Homosexuality is not Immoral

I appreciate your response on some of the things we are commanded to do that are natural. I believe that you are correct that sex, Love, And fellowship are commands, But unfortunately in light of scripture, They are not natural to me. Sex natural, Right? Except it is not so natural when even looking at a woman lustfully is equated with adultery. Love is pretty easy, And natural, Except when I am commanded to love my enemies, Including those that curse me, Hate me, Despitefully use and persecute me. Fellowship falls into the love one as well. Maybe these full commandments are easy or natural for others, But I have a hard time loving, Or fellowship people I don't really like, And especially one person that really hurt me. I list these above, And in the first post to demonstrate that natural does not mean moral, And may in fact mean the opposite (The Selfish Gene). P1. Morality is a rational enterprise - I'll go with it for the sake of this argument P2. Moral disagreements are based on factual inaccuracies not moral differences. The premise may be a true statement, Though I believe this is faulty as you note the factual inaccuracies refers as some people thinking something is unnatural though it may be natural. My premise is that religiously defined morality (most secular as well) generally chooses the unnatural path as the moral one. The natural or easy path has little to do with what is moral. As P2 is not factual, The conclusion would not be either. P3. Negative views based on inaccuracies not moral differences. As I believe P2 is faulty, I would not need to address this, Though I can refer to my thought above that just because something is natural does not make it moral. Also, Most people I know believe homosexuality is an innate characteristic, And attempts to change orientation is futile. They instead advocate celibacy. As many people are not factually inaccurate, This argument would also be invalid. The second syllogism P1 seems to hang on the premise that marriage is about love. If it is not about love, It seems this argument would fall apart. In today's society, Marriage has become defined by love, But this has had some disastrous results. If marriage is solely about love, And nothing more, Why stay together when someone falls out of love? "Won't someone please think of the Children? " (Helen Lovejoy). Our divorce rate is atrocious in this nation and has major societal consequences. Per yours and my scriptures again, If you divorce and remarry, You commit adultery (with some justifications for divorce and remarriage). I do not think that marriage is about love, Though it does contain love, But it is much more. Love prior to the time of marriage is a pretty recent phenomenon, And is still not universal throughout the world. P2 All sorts of immoral behaviors have been justified by the survival argument. We should attack them before they decide to attack us. If we do not join the 1940s Nazi party, Our family may be jailed, Or worse. We're lost and I'm hungry, Cannibalism anyone? Sometimes wrong is wrong, Even if it increases our chances of survival. I believe that in syllogism (not my forte), If any of the two premises can be shown to be false, The conclusion must be false, As such, I believe that both syllogisms contain faults, Which would make any conclusion invalid.