.)

Actually I’m pointing out that his hands are unclean so he should clean them.

Tom, as I have stated on a number of occasions homosexual acts are morally repugnant. I would even be willing to have sodomy be a misdemeanor provided it covered both sodomy perfecta and sodomy imperfecta.

 

[Sair]

Two things should be noted in your post:

1.) It entirely evades the opening statement

That is because I addressed the opening statement in a previous post.

2.) You use yourself as the sole criteria for determining that homosexual behavior is OK, while oher disordered sex acts are not OK.

You claim I use myself as the sole criterion (singular) yet you do the same. You only refer to documents, such as the Bible and the catechism, and choose to believe they are correct. I stated my beliefs as my beliefs, not as objective truths - my aim was to explain why it is that there is no necessary connection between homosexuality and bestiality, as a slippery slope argument would imply.

This really isn’t about you (like the reverse of the Jim Benton character ‘Happy Bunny’). There really is a right and a wrong, an orderd and a disordered and it exists outside of our subjective and often rationalizing view.

I never imagined this was all about me - I am not an island entire unto myself, nor do I pretend to be more than what I am - a subjective being with subjective opinions. But then, neither you nor indeed the entire Catholic magisterium are the last word on morality, even though you choose to believe this is so. Where are these ‘facts’ of right and wrong to be discerned, except in the beliefs of subjective beings? Indeed, the very concept of ‘objective morality’ may in fact be a logical contradiction.

From what you provided in your posts, things are right or wrong because you see them that way. There is nothing outside of yourself that stands for moral virtue - unless you sign off on it. Sair, this is a delusional view - and finding someone who agrees with you only means that thre are two of you with delusions. Reality is what it is - and one focus is that each of us will face judgment where sophistry and evasion will immediately disappear in the Light and Holiness of God.

Again, where is this ‘judgement’ to be discerned? The thing is, Christian morality is no more or less objectively, demonstrably binding, in any and all situations, than any other formulation of right and wrong - people can and do choose not to follow Christian moral rules, just as others choose to follow them. You’ll find that most people have some kind of internal moral compass, whether it aligns with the Christian version of north or not. But the point is, if there were just facts, and no subjective feelings or opinions, there would be no morality. People could kill each other and it wouldn’t matter to anyone. The fact that it does matter, to us, is what makes us moral animals. The only reason, I suspect, that you cling to the concept of objective morality (or, at least, morality that is subject to your god’s opinions) is that it might satisfy your desire for retribution, even if that has to wait till the afterlife.

The good news is that one can be sorry for all of the yesterdays that they wasted in disordered behavior - and be forgiven. The bad news is that those who plan for continuing on with disorder for their tomorrows are at serious risk for losing their soul. And, if you believe Christ is God, you can read all He said in the NT. And, if you don’t, you can hear about on Judgment Day. Your choice, and your responsibility - you have been put on notice of this reality.

Well, I’ll await the alleged judgement day without baited breath, frankly. I do not believe in an immortal, immaterial soul, nor do I think that Jesus Christ, if he existed as an actual person, was any sort of incarnation of a supernatural god. But that’s kind of beside the point. For that matter, I don’t think life has or needs any externally imposed purpose - it just is. If we humans have a ‘nature’ common to us all, it is an animal nature, consisting of a very basic set of needs and instincts. The means of satisfying these needs and of expressing these instincts, are manifold. Why is it any concern - or even any business - of yours or of Catholic theologians whether two men, for example, satisfy their need for companionship and pleasure through a sexual relationship with each other? You can’t say that it goes against human nature, since human nature is expressed through human behaviour, and homosexuality is clearly and obviously a facet of this. It is only ‘disordered’ if you suppose there is some outside force imposing an order - again, where is this force? How would you demonstrate that it exists?

 

[Sair]

*Originally Posted by John21652

And when you eventually find the courage to admit it, you will need to add in that the man who likes to shove his penis up another man’s rectum is also no better. When you do, without a shadow of doubt, the objectivity of that moral judgement will click with you.
*

Why, when there is no connection between bestiality, paedophilia and homosexuality other than what you imagine, and what your religion encourages you to believe? Aren’t your judgements on these matters as subjective as any other?

