You've demonstrated your mean spiritedness right here in this forum. I quoted you several times and it rolls off your back like water off a duck. A relative vouching for you means less than what I've witnessed. And chances are if you don't recognize how insulting you've been here there surely are other times when you insult people and refuse to recognize it. Or you think your qualified to speak for god to other people.
I guess that's part of how you can be insulted by your relatives view of your religion despite the fact that you consider him "deviant, twisted, unnatural and of no benefit to society". It doesn't really matter if you haven't articulated to them that you think they are twisted and unnatural. If your comfortable insulting people here like that you should be fine with similar criticism.
It really is galling to hear someone outright insult others and in the same post say that others should tolerate it.
At first I was put off by your putting the word science in quotes but your understanding of science deserves them. Your logic is very spurious. Just because humans reproduce heterosexually doesn't mean homosexuality is unnatural by any stretch. Quite the contrary, in nature we see gay relationships in many species. Its very natural. Not as common as heterosexuality but it's been around, well, pretty much forever.
All you have to back up your opinion is your view of the bible. And many people who believe in the bible have a different view than you. And beyond that most people don't even believe in the bible. Which by definition makes it a deviant belief. And your understanding of it seems twisted and unnatural and I can't help but wonder what the benefit to society is in generating such ill will in your fellow humans.
You've demonstrated your mean spiritedness right here in this forum. I quoted you several times and it rolls off your back like water off a duck. A relative vouching for you means less than what I've witnessed. And chances are if you don't recognize how insulting you've been here there surely are other times when you insult people and refuse to recognize it. Or you think your qualified to speak for god to other people.
I guess that's part of how you can be insulted by your relatives view of your religion despite the fact that you consider him "deviant, twisted, unnatural and of no benefit to society". It doesn't really matter if you haven't articulated to them that you think they are twisted and unnatural. If your comfortable insulting people here like that you should be fine with similar criticism.
It really is galling to hear someone outright insult others and in the same post say that others should tolerate it.
At first I was put off by your putting the word science in quotes but your understanding of science deserves them. Your logic is very spurious. Just because humans reproduce heterosexually doesn't mean homosexuality is unnatural by any stretch. Quite the contrary, in nature we see gay relationships in many species. Its very natural. Not as common as heterosexuality but it's been around, well, pretty much forever.
All you have to back up your opinion is your view of the bible. And many people who believe in the bible have a different view than you. And beyond that most people don't even believe in the bible. Which by definition makes it a deviant belief. And your understanding of it seems twisted and unnatural and I can't help but wonder what the benefit to society is in generating such ill will in your fellow humans.
First, you misunderstand that I am not devaluing the person but the act of homosexuality. Homosexuality should not be celebrated or valued. I understand it seems by default I am devaluing the person, but in actuality it a the opposite.
You say my statements are insulting, but I view you putting humans on the same level as animals as extremely insulting to the human race. Humans are MUCH more valuable than that. We are God's greatest creation because we were created "in His image" (or likeness). This brings incredible value to our lives - not just in this life but for all eternity.
Jesus often offended people as He spoke the truth. John the Baptist (who Jesus called the greatest of men up to that time) was beheaded for condemning the marriage of King Herod to his brother Phillip's wife.
There are things God will judge men for and he has called His followers to warn others while sharing the good news that there is NO condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.
You, and many others, may want a world where there is no God but that will NEVER happen. You'll get close, but God will prevail. I've often heard that Hell is simply where God is not - granting the wish of countless millions during their lives to escape the presence of God. But a place where God is not present is a place with no comfort, no love, and no hope (to name only a few). Imagine if all 3 of those were eliminated from your life forever.
Don't automatically accept society's way. God says if you seek Him you WILL find Him. His love is truly great but in order to appreciate how great, we need to know what condition we're in and how far He's come to rescue us.
Which summed up, is all about love. Consider your definition of love is actually more like a need for acceptance and that is why you (and others) view what I say with such contempt.
You say my statements are insulting, but I view you putting humans on the same level as animals as extremely insulting to the human race. Humans are MUCH more valuable than that. We are God's greatest creation because we were created "in His image" (or likeness). This brings incredible value to our lives - not just in this life but for all eternity.
