This entry is part 1 of 2 in the series The Nature and Truth of Sexualism

Nature functions in order to serve a purpose. Similarly, every system in Nature serves that purpose. Nature abhors that which gets in the way of it functioning efficiently.

Honest people of all ideologies agree that any system in Nature that fails to function – to serve its purpose – achieves entropy eventually fails to exist because Nature forces it into extinction, as that system is functioning against the purpose of Nature:

Nature’s purpose is to exist.

Does Nature intend, want, or seek Sexualism of any kind? Can a Sexualist make a legitimate claim that this Sexualism is Natural?


Even the average liberal, progressive, moral relativist, atheist, strict evolutionist, faithless-scientist, or pooh-pooher-of-all-things-Godly (The secular Harangutan, if you will), using any honest method (including science and the scientific method invented by Catholics), will conclude what Catholics already know: Sexualisms are defects and disordered behaviors, which means human beings should not accept and embrace them and, in fact, should cure what can be cured, deny their “normalcy,” and delegitimize their militantism as a matter of survival; while at the same time embracing those with the defect as valuable human beings who exist for a purpose unrelated to their sexualism and help them discern their perfect being.

The beauty is that Catholics love the defective person and hate the disordered activity, while the Harangutan hates and despises this broken human being and loves their behavior while still gladly leaving the tending, nurturing and ministering of these folks and their very real needs – exacerbated by disordered behavior – up to the Catholic.

My brother-in-law is über-liberal, and I’ve schooled him on how his beliefs and actions are truly hateful, so I know this sounds counterintuitive or perhaps even libelous or like fighting words, but follow along…it will make sense, I promise.

The Non-Catholic, materialistic world view says that science proves that biological mutation happens during gestation that can bend a male toward more feminine qualities or attributes and vice versa for a female, which creates an end product – a baby human – that can be interpreted in one or more ways, such as gender or sexual preference. These are epigenetic factors or components. The argument is that since this is just Nature and it occurs Naturally we must respect and embrace it. But this creates confusion, which is the first Natural argument against Sexualisms because Nature does not cause confusion – Nature makes sense. If science declares that people are born into different, equivocal, or arbitrary states of physical sexual existence, that doesn’t make it, at the least, Natural. While it may be true that some people are born with an equivocal sexuality, objective observers recognize by the empirical evidence that this physical Sexualism is not Nature’s design – it is a defect.

These equivocal states of sexual being are treated by the medical profession as defects; even the most Harangutan doctor tries to heal them or at least restore them and give them some kind of Natural (“normal”) sexuality. And that just touches on the physical sexual defects, such as hermaphroditism or other intersexual occurrences.

We as human beings have always struggled with understanding mental and emotional defects as well as we do physical impairments because we cannot physically touch them – but they are defects of health nonetheless. That’s why they can be, or are attempted to be, “normalized” or “Naturalized” with medication and therapy. So it is with self-scribed Sexualisms that are mental and emotional states and have nothing to do with physical nature.

Incidentally, contrary to some Harangutans’ arguments, science has not found a “gay” gene.

Science only reveals the way things are and, as much as can be discovered, how they are that way. Science cannot tell us the intention of Nature in anything. It certainly cannot tell us what Nature intended by creating Mankind as Male and Female. We can only discern the intention of Nature’s creations by looking at what the purpose for that creation is. Essentially we have to backward engineer to find the purpose.

We know the purpose of the digestive system, for instance. It is to process food and turn it into usable fuel as a source of energy for our bodies, as well as a way to evacuate the unusable food parts that are combined with that fuel. Therefore, we are supposed to eat, as opposed to receive our food through liquid nutrients injected into our bloodstream. We may find ourselves receiving nutrients that way due to injury or other malady, but that is then obviously fixing or replacing a defect. If the purpose is to do all this, Nature’s intention of the digestive system, then, is to facilitate our eating by mouth. To eat by any other method is, by definition, Un-Natural; ergo disordered, meaning it is inefficient at accomplishing what Nature intended. If a person is born without a mouth, alternate forms of feeding are used to overcome the defect, but the defect still exists and the form of eating is disordered.

The same logical, Natural deductions can be made for breathing; for seeing; for blood circulation. For every human system, we are a self-contained Natural factory with purpose and Natural intent. Each system does its part and does not do the job of another system. The entire human being is one system of systems; all closed systems with one purpose of Nature’s: To exist – to keep the human being alive.

Except for one.

The organs of reproduction have nothing to do with keeping the human being alive. They are purposed with creating new human life, and are the only human system that is not closed and self-contained. They each require the complete reproductive system of a completely physically separate human being with completely different, complementary sexual organs in order to fulfill the Natural purpose of creating new life. Male organs require female organs, female organs require male organs. To function as designed (Naturally) these systems and their incumbent organs need each other. By definition they are “hetero,” meaning “other” or “different.”

Since the design is heterosexual, the purpose of creating babies must be heterosexual; which tells us that the intent of Nature – causing the survival of our existence – is heterosexual. Nature requires human beings to be heterosexual.

By definition, then, any blend or some kind of infinite spectrum of sexualities that may result in some epigenetic cases or through hormonal, cultural, or environmental causes is, by Nature’s design and definition, a defect, because it is not heterosexual. Were we to be intersexual beings or to behave productively (creating other human beings) intersexually, Nature would have made us that way, as she does myriad other creatures.

A clownfish [Amphiprion percula] (one of over 500 known hermaphroditic fish species!) born without the necessary functionaity to alter its sex by sexually maturing is defective, as a human being with mutated sexuality is. This does not make the defective clownfish any less a clownfish; nor is the defective person any less human. The clownfish simply cannot procreate to assure his part in the survival of the species – and it does not play at sexual mimicry. That activity would be disordered. Should all non-male and non-female clownfish go off to copulate with other nons, the species would die out.

Any Sexualisms or Sexualist behavior, or the promotion or allowance of behavior that does not allow for procreation – the continuation of the human species – is therefore disordered because it promotes the extinction of the human race, which goes against Nature’s purpose for the species to exist. As with the clownfish and every other sexually-incapable-of-procreating living thing, the intersexed or otherwise sexualist human being should not engage in the behavior that it cannot complete – completion being natural baby-making through intercourse – because that is extinction-promoting behavior.

The argument that we must give the same weight or credence to a plethora of Sexualisms is in fact a very hateful attitude Non-Catholics take toward people who deserve care and help to achieve some degree of normalcy as Nature intended. They demand that you embrace the defect instead of fix it, yet they tell you to take cough medicine when you have a cold. It’s the epitome of hypocrisy and discrimination.

Catholics, on the other hand, encourage the defective person to discern why they were given this uniqueness, here and now,and pursue the purpose for which they were made. In other words, if the defect cannot be fixed to satisfy Nature’s intent for procreation, then that’s who you are supposed to be.

Be who you are supposed to be.

In the next of this series, I tackle the idea of Marriage in the context of Nature’s Objective Approach to Sexualisms.

(A note on clownfish: If you take offense because I chose clownfish from the thousands of known hermaphroditic examples, you’re not ready for this discussion. It’s as neutral an example as any other and more useful because it is familiar to folks; and being “offended” just makes you a Harangutan. If you comment to this baseless concern, it will be deleted without notice.)

Series NavigationNature’s Objective Approach to Marriage >>

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This
Read previous post:
Eliminating a Divot: Figuring Out the Dishes

He smiled, mentally patted himself on the back, and went merrily about completing his business, himself firmly secure that he...