Replies

the laws of nature

Were the laws of nature violated when Luther Burbank, inspired by Darwin's work, invented new varieties of potatoes, plums, prunes, apples, cherries, peaches, quinces, nectarines, tomatoes, corn, asparagus, squash, peas, and various flowers?

The dictionary, for instance, classifies the peach as "Prunus persica" and the nectarine as "Prunus persica var. nectarina," indicating commonality with some differences.

Given that, doesn't it make sense to speculate in human terms such as Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens, var. homosexual?

Obviously, the laws of nature can be harnessed for the benefit of the human race (electricity, nuclear power, etc.) Our spiritual quest as human beings is to, first of all, understand what those laws/universal principles are. To me, that is the purpose of religion. Not to construct "castles in the air," but rather to understand the First Cause.

If we can agree that we did not create ourselves but rather are created beings, then we might also agree that the creator/First Cause had a purpose or reason for creating everything. That is all religion does, really, try to explain the purpose of human existence by trying to offer glimpses into the mind and will of the First Cause.

Anyway, the efforts of Luther Burbank did not violate any of nature's laws but rather discovered new applications of them. By contrast, a homosexual man can ejaculate over and over again into another man's body and will never create a new human life. He will never extend his own lineage, never make his parents grandparents.

I mean, that's one of the biggest problems with homosexual activity -- it can certainly be done and HAS been done by many, many people. But it's an aberrant use of a natural function. Kind of like inhaling nicotine into one's lungs. Millions of people enjoy doing that, but nobody can deny that it's a misuse of the lungs and thus usually leads to disease. It's still very enjoyable but certainly not "natural."