THE DOUBLE STANDARD WHEN RELIGION SAYS SOME ACTS ARE SINS FOR THEY VIOLATE NATURE

Religion says that human rights arise from whatever view you have of what a human being is and should be.  It say you must get the view from God who alone is wise.  This purports to give an objective standard.  Otherwise rights just disintegrate into demands.  It says a man is a man and a woman is a woman and both are set up to sexually join together.  So same sex relationships violate the truth about human nature.  That is what it means by saying they are unnatural.  Talk of unnatural can be confusing for it is hardly natural to microwave your lunch and nobody says that is a sin.  An implication is that you are on a harmful slippery slope by engaging in the unnaturally immoral. 

So when the Church says LGBT sex is unnatural it means harmful and against what you are meant to be by God.  It is not unnatural as in how pulling a daisy is unnatural.

It says we just know killing another human being is against natural law.  It goes as far as to say that the person engaging in LGBT relations knows it is wrong.

Are loving and committed same-sex relationships unnatural and therefore evil? Religion opposes civil partnerships which gives gay couples rights similar to married couples. Religion prefers to encourage the promiscuity it accuses gay people of by doing that - though it faints with horror and outrage at promiscuity. Oh the hypocrisy! The Christian view of marriage is that the man is the head and the woman is under his authority. Few Christians dare to teach this today and yet these are the ones opposing the gay right to have a relationship protected by law.
 
Some Christians who oppose civil partnership bills and laws claim that they do this not because they are anti-gay but pro-marriage. That is like hitting a wife-beater and saying you are not against him but his wife-beating. Christians imagine differences that don't exist - such is their hypocrisy.
 
The Bible teaches that homosexuals are guilty of grave sin and stand to be separated from God forever unless they repent. The Bible is the foundation of the Christian religion for it is the word of God, God’s revelation to them.
 
Most religion unfairly approves of smoking despite all the deaths and wastage of money and disgust it causes and it certainly is not natural.  And then it would condemn a single gay act that did no harm. Even if it did do harm and serious harm was avoided it would not be as bad as a life of smoking. To say that homosexuality is sinful is a heinous crime against humanity. If it is bad then it follows that the transmission of AIDS by gays is inexcusable. If it were good the AIDS would be a tragic side effect. It would be like wives being said to be good for having babies though giving birth will kill some or even all of them. But if the wives have no excuse for having babies it is different. Religion certainly teaches that gay people have no excuse for having sex. So what is happening is that gays are being accused of deserving the death penalty. They all deserve to die for they promote an evil that leads to death and the human person is the absolute value so to be a practicing homosexual is to be a murderer. If it were only married people who could get AIDS and who get it in marriage the Church would not condemn marriage because of that. So, don’t argue that the Church condemns gays out of love for them and the wish that they will not get AIDS.

Men and women do all sorts of seemingly unnatural acts in bed. Many men and women have nerve endings in their rectums that makes them need and enjoy anal penetration of some kind – a clear proof from nature that homosexuality is natural. Nature must want some of us to have that kind of sexual pleasure. It is not perverted pleasure when nature makes it possible.
 
If sex is for increasing the human race, people should stick to penis-vagina intercourse alone and why does nature not make sure that every act of intercourse between a male and female results in a child? Because sex is about fun more than making babies. We do not regard sex between sterile or contraceptive people as unnatural so we deny that love-making is only for reproduction. We see sex as about making ourselves happy and about having children if we wish and are ready. It is no more unnatural than eating food we do not need for pleasure.
 
When the Church says that sex means that two people are telling one another they will be together for life it follows that pre-marital sex is always unnatural but so hypocritical is the Church that it does not. For a man to sexually desire his wife when she is not aroused would seem to be unnatural for she cannot respond. But the Church does not teach that it is. As chapter 4 of Mortal Questions argues the first level of sexual feeling is arousal by someone who is not aroused and the second is arousal by someone who is with both consenting. It defines perversion as that which gets stuck at the first level and does not progress to the second. That is why bestiality and raping children and flashing are wrong. The Church has to reject this logic for its Bible simply does not care about the wife in marriage. It can’t give convincing reasons against these things so it must take some of the blame when these things happen.  Mortal Questions upholds the view that buggery and oral sex are permissible as long as both partners like them. It says that homosexuality cannot count as a perversion for there is a great deal of variety in man and woman relations anyway.
 
The Catholic Church holds that anal sex and oral sex are unnatural sins and are forbidden for they are not open to life. The man’s duty is to get on top of his wife and stick to putting his penis in her vagina for the missionary position increases the chance of pregnancy. Kissing her breasts must be sinful sexual activity as well for it is not necessary or open to life. It cannot be right for a woman to be pleasured during sex. The man has to just get up on her for sex is about babies so the only thing that matters is penetration and getting sperm in the vagina. Anything else would be inconsistent with sex being for babies. When the Church says sex is only loving when a baby is intended if God so wills, it follows that the holiest sexual acts are those that can result in conception. So going straight for the vagina is the law for a man who claims to love his wife.

It is odd that the Church does not consider a man who finds red hair on a woman a turn-off to be abnormal and does find a man who cannot fancy women at all abnormal. The Church is obviously prejudiced.
 
The Church does not protest when married people snog each other on television or forbid us looking at it. Kissing can convey as much intimacy as sex can and the only reason the Church does not complain about what is an abuse of a sacred act according to its doctrine because people will look on the Church as a society of weird people. For example, if a woman and man were deeply in love and they never made love and the man was dying in a car crash the woman kissing him would convey deeper emotional intimacy that sex needs to have and it would convey as much physical intimacy as she could give him. She is making love to him with her lips and there will be some erotic stimulation. Snogging passes on bodily fluids and there is penetration of some sort, the lips go part of the way into the other person’s mouth and often the tongue is inserted. A person can have sex and pretend he is with somebody else but with kissing this is less likely for it is more difficult.

Christianity panders to social mores for an easy life and picks on gays because society does the same.  It always has done.  The fancy talk about unnatural cannot hide that.