 

[Sair]

It occurred to me in reading the above posts that a pantheist is a truly slippery opponent when arguing morality. One of the joys of Catholicism is that we are able to clearly distinguish between creation and the Creator, which enables us (down the road a bit) to distinguish between things that are immoral, moral, and ammoral. It is this last category that the pantheist can play free and loose with, for if God IS nature then everything is a moral issue. Taken to the nth degree this would eventually drive a person insane, so we cut the pantheist slack and let him treat some things as ammoral. Like John I also worked on a farm where we inseminated our cows. They didn’t seem to mind, and since we bought the best sperm and did not use hormones we had a number of prize winners. I almost busted a gut to hear this called bestiality!

You still rely on your subjective opinions to decide what is right and wrong - it’s just that you incorporate the idea that there’s a non-detectable creator, one that you are privileged to know, one who makes you feel like you have a special insight into the true nature of reality. It also allows you to discard as irrelevant, issues that others might take to be moral issues, such as the treatment of nonhuman animals at the hands of humans.

Who decided your ‘prize’ cattle were prizewinners? Humans, or other cattle? How subjective can you get? Most humans think it is fine to manipulate the mating opportunities of other animals, but when their own mating opportunities and preferences are called into question, they kick up a huge stink. Wonder what’s going on there…?

 

[tqualey]

Hi,Sair,

For my part, I honestly have done all I can do with these posts and have decided that further time posting to your comments is just not the best use of my time.

God bless

That is because I addressed the opening statement in a previous post.

You claim I use myself as the sole criterion (singular) yet you do the same. You only refer to documents, such as the Bible and the catechism, and choose to believe they are correct. I stated my beliefs as my beliefs, not as objective truths - my aim was to explain why it is that there is no necessary connection between homosexuality and bestiality, as a slippery slope argument would imply.

I never imagined this was all about me - I am not an island entire unto myself, nor do I pretend to be more than what I am - a subjective being with subjective opinions. But then, neither you nor indeed the entire Catholic magisterium are the last word on morality, even though you choose to believe this is so. Where are these ‘facts’ of right and wrong to be discerned, except in the beliefs of subjective beings? Indeed, the very concept of ‘objective morality’ may in fact be a logical contradiction.

Again, where is this ‘judgement’ to be discerned? The thing is, Christian morality is no more or less objectively, demonstrably binding, in any and all situations, than any other formulation of right and wrong - people can and do choose not to follow Christian moral rules, just as others choose to follow them. You’ll find that most people have some kind of internal moral compass, whether it aligns with the Christian version of north or not. But the point is, if there were just facts, and no subjective feelings or opinions, there would be no morality. People could kill each other and it wouldn’t matter to anyone. The fact that it does matter, to us, is what makes us moral animals. The only reason, I suspect, that you cling to the concept of objective morality (or, at least, morality that is subject to your god’s opinions) is that it might satisfy your desire for retribution, even if that has to wait till the afterlife.

Well, I’ll await the alleged judgement day without baited breath, frankly. I do not believe in an immortal, immaterial soul, nor do I think that Jesus Christ, if he existed as an actual person, was any sort of incarnation of a supernatural god. But that’s kind of beside the point. For that matter, I don’t think life has or needs any externally imposed purpose - it just is. If we humans have a ‘nature’ common to us all, it is an animal nature, consisting of a very basic set of needs and instincts. The means of satisfying these needs and of expressing these instincts, are manifold. Why is it any concern - or even any business - of yours or of Catholic theologians whether two men, for example, satisfy their need for companionship and pleasure through a sexual relationship with each other? You can’t say that it goes against human nature, since human nature is expressed through human behaviour, and homosexuality is clearly and obviously a facet of this. It is only ‘disordered’ if you suppose there is some outside force imposing an order - again, where is this force? How would you demonstrate that it exists?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Hi,Sair,

For my part, I honestly have done all I can do with these posts and have decided that further time posting to your comments is just not the best use of my time.

God bless

Thats best. You cannot argue with somebody who rejects the existence of objective moral values. You cannot take somebody seriously who believes that raping children is not objectively wrong. You cannot take somebody seriously who cannot see why rape is truly offensive to personal dignity. Neither can you argue with somebody who is willfully blind to the self evident teleology and objective meaning intrinsic to the fact that we are male and female. There is no convincing somebody who chooses to be unconvinced, regardless of the subject matter.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dakota,

Actually, you are evading the topic by not addressing the issue, and this is what Elizabeth502 identified.

