>come on standard. the comparison of
>what is "natural' for animals
>and humans is not a
>good one.
>doesnt the female black widow kill
>her male partner?
>not natural to us to do
>that, especially after mating! that
>would be considered SICK to
>humans.

This is the related to the point I was trying to make. I was trying to ask by what standard do you judge "natural". We (most of us, anyway) accept that murder is not natural, as it ends the life of another person. No arguement here.

>dont snakes swallow their food whole
>w/o chewing?
>not natural for us to do
>that. and for those that
>half chew their food, believe
>they have health problems that
>stem from it.

We accept that swallowing food whole (for us) is unnatural...it has unhealthy side effects that we would mostly like to avoid.

>and about hermaphrodites.......
>i was just reading about this
>and how this situation fits
>in islam.
>islam looks to the character of
>the person and the physical
>features. when he or she
>reaches puberty, it becomes known
>to the individual which way
>they are inclined to go,
>but they are not to
>go both ways simply b/c
>they have the MEANS TO.
>the OVERALL inclination of the
>person determines their status in
>society.

Right...which is my point. The hermaphrodite is allowed to follow their NATURAL inclinations. So why is the homosexual forbidden to do the same? If the arguement is that it is UNnatural, by what standard is "natural" being judged?



"I've been very lonely in my isolated tower of indecipherable speech"--Being John Malchovich