Other animals don't have intellect or will? That's an awfully flimsy (and wrong) assumption to base an argument off.
What is meant by "intellect" is the ability to reason and make laws by means of concepts, abstractions and definitions; to be able to discern the truth value of propositions, ideas, etc. What is meant by "will" is the ability to derive, through means of reasoning, moral truths from concepts, abstractions, definitions, etc via the intellect. As you would hopefully agree, animals aren't capable of these actions.
_______________________________________________________
When I think of "procreation," I generally don't think of simply fertilizing and egg and giving birth. I think of actually raising that child, caring for it, providing for it, etc.
Procreation is inherently heterosexual (the fact that people can be cloned or that some people have sex other than for procreation like pleasure is irrelevant; it isn't important what our purposes are, rather it is important what nature's purposes are in the Aristotelian sense of final causality). In human beings, procreation is not just a matter of producing new organisms, but also forming them into persons capable of fulfilling their nature as distinctively rational animals. The final causality of sex thus pushes inevitably in the direction of at least some variation on the institution of marriage, and marriage exists for the purpose of not only to generate and nourish offspring
biologically but also
culturally.
________________________________________________________________
Before I respond to your comments, eric, let it be known that I'm merely responding to them in courtesy and as a matter of not leaving them unattended to. I'll respond to them but after doing so, know that I will not be interested in hearing your responses to mine nor am I in any way inviting the possibility of continuing any sort of conversation or dialogue with you. I'd rather avoid the risk of being banned by further conversing with you.
"There is even no such thing as "sex" outside the context of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman."
Incorrect. Especially if you confine it to vaginal intercourse exclusively for procreation. Evidence is that BILLIONS of humans have, and will continue to have sex with varying partners, in varying ways, for varying reasons. That is simply a fact, and no amount of you wishing the term "sex" is to mean only what you wish, it simply wont change reality.
While we may, for practical linguistic reasons, refer to actions other than sex as "sex" (such as anal, oral, etc, which are not procreative), it is clear that the term "sex," as properly understood, is an act between a male and a female that results in the deposition of sperm into the vagina. Sodomy, for example, may be, for convenient linguistic reasons, be informally spoken of as "sex" while such an action would not, in a properly metaphysical, biological and indeed correct sense, actually be sex. The reason why society refers to sodomy and such other actions as sex is simple: would your friend, Bob, who would like to share with you an unsolicited story of how his girlfriend performed fellatio on him yesterday be more likely to state "Dude, me and my girlfriend had sex last night" or "Last night I finally convinced my girlfriend to perform fellatio on me"? While we may, for practical linguistic reasons refer to such acts as sodomy and fellatio as "sex," doing so is, indeed, technically incorrect. (Likewise, as an example, we incorrectly refer to people born in the United States as "Americans" for practical and traditional matters yet the term "American" technically applies to all peoples born in both North and South America.)
It appears Natural Law can easily allow for homosexual marriage if it is a valid part of social and personal human nature.
Incorrect. I spent a good amount of time explaining why.
Also, Natural Law holds that morality is a function of human nature in society. Subjective Morals anyone?
Like everything else, humans have a formal cause (our form, essence, or nature). And this formal cause entails certain final causes for their various capacities. For example, our nature or essence is to be rational animals and reason and intellect has its final cause as the attainment of truth. Hence the attainment of truth is good for us as the gathering of acorns (or whatever) is good for the squirrel. These are just objective facts; for the sense of "good" in question here is a completely objective one, connoting, not some subjective preference we happen to have for a thing, but rather the conformity of a thing to a nature or essence as a kind of paradigm (just as a "good" triangle is one that has the most perfectly straight sides, etc). The final causes of our bodily organs and functions, too, are grounded on objective metaphysical grounds (for example, the final cause of our eyeballs is to enable us to see; the final cause of our sexual organs is to reproduce). This is all just frosting on the cake for Natural Law and avoiding the main issue with asserting subjective morals, though; if you accept that morals are completely subjective, then the conversation literally stops (which it has...) as there would be nothing truly morally wrong with the government not allowing gays to "marry".
____________________________________________________________
Let us entertain the possibility that your definition of marriage is 'true'. Men should not marry men, end of discussion. Right?
Wrong. Who gave you the right to tell others how to live their lives?
Homosexuals are free, as I've said, to enjoy hosting sodomy parties in the privacy of their own home as much as they like. Yet it is when, as I have said, attempts to pass any "law" that attempted to "legalize" such an impossibility (same-sex "marriage") would be absolutely null and void, a joke at best and a straightforward assault on the very foundations of morality at the worst. For if "same-sex marriage" is not contrary to nature, then nothing is and if nothing is contrary to nature, then there can be no grounds whatsoever for moral judgment. By supporting same-sex "marriage", you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.
Did god give you that right? God created the universe, would you suggest that he didn't create homosexuals? If he really had a problem with gay marriage, why are we even having this conversation?
The question of whether homosexuality has a genetic basis or if it was "created" by God is irrelevant. The existence of some genetic trait doesn't, by itself, prove anything about whether it is "natural" in the relevant sense. For example, that there is a genetic basis for clubfoot doesn't show that clubfoot is "natural". Quite obviously it
is unnatural, certainly in the Aristotelian sense of failure perfectly to conform with the essence or nature of a thing. And no one who has clubfoot would take offense at someone noting this obvious fact nor would they find it convincing that the existence of a genetic basis for clubfoot shows that it is something one should "embrace" or "celebrate". Nor would it be plausible to suggest that God "made him that way," any more than God "makes" people be born blind, deaf, legless, prone to alcoholism or autistic. God obviously allows these things , for whatever reason, but it doesn't follow that they are "natural". So by the same token, the possibility of a genetic basis for homosexual desire doesn't itself show that homosexual desire is natural. Even if it is established beyond reasonable doubt that there is such a genetic basis for homosexual desire, with respect to the question of "naturalness" of homosexuality, this would prove nothing.