Your posts have been an example of Tu Quoque. And, that is part of the problem I am having with your posts - additionally, ambiguous posts provide the appearance of switching from one position to another.

God bless

Actually I’m pointing out that his hands are unclean so he should clean them.

Tom, as I have stated on a number of occasions homosexual acts are morally repugnant. I would even be willing to have sodomy be a misdemeanor provided it covered both sodomy perfecta and sodomy imperfecta.

 

[Sair]

Hi,Sair,

For my part, I honestly have done all I can do with these posts and have decided that further time posting to your comments is just not the best use of my time.

God bless

Well, that’s probably for the best - at least you’re not still trying to convince me that your views should be followed because they’re simpler. And I, for my part, am growing tired of beating my head against a brick wall.

 

[Sair]

Thats best. You cannot argue with somebody who rejects the existence of objective moral values. You cannot take somebody seriously who believes that raping children is not objectively wrong. You cannot take somebody seriously who cannot see why rape is truly offensive to personal dignity. Neither can you argue with somebody who is willfully blind to the self evident teleology and objective meaning intrinsic to the fact that we are male and female. There is no convincing somebody who chooses to be unconvinced, regardless of the subject matter.

I’d thank you to point out where I indicated that I don’t believe raping children is wrong.

That’s the whole point - morality is based on values, and values are subjective. You think they are automatically less important, less powerful and meaningful, for being so, but that is, once again, your opinion.

Teleology can only be self-evident if there is a self-evident designer and purpose-giver. The fact that certain structures of the human body work in certain ways is only an indication that they work in those ways - not an instruction that they must be used in those ways and those ways only. Humans are nothing if not versatile and adaptable, after all. This seems like an appropriate spot for one of my favourite quotations from Douglas Adams,

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Teleological assumptions are just this sort of misguided notion that someone intended things to be the way they are, that someone meant for us to be a certain way, that we matter to the impersonal cosmos. You cannot demonstrate that this is so, but only seek to insist that it’s obvious what we should all be doing with our privates, because you don’t like the idea of them being used any other way. When should I expect to see another post series from you questioning the obvious abuse of the telelogy of the digestive system that is the consumption of refined sugar? Isn’t that as much of a violation of our “design principles” as homosexuality?

Evolution, survival and sexuality are all more complicated than you seem to imagine, and although I have already pointed out, more than once, that homosexual behaviour and inclinations can and do have a place in the larger scheme of human sexuality, you simply refuse to see it - because of your subjective opinions on the matter. You might find this article, to which I linked in a previous post, illuminating reading.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Hi, Dakota,

Actually, you are evading the topic by not addressing the issue, and this is what Elizabeth502 identified.

Your posts have been an example of Tu Quoque. And, that is part of the problem I am having with your posts - additionally, ambiguous posts provide the appearance of switching from one position to another.

God bless

While I find you guys misguided I’m not actually against you.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’d thank you to point out where I indicated that I don’t believe raping children is wrong.

Oh my…have I done something wrong sair? You either believe its true that there is nothing wrong with it, or you don’t.

That’s the whole point - morality is based on values, and values are subjective.

You and I both know that’s not true.

You think they are automatically less important, less powerful and meaningful, for being so, but that is, once again, your opinion.

All rational human beings, who are trying to discern the truth of the matter, treat falsehood with less value than truth. The only natural core reasons somebody has for avoiding a consequence is either for the fear of pain, the fear of retribution, the fear of losing something that is pleasurable, the fear of the unknown, or the fear of guilt/moral error. The only rational reason somebody has for feeling true and honest guilt and acting positively on it, is because one recognises they have truly done wrong. If somebody tells me some action is wrong that I rationally know not to be wrong, I will not feel guilty and neither do I have any rational reason to feel guilt or compassion or empathy in situations where no true immorality is occurring; and as for the fear of losing the pleasure of friends/family or my life, its up to me if I choose to be a slave to those emotions. What I will not do, is pretend that I have the moral high ground when I have clearly rejected it like you Sair. You are trying to have it both ways but you can’t.

I avoid wrong because it is truly wrong, because I can see that it is wrong; not because of peoples opinions; and I take offence to anyone who denies me my intrinsic and objective moral value as a living person.

