[C.J.W.]

"Well, stranger, you certainly know how to jump in here and incite a full-blown flame-war. I strongly suggest that even if you think the advocates of evolution are queer, you ought to keep that to yourself. If you persist in posting that accusation, things will degenerate swiftly....."

I didn't say that. What believers in an ideology of evolutionism are doing is breaking down and merging basic natural law categories such as animal and human, male and female, etc. I mention the fact that it is little wonder that when even conservatives believe such things that civilization is on the decline as represented by acceptance of sexual perversion. All of the classically understood sexual perversions were only defined so on the basis of natural law. All of the distinctions which define them so are broken down in the ideology of evolutionism: male and female (breaking down this distinction is the basis of the perversion homophilia)
life and death (breaking down this distinction is the basis of the perversion necrophilia)
animal and human (breaking down this distinction is the basis of the perversion zoophilia). And so on.

It was a side note to mention the fact that when even conservatives do not believe in the distinct categories that define perversion that social acceptance of perversion is more common.

[js1138]

So all you are really saying is that evolution is a perversion, and that arguing for evolution is just like arguing for perversion?

[atlaw]

"All of the classically understood sexual perversions were only defined so on the basis of natural law."

I'm aware of the neo-classical and post-modern sexual perversions, which are defined in the Perversion Code, Section 2.4(b)(iii), of the 1978 Federal Register, but I can't presently recall the classically understood sexual perversions. Can you provide a list?