They are very insulting along with your poke and jab arguments. First you say homosexuality is unnatural but once that is proven to be natural you divert the argument and ignore your mistake.
Homosexuality is in nature everywhere. Homosexuality is natural. By extension (using YOUR logic not mine), homosexuality was created by god.
Smurfman, as you say the homosexuality is unnatural, do you know your PC was created by a gay and Atheist called Alan Turing? Why are you using your social networks, your iProducts and your PC if you condemn Apple, Microsoft, Google and Facebook for making apology to the Atheism and the homosexuality? Would you like me to accuse your Christian religion of unnatural and criminal? Of course, your religion is. If you deny, would you like me to show all the crimes of your religion since 1 a.C. until today? You said God doesn't hate the gays, but I don't believe in His love or in your Christian love. Why? I would show all the contradictions of God's love in the Old Testament and and of course, in the New Testament.
Homosexuality is in nature everywhere. Homosexuality is natural.
Natural/unnatural would be the wrong word to take issue with. Lots of things happen in nature like cannibalism, eating raw meat, sexual interaction with young, incest, killing, feces throwing, cleaning by licking. Those would all be described as natural but none of them tolerated by humans. Maybe cleaning by licking but not in public.
There are lots of instincts that come naturally but the issue is down to what people tolerate and I'd say it relates to perceived harm. That tends to drive revulsion. Like if you think food is bad, you are put off because of the perceived harm it will do by eating it. Children don't have this built-in and they will happily play with and even eat their own feces, they will run into a fire or traffic until they are taught otherwise.
Some form of conditioning leads people to feel revulsion over uncommon partnerships, even legal ones such as when Jerry Seinfeld dated a 17 year old girl when he was 39:
If she had been 15, that would have been illegal and people would be even more put off by it but why would such a small difference in age cause such a huge difference in perception? It's just conditioning. Same with Anna Nicole Smith 39 married to a 90 year old billionaire (check the smooching photo here if you dare):
Part of the harm I think people see in those relationships is if they have kids, the older person could end up too old to raise kids adequately and there's the obvious difference in physical attractiveness.
We don't tolerate people being together who are too closely related such as here:
Both consenting adults but it turned out they were twins separated at birth and brother and sister so their marriage was annulled. This sort of thing could happen quite easily - look at Steve Jobs not finding out he had a sister until he was 27. They could have made out with each other and not known they were related. If two homosexuals were related (e.g brothers, father-son, sisters, mother-daughter), would that cause similar revulsion given that they can't reproduce? The revulsion with close relations comes from the probability of birth defects. The fact that people have a single biological mother and father tends to give that union a higher degree of importance and acceptance because it's the only union that prolongs the human race and is responsible for people's genetic heritage. Other forms of union are more recreational. This is evident from people in adult entertainment who identify as straight (not bisexual) but perform in gay scenes.
One thing I've found interesting is that male to male relationships are viewed differently from female to female. Adult sites actually put female with female under the straight category because they appeal to straight men. However, it turns out that straight women like male with male (even in books) so they'd have to look under the gay category:
Someone actually left reviews on Amazon saying they liked the story and characters. Male/female is obviously not the only acceptable form of fantasy scenario.
For every kind of union that is described, everyone internally makes decisions that say whether it's right or wrong. Can you marry two women, no; can you sleep with two women, yes; can you sleep with a 15 year old, no it's abhorrent; can you sleep with a 16 year old, yeah knock yourself out.
It's obvious we don't accept any kind of union and simply using a rule of two consenting adults above an arbitrary age doesn't go far enough, it's just another rule that complies with someone's own sense of comfort.
Is there any perceived harm in homosexual relationships that justifies an objection to them? As far as the union itself goes, there really isn't anything harmful about it and it's more harmful to express objection towards it because people are suffering as a result. When it comes to reproduction, a homosexual couple can only produce children that have genes from a 3rd party and one of the partners and so there is likely some conditioning there that makes people see it as objectionable. This is changing though the more that people accept sexual interaction as recreational and not primarily reproductive:
"In 1957, University of Michigan psychology professors Joseph Veroff, Elizabeth Douvan, and Richard Kulka released a survey that examined American attitudes to being single. The findings were stark: 80% of those surveyed believed that people who preferred being unmarried were “sick,” “immoral,” or “neurotic.” At a time when more than 70% of adults were married, it’s not surprising that people would express a preference for wedded life. But the scorn certainly sounds jarring to contemporary ears.