That’s all I have to say on the matter. I will let you have the last word, I don’t expect it to be an honest reply, so don’t try to hard.

 

[Kiwicatholic]

Re: Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

The primary purpose of human sexuality is reproduction, has no one mentioned this? Put simply sex is first and foremost about making new baby humans. Homosexual acts can’t even truly be called sexual acts, sex is what happens between a man and a woman when they perform the marital act without acting against the possibility of fruitfulness. Even contracepted sex cannot truly be called ‘sex’.

Put in more philosophical terms, same sex attraction cannot be a genuine form of human sexuality because it lacks the finality proper to the sexual act. The final cause is removed, the act is pointless, which is contrary to human dignity. Much like trying to lose weight by inducing vomiting after eating.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MOM2,

I think what we are seeing is the natural consequence of a dead conscience. All is subjective in the sense that it can be reduced to what I think of it. I think I had mentioned “Happy Bunny” on this (if you are not familiar with this cartoon character, here is a thread itshappybunnybooks.com/ ) While the art work is not only minimal it’s one character is repititious - but, it is the statements it makes that deserve attention. Essentially, everything is not only subjective but it is about me! People only are meaningful (and then only briefly) in the sense that they acknowledge 'Happy Bunny".

Now, contrast this cartoon character with what we have been reading in this summary of previous posts:

Only I determine my morality because it is subjective
External values have no value to me
I do not have to stay with your subject, I can change to suit myself when I wish
Everything is of equal value - so nothing has more value than something else
No one can criticize me because no one is perfect - except me

I think if you read several of the ‘Happy Bunny’s’ caption a definite pattern of narcissism appears to emerge. Maybe there is a similar pattern in these posts that has also developed.

No one can go anywhere with arguments like this - and ultimately if the argument fails to progress we simply fail to realize that we are just feeding the bears. And, that ultimately proves to be a major waste of time and effort.

God bless

Oh my…have I done something wrong sair? You either believe its true that there is nothing wrong with it, or you don’t.

You and I both know that’s not true.

All rational human beings, who are trying to discern the truth of the matter, treat falsehood with less value than truth. The only natural core reasons somebody has for avoiding a consequence is either for the fear of pain, the fear of retribution, the fear of losing something that is pleasurable, the fear of the unknown, or the fear of guilt/moral error. The only rational reason somebody has for feeling true and honest guilt and acting positively on it, is because one recognises they have truly done wrong. If somebody tells me some action is wrong that I rationally know not to be wrong, I will not feel guilty and neither do I have any rational reason to feel guilt or compassion or empathy in situations where no true immorality is occurring; and as for the fear of losing the pleasure of friends/family or my life, its up to me if I choose to be a slave to those emotions. What I will not do, is pretend that I have the moral high ground when I have clearly rejected it like you Sair. You are trying to have it both ways but you can’t.

I avoid wrong because it is truly wrong, because I can see that it is wrong; not because of peoples opinions; and I take offence to anyone who denies me my intrinsic and objective moral value as a living person.

That’s all I have to say on the matter. I will let you have the last word, I don’t expect it to be an honest reply, so don’t try to hard.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kiwicatholic,

Welcome to CAF! I think you will find this to be a truly intellectually stimulating list and one a lot of folks enjoy - albeit not everyone.

The topic of the primary puropose of martial union has been mentioned more than once in these 400+ posts. But, I think the primary purpose why some are on CAF is bait Catholics. May I suggest you read some of the earlier posts to get a feel and flavor for this particular thread.

God bless

Re: Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

The primary purpose of human sexuality is reproduction, has no one mentioned this? Put simply sex is first and foremost about making new baby humans. Homosexual acts can’t even truly be called sexual acts, sex is what happens between a man and a woman when they perform the marital act without acting against the possibility of fruitfulness. Even contracepted sex cannot truly be called ‘sex’.

Put in more philosophical terms, same sex attraction cannot be a genuine form of human sexuality because it lacks the finality proper to the sexual act. The final cause is removed, the act is pointless, which is contrary to human dignity. Much like trying to lose weight by inducing vomiting after eating.

 

[John21652]

I’d thank you to point out where I indicated that I don’t believe raping children is wrong.

