Considering the context I think it was clear that I was asking what your stance was rather than trying to state what it was. Yet you're only addressing the former. Is refusing to state your beliefs and then calling me out for making incorrect assumptions your idea of honest dialog? No it's my belief that until Aquinas, who was a priest, natural law was more of an abstract concept, and that it was after religions adopted it that it started to become more concrete. You seemed clear on that just a few posts ago when you were arguing I was wrong and asking for evidence. I'm not saying further development is invalid, but when it's furthered almost exclusively by theologians it's hard to argue it's separate from religion. You're grabbing snippets from two separate paragraphs, which are clearly separate thoughts. I understand that asking for whatever definition of natural law you're using means you'll be presenting someone else's opinion. Where as above I called you out for trying to use a paper that had an obvious bias, and does it's best to blur the lines between philosopher's personal opinions on homosexuality and their thoughts on natural law, as evidence of philosopher's thoughts on natural law. Honestly I don't much care if I'm right or wrong about the origins of natural law because as you said just because the great Greek philosophers said/believed it certainly doesn't make it infallible. I was trying to get this back on its original track, but it's becoming pretty clear that your definition of honest dialog is tip toeing around the topic while trying desperately to derail the conversation. This all started because you claimed to not be backed into a corner, that you use natural law not religion in such debate, and when asked to expound on that you requested I start a thread. Yet here we are two pages in and you have yet to say "X wrote that natural law means Y. I agree with X's beliefs because of Z and Q.". Here I'll give it a go. I believe that homosexuality isn't immoral because in modern society it isn't harmful to individuals nor society. Before the ages of low mortality rates and suffrage you could make the argument that refusing to copulate with the purpose of procreating or further marginalizing the role of women in society by limiting their role in relationships was harmful to society. Back in ancient Greece I think we'd all agree that the more prominent homosexuality was harmful to pre-pubescent boys. I think that's part of the problem with giving a clear definition to something that's supposed to always be true. Times change and often absolute truths will change with them.