Oh, how things have changed. Americans are now within mere percentage points of being a majority single nation: Only 51% of adults today are married, according to census data. And 28% of all households now consist of just one person — the highest level in U.S. history."
In a few European countries religion is noted as being as low as 20% vs 60% in the US. This change won't happen overnight, people can't be easily reconditioned to accept something they've spent an entire lifetime rejecting. It will happen across generations. There's a video here showing kids' reactions to homosexuality:
[VIDEO]
They will be more accepting than past generations but some kids still had objections. The difficulty is how do you ever take away the conditioning that all kids go through? The conditioning that girls and boys are separated and dress differently. The reason for the separation is because they are attracted to each other and kids aren't meant to be fooling around with each other. How do you enforce that kind of separation once you introduce another two forms of attraction? The story I posted in another thread about the gender reassignment of a 5 year old shows how difficult this can be:
That kid likely won't have surgery until they are much older so they have the physical body of a girl while behaving like and interacting with boys. Some people would say that's wrong to do that but again, they are simply making decisions for other people. It's up to individuals to express what their attractions are and other people simply work around that. There's a teenage couple here who both changed gender together:
The girl apparently didn't feel right in herself when she was 7 or 8 years old and told her mother at 15. The couple aren't considered gay because they are dating opposite genders.
What is clear is that everyone draws a line at what they are willing to tolerate. At some point, everyone deems some form of union to be objectionable to them. What makes someone's line any more valid than another? There are many clear indicators to determine harmful unions so we can at least approach some form of consensus but there are a lot of grey areas.
I think at a very basic level, we have to accept that human development is driven by very random biological events and not some overarching purposeful system governed by fixed rules on what's acceptable and this creates uncommon scenarios that people have to adapt to:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
Combinations of genes and environmental conditioning are going to produce physical and emotional outcomes that are uncommon. Someone living with those results doesn't benefit from being ostracised but there are many unions that people would still be happy to reject such as the married twins above. The consensus that society reaches will never please everyone.
They will be more accepting than past generations but some kids still had objections. The difficulty is how do you ever take away the conditioning that all kids go through?
Education is one way, I think we all change our views to some extent throughout our lives, but overall we see tend to see changes from generation to generation. Unfortunately this seems to also lead to people so upset with acceptance of nature that we also end up getting nutcases that will push the other direction to compensate which can lead to additional issues. Fortunately those people tend to be few and far between.
“If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” —Pope Francis
PS: You didn't mention hermaphrodites. If one can be born physically with both sex organs are they then only actual bi-sexuals according to the "your sex organs determine what your natural attraction is" theorists?
PPS: We know that you can change the gender of chickens by altering the temperature in which the eggs are incubated at a certain point in the development so perhaps it's possible that environment conditions play a role in sexual orientation. Then there is a frog DNA from Jurassic Park that can allowed the dinosaur to change its sex after its birth. Humans are too complex for that to happen but what if homosexuality occurs more often in utero in more congested societies and/or where resources are more limited as a way a biological mechanism to help reduce future population growth. Who will take that as scripture?
It is simply beyond obvious (to be direct) that a vagina is made for the males penis in both producing pleasure but especially for the reproductive process.
I don't think gay men or women are trying to get each other pregnant, so what is the relevance? Plus, gay love is not all about sex.
Aside from that, the list of things that men will put their penis in to get pleasure is a very long list, and probably gets a new addition every day. The vagina is certainly not alone in it's ability to produce pleasure, nor is it unheard of for heterosexual sex to be uncomfortable and to cause tearing and other unpleasantries. And don't forget that the male G spot isn't in the penis, it's behind the prostate and next to the rectum, so very stimulated by anal sex. Meanwhile the female G spot is more often easier to hit with fingers than it is with a penis.
And modern science means we don't even need to have sex to reproduce. Imagine that! Isn't God's earth amazing?!
