[Claud]

It occurs in human beings, therefore it is natural in human beings. Once again, this has no bearing on its moral value -- the morality of an action or condition has no bearing on whether or not it is "natural". If you disagree, then explain your definition of "natural".

Arguing naturality on the basis of what humans historically do is a tremendously bad idea. As one small example, the minute you admit homosexuality as natural because some humans do it, you have to admit killing homosexuals as well--again, because some humans do it.

C.S. Lewis makes a great point (I think in Mere Christianity) that the one thing everybody around the world agrees on is "we are not what we should be". If you don't accept that idea, then there is no reason for humanity to strive for its own betterment--we're fine the "natural" way we are--and that's the end of it. Yet humanity has been strangely afflicted with this sense that whatever we are now, it is actually "unnatural"--not our true nature.

Morality in the human being is the attempt to recover/restore the nature we indeed SHOULD have had all along. All the religions, ethical and political systems around the world try to do precisely that.

It is our contention in Christianity that homosexuality is outside that original nature: a fact that appears ever more clearly the more one researches the testimonies of those who actually lived it.

[Dimensio]

Arguing naturality on the basis of what humans historically do is a tremendously bad idea. As one small example, the minute you admit homosexuality as natural because some humans do it, you have to admit killing homosexuals as well--again, because some humans do it.

Who said that I disagreed?

I've had two points here. First, that homosexuality is "natural" unless you are using a nonstandard definition of "natural". Second, that "natural" has no bearing on moral value. That homosexuality is "natural" does not make it inherently good, bad or indifferent.

C.S. Lewis makes a great point (I think in Mere Christianity) that the one thing everybody around the world agrees on is "we are not what we should be"

I'm not really sure where this is going...

If you don't accept that idea, then there is no reason for humanity to strive for its own betterment--we're fine the "natural" way we are--and that's the end of it. Yet humanity has been strangely afflicted with this sense that whatever we are now, it is actually "unnatural"--not our true nature.

Really? Why isn't it natural for us to strive to become more than what we are? Unless we start becoming things that exist outside of the natural universe, we remain "natural" entities in a "natural" environment no matter what we do. Again, this has no bearing on the moral value of our actions. Something that is "natural" can be good, it can be bad or it can have no moral assignment at all.

Morality in the human being is the attempt to recover/restore the nature we indeed SHOULD have had all along. All the religions, ethical and political systems around the world try to do precisely that.

And how, exactly, do you determine this "nature we indeed SHOULD have had all along"? What is your method of measurement?

It is our contention in Christianity that homosexuality is outside that original nature: a fact that appears ever more clearly the more one researches the testimonies of those who actually lived it.

Explain.