The Fall is historically, scientifically and narratively implausible. That's why so many Christians now regard it as an allegory. It would take several whole other threads to properly address the problems of treating Genesis literally, so i'll just say that i consider the Fall an extremely poor explanation for anything.
According to question begging evolutionists. And assertions from an atheist don't move me particularly. It was simply to show that such things are indeed within the
literal Biblical explanatory which
many more Christians accept.
You could say that, but it would simply show that you dont know what you're talking about. Animals in the wild form same-sex pairings, engage in anal sex, and raise offspring together. If that isn't homosexuality then nothing is.
Not really, as I have indeed heard arguments that such acts have little to do with 'sex' itself, and can be attributed heavily to conditions of captivity than in the more 'natural' environments. But regardless animals also masturbate, run around naked, take care of their 'buisness' anywhere they please, and kill/eat each other (and their young sometimes). So I think it's more than fair to point out that the equivalent behaviour of a mongrel dog is not something Mankind should emulate.
i am not making that argument or anything like it. i am saying that if animals do it then 1) it is difficult to attribute that to human sin
Not so difficult in fact.
and 2) it is even more difficult to substantiate arguments that homosexuality is a choice and "not natural".
And there we have it. You deny, yet we can see right here you do indeed point to animal behaviour as being some kind of measuring tool to say 'it's ok', or in this case 'it's just natural'. With the only logical conclusion to 'it's natural' being 'it's ok' (your comment of being natural not being ok addressed below).
Sadly for you I've yet to know of anyone has been dragged kicking and screaming by their sexual organs, so for human beings, who have the ability to reason and ignore baser impulses, it's more a matter of choice than you'd like to believe.
Not all things that are natural are good, incidentally, something which anti-homosexual writers often appear to forget, but homosexuality is natural in every meaningful sense of the word, and does not appear to be a matter of choice.
Heh. I'd like to see how you justify something that's "natural" according to your guideless evolutionary belief not being "good" at the same time. As if there was some transcendant standard of what constitutes 'good'.
Incidently this is just more proof by assertion, but it seems you cut your own argument off at the feet DB. If you're going to hold that homosexuality
is "natural" and not all natural things being 'good' at the same time, I don't see what leg you have to stand on to support homosexuality as you've made the issue of choice or not being moot. So I'm afraid a rather weak denial about 'natural' not being 'ok' just won't cut it as the alternative leads to the nonsensical, and your continued use of pointing to animal behaviour and asserting it as natural so forcefully can ONLY be seen as an attempt to justify the behaviour.