You didn't mention hermaphrodites. If one can be born physically with both sex organs are they then only actual bi-sexuals according to the "your sex organs determine what your natural attraction is" theorists?
I imagine people would consider that person's partner bisexual but yeah, if they had the idea that someone born with one organ should be attracted to the opposite, they'd have to assume people with both are attracted to both. It's complicated. When babies start to develop in the womb, they appear to have the same organs and then they develop in two different ways. Sometimes it doesn't go one way or the other completely but they are typically only functionally one gender. It's rare but possible for someone to have fully developed male and female organs so they have to decide which to identify as. Someone intersex changed their gender identity 3 times:
Started as a boy, changed to live as a girl during teens without surgery, then at 20 lived as a man, married a woman but the marriage failed then at 28 found out they were intersex and changed to live as a woman with surgery.
"As many as one in 2,000 people do not have clearly sexually-defined genitalia or physical characteristics."
It's clear there is at least some separation between sexual orientation, gender identity and physical characteristics but they have to influence each other in some way.
We know that you can change the gender of chickens by altering the temperature in which the eggs are incubated at a certain point in the development so perhaps it's possible that environment conditions play a role in sexual orientation.
Given that people change sexual orientation suggests that environmental factors play a role but it's not an overnight switch and hormones have a part in it too. People who change gender are given hormone replacement therapy and some people have said it has changed their preferences:
Some people say sexual orientation is not a choice but choice is the wrong word as it implies a short timeframe. You don't choose one day to like ice-cream and then the next day change your mind. Over a period of time, you can develop different likes and dislikes. This means heterosexuality develops the same way as well as sexual attractions that are considered deviant or illegal. Sexual behaviour doesn't show up until at least a few years into childhood so there's lots of environmental and hormonal conditioning before that happens. I'd say the reason that heterosexuality is so dominant is simply because it's the only one that prolongs life and that's what evolution promotes. Every human being that has ever existed has done so because of the union of a male and female. I suspect this will keep pushing alternative orientations into a small minority, which will make it harder to gain acceptance than with race. People can't experiment with race the way they do sexuality so it's much more well-defined and in far greater numbers. Women have experimented with women:
Comments
[IMG]http://iacknowledge.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Anti-Gay-1.jpg[/IMG]
You've demonstrated your mean spiritedness right here in this forum. I quoted you several times and it rolls off your back like water off a duck. A relative vouching for you means less than what I've witnessed. And chances are if you don't recognize how insulting you've been here there surely are other times when you insult people and refuse to recognize it. Or you think your qualified to speak for god to other people.
I guess that's part of how you can be insulted by your relatives view of your religion despite the fact that you consider him "deviant, twisted, unnatural and of no benefit to society". It doesn't really matter if you haven't articulated to them that you think they are twisted and unnatural. If your comfortable insulting people here like that you should be fine with similar criticism.
It really is galling to hear someone outright insult others and in the same post say that others should tolerate it.
At first I was put off by your putting the word science in quotes but your understanding of science deserves them. Your logic is very spurious. Just because humans reproduce heterosexually doesn't mean homosexuality is unnatural by any stretch. Quite the contrary, in nature we see gay relationships in many species. Its very natural. Not as common as heterosexuality but it's been around, well, pretty much forever.
All you have to back up your opinion is your view of the bible. And many people who believe in the bible have a different view than you. And beyond that most people don't even believe in the bible. Which by definition makes it a deviant belief. And your understanding of it seems twisted and unnatural and I can't help but wonder what the benefit to society is in generating such ill will in your fellow humans.
First, you misunderstand that I am not devaluing the person but the act of homosexuality. Homosexuality should not be celebrated or valued. I understand it seems by default I am devaluing the person, but in actuality it a the opposite.
You say my statements are insulting, but I view you putting humans on the same level as animals as extremely insulting to the human race. Humans are MUCH more valuable than that. We are God's greatest creation because we were created "in His image" (or likeness). This brings incredible value to our lives - not just in this life but for all eternity.
Jesus often offended people as He spoke the truth. John the Baptist (who Jesus called the greatest of men up to that time) was beheaded for condemning the marriage of King Herod to his brother Phillip's wife.