If you keep on insisting that morality is personal opinion, then you can’t defend the wrongness of child rape. It will just be your opinion.

That’s the whole point - morality is based on values, and values are subjective. You think they are automatically less important, less powerful and meaningful, for being so, but that is, once again, your opinion.

This is where you make debating with you a head banging exercise. Values can be anything you like. Companies have a value system. Individuals have a value system. Mine includes strong black coffee with two sugars.

Once you begin talking about morality, you are actually talking about the formation of commonly shared values. A majority of people share the idea that life is sacred. It is a shared value. However, some character down the road says he doesn’t share that value and he says he will kill anyone who walks on his lawn. So, the majority enact a ‘law’, based on a shared value system. Once that law is enacted, the opinion of the fellow down the road doesn’t count any more. If he shoots anyone he gets shot in return. The enacting of the law has objectified the common assertion that life is sacred. Comprende? This system constrains the value systems of individuals. That is what morality does. It puts in place a set of rules which guide behaviour. The rules are based on values which have been objectified. Otherwise, you have no rules but those decided upon by individuals according to their subjective whims and desires.

Teleology can only be self-evident if there is a self-evident designer and purpose-giver.

What utter piffle.
According to you, even flowers have no ‘end purpose’. Even the most godless evolutionary geneticist would laugh you down on that one!

The fact that certain structures of the human body work in certain ways is only an indication that they work in those ways - not an instruction that they must be used in those ways and those ways only.

The fact that certain parts of the human body work in certain ways is proof that they are supposed to work that way. After all, didn’t evolution ‘design’ them that way? If not, your existence is a really big accident!!

Humans are nothing if not versatile and adaptable, after all. This seems like an appropriate spot for one of my favourite quotations from Douglas Adams,

Humans, unfortunately, seem to be very inventive at ways of abusing their bodies for wrong ends. In evolutionary terms, adaptation is supposed to increase the viability and survivability of the species. Men shoving the ‘for breeding’ bits of their anatomies into orifices that have functions other than ‘for breeding’ would seem to negate the evolutionary concept of survivabilty and fitness. I suppose that’s why homosexuals have rely on modern medicine so much…

Teleological assumptions are just this sort of misguided notion that someone intended things to be the way they are, that someone meant for us to be a certain way, that we matter to the impersonal cosmos. You cannot demonstrate that this is so,

That “someone” who “intended” could very well be mother nature herself. You know, as in evolution and pure chance, all without God being involved. If what you wrote held true, then you would even have to deny the role of genetic evolution, because genetic evolution has certainly given things an ‘end purpose’ and a proper way to achieve it.

but only seek to insist that it’s obvious what we should all be doing with our privates, because you don’t like the idea of them being used any other way.

If your proclivities include shagging the neighbour’s cow, go for it. If you catch a good dose of Leptospirosis, of course you will head straight to the nearest doctor for a shot and you will do so because your ‘end purpose’ will have been subverted. Wont you?

When should I expect to see another post series from you questioning the obvious abuse of the telelogy of the digestive system that is the consumption of refined sugar? Isn’t that as much of a violation of our “design principles” as homosexuality?

Well, a few lumps of refined sugar in the digestive system sure never gave anyone HIV. Not sure what would happen if you shoved it up from the other end though…Out of curiosity, why did you choose sugar, instead of, say, heroin?

Evolution, survival and sexuality are all more complicated than you seem to imagine,

Survival for some has indeed become more complicated because they have abused their sexuality, subverted the final ends of things and so they need the intervention of modern medicine to have a shot at life.

and although I have already pointed out, more than once, that homosexual behaviour and inclinations can and do have a place in the larger scheme of human sexuality,

You might say homosexual behaviour has a place in human sexuality, but that means nothing more than it exists. What its final end is, other than an extuingushing of certain genetic traits, or of spreading disease, or the causing of physical harm, no-one can say.

you simply refuse to see it - because of your subjective opinions on the matter. You might find this article, to which I linked in a previous post, illuminating reading.

That article you linked to is not only poorly written, it is illogical! The basic terms he has used for his little essay are wrong. He defines morality as “…opinions on what is good and bad…” If that is the case, then gravity is just an opinion. If that is the case, then you’d better rip up the U.S. Declaration of Independence, because the self evident ‘truths’ it mentions are just a collection of opinions.