[bourbon]

Several points:

1) theologian John Finnis ...whatever.
Finnis is a legal philosopher by trade, not a theologian regardless of how Sullivan chooses to classify him.

2) Andrew Sullivan knows about as much about natural law philosophy (traditional or contemporary) as I do about the nuances of the Tagalog language.

3) Sullivan is right that the logical key to the proscription of sodomy is the fact that it is unnatural. What we are currently seeing is the late stages of an intellectual/social movement which has completely redefined "nature" by stripping the concept of its essentially teleological meaning. As a consequence, what used to be considered the ultimate crime against nature is now, according to Sullivan, simply a natural fact that we all just need to deal with.

[Jerez2]

I have never heard of 'sodomy' or 'the crime against nature' as referring to masturbation or any other simply non-procreational sex acts. It refers specifically to anal sex.

Although I tend to be pretty laissez-faire about gays, I can understand why one would consider anal sex a crime against nature. And I think that Nature, repeatedly insulted by an invasion of e.coli where it doesn't belong, has responded with a terrible, deadly virus that destroys the autoimmune system.

As the commercial used to say, you don't mess with Mother Nature! (She IS a Mother, after all!)