There are things God will judge men for and he has called His followers to warn others while sharing the good news that there is NO condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.
You, and many others, may want a world where there is no God but that will NEVER happen. You'll get close, but God will prevail. I've often heard that Hell is simply where God is not - granting the wish of countless millions during their lives to escape the presence of God. But a place where God is not present is a place with no comfort, no love, and no hope (to name only a few). Imagine if all 3 of those were eliminated from your life forever.
Don't automatically accept society's way. God says if you seek Him you WILL find Him. His love is truly great but in order to appreciate how great, we need to know what condition we're in and how far He's come to rescue us.
Which summed up, is all about love. Consider your definition of love is actually more like a need for acceptance and that is why you (and others) view what I say with such contempt.
Still waiting for all those sermons Jesus had regarding homosexuality as being unnatural.
You say my statements are insulting, but I view you putting humans on the same level as animals as extremely insulting to the human race. Humans are MUCH more valuable than that. We are God's greatest creation because we were created "in His image" (or likeness). This brings incredible value to our lives - not just in this life but for all eternity.
They are very insulting along with your poke and jab arguments. First you say homosexuality is unnatural but once that is proven to be natural you divert the argument and ignore your mistake.
Homosexuality is in nature everywhere. Homosexuality is natural. By extension (using YOUR logic not mine), homosexuality was created by god.
(...)
Smurfman, as you say the homosexuality is unnatural, do you know your PC was created by a gay and Atheist called Alan Turing? Why are you using your social networks, your iProducts and your PC if you condemn Apple, Microsoft, Google and Facebook for making apology to the Atheism and the homosexuality? Would you like me to accuse your Christian religion of unnatural and criminal? Of course, your religion is. If you deny, would you like me to show all the crimes of your religion since 1 a.C. until today? You said God doesn't hate the gays, but I don't believe in His love or in your Christian love. Why? I would show all the contradictions of God's love in the Old Testament and and of course, in the New Testament.
Natural/unnatural would be the wrong word to take issue with. Lots of things happen in nature like cannibalism, eating raw meat, sexual interaction with young, incest, killing, feces throwing, cleaning by licking. Those would all be described as natural but none of them tolerated by humans. Maybe cleaning by licking but not in public.
There are lots of instincts that come naturally but the issue is down to what people tolerate and I'd say it relates to perceived harm. That tends to drive revulsion. Like if you think food is bad, you are put off because of the perceived harm it will do by eating it. Children don't have this built-in and they will happily play with and even eat their own feces, they will run into a fire or traffic until they are taught otherwise.
Some form of conditioning leads people to feel revulsion over uncommon partnerships, even legal ones such as when Jerry Seinfeld dated a 17 year old girl when he was 39:
http://imgur.com/gallery/RHclO
If she had been 15, that would have been illegal and people would be even more put off by it but why would such a small difference in age cause such a huge difference in perception? It's just conditioning. Same with Anna Nicole Smith 39 married to a 90 year old billionaire (check the smooching photo here if you dare):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2333657/1billion-dollar-baby-Anna-Nicole-Smiths-year-old-daughter-Dannielynn-finally-late-mothers-fortune-new-ruling-Californian-judge.html
Part of the harm I think people see in those relationships is if they have kids, the older person could end up too old to raise kids adequately and there's the obvious difference in physical attractiveness.
We don't tolerate people being together who are too closely related such as here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7182817.stm
Both consenting adults but it turned out they were twins separated at birth and brother and sister so their marriage was annulled. This sort of thing could happen quite easily - look at Steve Jobs not finding out he had a sister until he was 27. They could have made out with each other and not known they were related. If two homosexuals were related (e.g brothers, father-son, sisters, mother-daughter), would that cause similar revulsion given that they can't reproduce? The revulsion with close relations comes from the probability of birth defects. The fact that people have a single biological mother and father tends to give that union a higher degree of importance and acceptance because it's the only union that prolongs the human race and is responsible for people's genetic heritage. Other forms of union are more recreational. This is evident from people in adult entertainment who identify as straight (not bisexual) but perform in gay scenes.
