glassjester said:
Celibacy is a choice. It's not a psychological aversion.
To go with the analogy to eating - anorexia is not the same as fasting.
Yes, it is a choice. But following your own logic, you would have to claim that it is a disorderly choice if you are to be consistent. You are claiming that living your life in a way that avoids attempting to procreate with someone of the opposite sex is disorderly. Disorder is a question of what effect something has, whether it is a choice or biologically determined does not really factor into that.
Sure, certain disorderly behaviors in individuals could help the species. But that wouldn't make the individual less disordered. For example, I bet rape has played a big part in human survival during certain points in history (and pre-history). But I'd still call rape disorderly - wouldn't you?
You are catching on. Do you now see why your argument from nature is problematic? I think nature and teleology (teleology is mostly read into nature by humans, and it differs based on what conceptual and cultural assumptions we go into it with) is a terrible guide to what is moral. I simply demolished your argument on your own terms. I have no need for a teleological argument for homosexuality. Rape harms individuals, homosexuality does not. Yeah, you can bring up STDs and whatnot, STDs is due to organisms that are essentially parasites on sexual reproduction. It affects heterosexual as well as homosexuals. Homosexuality is not inherently harmful to anyone, rape is.
And how do you know the species survived because of those disordered behaviors, rather than in spite of them?
Where do I claim to KNOW this? It is a hypothesis. I think it is likely that it must serve, or have served, some function in terms of reproductive fitness at group level, because it is obviously detrimental in terms of reproductive fitness at the individual level. A trait that is so detrimental of reproductive fitness at the individual is likely to have a positive effect at some other level if it is to survive, otherwise how do you explain its continuing existence in multiple species in multiple phylogenetic branches?
Plenty of disorderly behaviors (pica, pedophilia, kleptomania, etc) are present in our species - they've been successfully passed along throughout or evolution - but they're still disorders. Right?
See above. You are the one that insist on arguing from nature. These are just more examples of why arguing from nature to morality is a bad idea. I have no need for a teleological argument for homosexuality. As far as I am concerned, homosexuality is morally neutral. Homosexuality qua homosexuality causes no harm, nor does it provide any special moral benefit. You are the one with the burden of evidence, since you are making the claim that it is disorderly and thus immoral. What you have presented here, interestingly enough, only further undermines your original line of reasoning. Do you really have a compelling argument or do you just feel obligated to try because your religion condemns it? Not that I have much more respect for the "because the Bible says so" argument, as it proceeds from such a superficial and ignorant view of the Bible.
lain: to :AMR: to :freak: and quite possibly :dunce: 
