Sex within the human species requires erection in the male and lubrication in the female; two organs, and creatures, clearly and perfectly designed for the other, and obviously for the occasion. Via their ovaries, females produce eggs, which are released into the Fallopian tube, where they are fertilized by injected sperm via the male penis and intercourse. Afterwards, the fertilized egg(s) travels to the female uterus for implantation. Herein, the egg, the eventual human, finds a perfectly designed prenatal nursery, wherein the developing fetus is nourished and nurtured until maturity. Upon which a human infant is introduced to the world via the female vagina and childbirth.
The preamble isn’t a human physiology or sexual reproduction refresher. Rather, it is to illustrate the remarkable sexual congruency and dependency of the male/female union. Everything in the enterprise perfectly compatible for coitus and procreation, we can then conclude the male/female pairing a “natural” partnership. All the unique and opposing parts working in exquisite harmony, this is the obvious human mating paradigm. Fully and symphonically complimentary, men and women are specifically designed for each other, are the “natural” fit within the human species.
Of course, by deeming something “natural,” as Chinese mystic, Lao Tzu, essentially put it, one deems something else unnatural. Labeling a person fit leads to judging another unfit. Assessing something beautiful, other things become automatically ugly. And so on. So, while men and women are the “natural” pairing within the human species, two men or two women engaged in a like partnership and intimacy are then unnatural.
In fact, men and women participating in these aberrant, abnormal activities would be practicing the “[un]natural” and subsequently “vile affections” characterized by the Bible’s Apostle Paul.
Now, if Paul had written this for the Bible or a medical journal, say like, the Damascus Medical Review, it doesn’t matter. In either venue, the claim is clearly and invincibly true. Because the “natural” way of human partnering is patently and undeniably male and female. Or rather male for female, and vice versa. In fact, let’s eliminate God from the scenario entirely—he’s gone, doesn’t exist. Even in a world without God, one needn’t be a human physiology major or medical professional to recognize the “natural,” complimentary alliance between men and women—the aroused vagina a lubricated portal; the erect and rigid penis cylindrical and probing, in need of lubrication; the procreative result of the union; the required and unique physical functions within the result, that deliver the incredible and beloved result.
Again, the obvious: men and women are “natural” mates.
So, if the Apostle Paul were just some journal contributor calling the affections between men and between women “unnatural,” no one would consider the assessment a religious condemnation. The conclusion would simply be accepted as a fact of obvious nature and science from a commonsense observer of the incontrovertible physical evidence. The male and female partnership simply makes logical sense, people would say. Making the assessment in the Bible, however, Paul becomes a radical zealot imposing his extremist religious beliefs on everyone else.
Given the precise and unmistakable compatibility between men and women, however, Paul is incontestably correct. Relied on to move the human species forward, men and women are natural mates, rendering any and every other human partnership, unnatural. Every other species in the world relies on the “natural” way for their very survival, too, and can’t help but submit to their nature, either. Coming into season, for example, a female gorilla searches for a male gorilla and offers herself to him. She can’t deny her natural urges or stop the result, either one. Ditto the male gorilla. Like every other creature, Gorillas are slaves to their nature, to the natural order of species relations, and thus natural propagators of their kind. The only creatures able to make the unnatural natural, and who would even attempt to make it so, are humans.
Of course, those who involve themselves in these unnatural acts and relations would say, “Love is love! You can’t help who you love”—and want to have sex with, which is what they ultimately mean.
Okay, fine. But it still isn’t natural.
In fact, both scientifically and biblically, it is incontrovertibly unnatural—this offered as a statement of empirical fact and sans an ounce of judgment, incidentally.
So then, it really isn’t God or Paul or religion condemning people inclined to these “[un]natural affections” and relations. It’s nature, and the science of nature, as well as logic and common sense. God, Paul, and religion are merely pointing out what science and the commonsense observation of physical evidence undeniably verify: men and women are natural mates. And frankly, any idea or arrangement to the contrary is just, nonsense. Delusion.
So, is homosexuality wrong? Well, it is definitely unnatural; that much is clear. Hence, in that sense it is wrong, in that those inclined are directly opposing natural design, be that design intelligent or evolutionary. God, Paul, and religion merely second the idea, but then further contend homosexuality is morally wrong. Immoral because the opposition to clear and observable natural design denies God, his authority, and usurps his clear intentions for human coupling.
It’s like looking up and observing spherical planetary objects throughout the sky and universe, but then proclaiming the earth flat and plain-like. The entire universe is filled with round, familial planets, yet somehow the earth alone defies that ubiquitous and no less observable celestial trend. Okay, sure. Likewise, virtually every creature in nature subscribes to the male/female dynamic as a means of natural species pairing and propagation. But somehow the human species alone isn’t subject or beholden to that universal tendency.
Okay, sure.
Under the weight of logic too powerful to dispute, it is typically here that nature deniers and their supporters start screaming. “Why do you care who people love?!”
Well, I don’t. Just don’t call what you’re doing and supporting “natural.”
Natural is indisputably something different.
©JMW 2025/10
All Rights Reserved
John Mark Warren 