One thing I've found interesting is that male to male relationships are viewed differently from female to female. Adult sites actually put female with female under the straight category because they appeal to straight men. However, it turns out that straight women like male with male (even in books) so they'd have to look under the gay category:
http://metro.co.uk/2008/10/14/women-who-like-to-watch-gay-porn-30888/
http://gawker.com/5615899/why-are-straight-women-so-obsessed-with-gay-sex
There are even books that have stories about dragons, werewolves, dinosaurs seducing women made for women:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/so-theres-an-author-on-amazon-who-writes-erotic-novels-about
Someone actually left reviews on Amazon saying they liked the story and characters. Male/female is obviously not the only acceptable form of fantasy scenario.
For every kind of union that is described, everyone internally makes decisions that say whether it's right or wrong. Can you marry two women, no; can you sleep with two women, yes; can you sleep with a 15 year old, no it's abhorrent; can you sleep with a 16 year old, yeah knock yourself out.
It's obvious we don't accept any kind of union and simply using a rule of two consenting adults above an arbitrary age doesn't go far enough, it's just another rule that complies with someone's own sense of comfort.
Is there any perceived harm in homosexual relationships that justifies an objection to them? As far as the union itself goes, there really isn't anything harmful about it and it's more harmful to express objection towards it because people are suffering as a result. When it comes to reproduction, a homosexual couple can only produce children that have genes from a 3rd party and one of the partners and so there is likely some conditioning there that makes people see it as objectionable. This is changing though the more that people accept sexual interaction as recreational and not primarily reproductive:
http://fortune.com/2012/01/25/solo-nation-american-consumers-stay-single/
"In 1957, University of Michigan psychology professors Joseph Veroff, Elizabeth Douvan, and Richard Kulka released a survey that examined American attitudes to being single. The findings were stark: 80% of those surveyed believed that people who preferred being unmarried were “sick,” “immoral,” or “neurotic.” At a time when more than 70% of adults were married, it’s not surprising that people would express a preference for wedded life. But the scorn certainly sounds jarring to contemporary ears.
Oh, how things have changed. Americans are now within mere percentage points of being a majority single nation: Only 51% of adults today are married, according to census data. And 28% of all households now consist of just one person — the highest level in U.S. history."
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/25/childlessness-up-among-all-women-down-among-women-with-advanced-degrees/
"Nearly one-in-five American women ends her childbearing years without having borne a child, compared with one-in-ten in the 1970s."
This is coinciding with a decline in religion:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/culture-lifestyle/world-religion/130602/europe-church-mosque-christianity-islam-religious-crisis
In a few European countries religion is noted as being as low as 20% vs 60% in the US. This change won't happen overnight, people can't be easily reconditioned to accept something they've spent an entire lifetime rejecting. It will happen across generations. There's a video here showing kids' reactions to homosexuality:
[VIDEO]
They will be more accepting than past generations but some kids still had objections. The difficulty is how do you ever take away the conditioning that all kids go through? The conditioning that girls and boys are separated and dress differently. The reason for the separation is because they are attracted to each other and kids aren't meant to be fooling around with each other. How do you enforce that kind of separation once you introduce another two forms of attraction? The story I posted in another thread about the gender reassignment of a 5 year old shows how difficult this can be:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2643231/When-family-dies-I-cut-hair-I-boy-Parents-share-story-having-transgender-child-let-change-gender-aged-just-FIVE.html
That kid likely won't have surgery until they are much older so they have the physical body of a girl while behaving like and interacting with boys. Some people would say that's wrong to do that but again, they are simply making decisions for other people. It's up to individuals to express what their attractions are and other people simply work around that. There's a teenage couple here who both changed gender together:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/23/transgender-teenage-couple-arin-andrews-katie-hill_n_3639220.html
The girl apparently didn't feel right in herself when she was 7 or 8 years old and told her mother at 15. The couple aren't considered gay because they are dating opposite genders.
What is clear is that everyone draws a line at what they are willing to tolerate. At some point, everyone deems some form of union to be objectionable to them. What makes someone's line any more valid than another? There are many clear indicators to determine harmful unions so we can at least approach some form of consensus but there are a lot of grey areas.
I think at a very basic level, we have to accept that human development is driven by very random biological events and not some overarching purposeful system governed by fixed rules on what's acceptable and this creates uncommon scenarios that people have to adapt to:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
Combinations of genes and environmental conditioning are going to produce physical and emotional outcomes that are uncommon. Someone living with those results doesn't benefit from being ostracised but there are many unions that people would still be happy to reject such as the married twins above. The consensus that society reaches will never please everyone.
Education is one way, I think we all change our views to some extent throughout our lives, but overall we see tend to see changes from generation to generation. Unfortunately this seems to also lead to people so upset with acceptance of nature that we also end up getting nutcases that will push the other direction to compensate which can lead to additional issues. Fortunately those people tend to be few and far between.
“If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” —Pope Francis
PS: You didn't mention hermaphrodites. If one can be born physically with both sex organs are they then only actual bi-sexuals according to the "your sex organs determine what your natural attraction is" theorists?
PPS: We know that you can change the gender of chickens by altering the temperature in which the eggs are incubated at a certain point in the development so perhaps it's possible that environment conditions play a role in sexual orientation. Then there is a frog DNA from Jurassic Park that can allowed the dinosaur to change its sex after its birth. Humans are too complex for that to happen but what if homosexuality occurs more often in utero in more congested societies and/or where resources are more limited as a way a biological mechanism to help reduce future population growth. Who will take that as scripture?
It is simply beyond obvious (to be direct) that a vagina is made for the males penis in both producing pleasure but especially for the reproductive process.
I don't think gay men or women are trying to get each other pregnant, so what is the relevance? Plus, gay love is not all about sex.
Aside from that, the list of things that men will put their penis in to get pleasure is a very long list, and probably gets a new addition every day. The vagina is certainly not alone in it's ability to produce pleasure, nor is it unheard of for heterosexual sex to be uncomfortable and to cause tearing and other unpleasantries. And don't forget that the male G spot isn't in the penis, it's behind the prostate and next to the rectum, so very stimulated by anal sex. Meanwhile the female G spot is more often easier to hit with fingers than it is with a penis.
And modern science means we don't even need to have sex to reproduce. Imagine that! Isn't God's earth amazing?!
I imagine people would consider that person's partner bisexual but yeah, if they had the idea that someone born with one organ should be attracted to the opposite, they'd have to assume people with both are attracted to both. It's complicated. When babies start to develop in the womb, they appear to have the same organs and then they develop in two different ways. Sometimes it doesn't go one way or the other completely but they are typically only functionally one gender. It's rare but possible for someone to have fully developed male and female organs so they have to decide which to identify as. Someone intersex changed their gender identity 3 times:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2109384/Ive-changed-gender-times-Young-woman-reveals-she-intersex-28.html
Started as a boy, changed to live as a girl during teens without surgery, then at 20 lived as a man, married a woman but the marriage failed then at 28 found out they were intersex and changed to live as a woman with surgery.
"As many as one in 2,000 people do not have clearly sexually-defined genitalia or physical characteristics."
It's clear there is at least some separation between sexual orientation, gender identity and physical characteristics but they have to influence each other in some way.
Given that people change sexual orientation suggests that environmental factors play a role but it's not an overnight switch and hormones have a part in it too. People who change gender are given hormone replacement therapy and some people have said it has changed their preferences:
http://www.tgboards.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=14902
Some people say sexual orientation is not a choice but choice is the wrong word as it implies a short timeframe. You don't choose one day to like ice-cream and then the next day change your mind. Over a period of time, you can develop different likes and dislikes. This means heterosexuality develops the same way as well as sexual attractions that are considered deviant or illegal. Sexual behaviour doesn't show up until at least a few years into childhood so there's lots of environmental and hormonal conditioning before that happens. I'd say the reason that heterosexuality is so dominant is simply because it's the only one that prolongs life and that's what evolution promotes. Every human being that has ever existed has done so because of the union of a male and female. I suspect this will keep pushing alternative orientations into a small minority, which will make it harder to gain acceptance than with race. People can't experiment with race the way they do sexuality so it's much more well-defined and in far greater numbers. Women have experimented with women:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/30/cameron-diaz-lesbian-relationship_n_5237549.html
but they can't experiment being black or hispanic so I think it's going to be a longer process to work through and may never fully resolve itself.