To The Homophobic Atheist

If your argument to those who aren’t straight is that humans were made with parts that fit in other parts (if you know what I mean, bravo… I’m talking about penises and vaginas)… It’s fascinating how some (atheists who are homophobic, yes I chose the right word, you’re afraid of seeing authentic love in other people) can reject religion yet cling to its most recycled prejudices. Your argument that anatomy dictates orientation is about as sturdy as a paper umbrella in a hurricane. Yes, bodies have shapes and functions… but reducing human love, intimacy, and identity to a puzzle of “parts that fit” misses the point entirely. If sex were merely plumbing, then affection, loyalty, companionship, sacrifice, heartbreak, and joy would all be irrelevant.

And yet, those are the very elements that make relationships profoundly human.

By your logic, eating should only involve our teeth grinding raw vegetation… yet here we are, inventing cuisines, cooking elaborate meals, fermenting grains, roasting coffee, crafting wines, seasoning with spices, and even pureeing food for those without teeth. Biology sets the stage, but humanity writes the play. If we treated the human body as nothing more than a machine of function, art would never have existed, culture would never have blossomed, and love itself would be reduced to a breeding program. To pretend that life is defined solely by “fit” is to insult every human effort at creating meaning beyond survival.

The claim that people “can’t” be gay because of anatomy ignores the glaring evidence: people ARE gay. They fall in love, build families, create art, serve communities, and live authentically. Their existence is not hypothetical… it’s reality. Dismissing it is like insisting penguins can’t swim because they’re birds, or like saying bees shouldn’t fly because aerodynamics textbooks once misunderstood them. Reality doesn’t bend to your narrow interpretation of form.

If we only listened to anatomy, we’d have to say humans were not meant to fly, and yet we invented planes. We weren’t meant to breathe underwater, and yet scuba divers and submarines exist. We weren’t meant to walk on the moon, and yet a boot print rests in lunar dust. Every great human achievement has come from refusing to be boxed in by what is “natural” or “fitting.” Why, then, do you insist love must obey a rule you can’t even consistently apply to anything else in life?

Love, in its truest sense, is not an act of conformity but of connection. It is the recognition of another soul, not the alignment of body parts. To deny this is to flatten the human experience into a crude biology lecture, stripping it of depth, creativity, and meaning. It is the equivalent of looking at a cathedral and seeing only bricks, or hearing a symphony and reducing it to vibrations of air. The reductionist view misses the poetry of existence, the very marrow of being human.

So, no… the fact that “parts fit” does not obligate anyone to a specific kind of partner. Humans are not IKEA furniture. We are complex beings, capable of loving in ways that transcend anatomy, expectation, and dogma. To say otherwise is not only scientifically flimsy but emotionally impoverished. Love is not about what fits. It’s about what clicks.

And here is the deeper issue: people who argue against same-sex love on the basis of “fit” are often terrified of love that they cannot categorize. They would rather reduce it to mechanics than admit that love is mysterious, untamable, and bigger than them. This fear… yes, homophobia… comes not from reason but from a need to control. The atheist who deploys this reasoning has not liberated themselves from dogma at all; they’ve merely swapped altars. Instead of kneeling at the pews of scripture, they kneel at the pews of biology, misinterpreted and misapplied. Both paths lead to the same dead end… a shallow excuse for prejudice.

History has always proven these arguments wrong. Once, interracial marriage was considered “unnatural.” Once, women voting was “against biology” because they were thought too emotional to reason. Once, left-handed people were accused of being deformed or possessed. Every time, the fearful cried out that civilization would collapse if the “rules of nature” were broken. Every time, civilization proved them wrong. And so it is with love between two men, two women, or anyone whose orientation doesn’t follow your diagram of plumbing. Society does not collapse; it grows richer, freer, and more truthful when people are allowed to live authentically.

You see, there’s a difference between function and meaning. Our bodies may have reproductive functions, but meaning comes from what we choose to do with them. If reproduction were the only purpose of sex, then infertile couples, couples past menopause, and couples who choose not to have children would be “unnatural.” Yet nobody storms their bedrooms demanding conformity. Why? Because we instinctively know that sex and love serve deeper purposes: bonding, intimacy, joy, creativity, and the celebration of human connection. To pretend otherwise is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Even science undermines your claim. Homosexuality is not some rare defect… it exists throughout the animal kingdom. Dolphins, penguins, giraffes, and dozens of other species exhibit same-sex bonding, often for life. If your argument is that nature has designed us for only one kind of pairing, then nature itself is laughing at you. Same-sex behavior is as natural as breathing. It has been observed in over 1,500 species. What distinguishes humans is not the existence of homosexuality but the audacity of trying to police it.

But let’s return to humanity. Because science alone is not enough. What you miss when you reduce people to anatomy is the immensity of love’s power. You can argue about parts all day long, but you cannot argue with the reality of two people who stand together through illness, through poverty, through grief, through joy. You cannot dismiss the courage of someone coming out in a hostile world, risking rejection to live honestly. You cannot erase the dignity of couples who fight for the right to marry, to raise children, to simply be recognized as the family they already are. These are not abstract debates. These are lives, beating hearts, stories written in flesh and blood.

If you want to speak of “design,” then consider this… the human heart was designed to expand. Again and again, history shows us that empathy grows where fear once ruled. That is why the arc of justice bends toward equality, no matter how long it takes. Every time someone insists “this love is wrong,” time exposes them as small, outdated, and brittle.

And here we arrive at the predictable final defense, the tired refrain of the desperate homophobe… “If we accept this, where do we draw the line? One day people will accept pedophilia! That’s what the LGBTQ+ groups want.” Let me dismantle this with as much precision as I can.

Pedophilia is not comparable to homosexuality.

Why? Because the central principle of all healthy sexuality is consent.

Consent!

Two adults of the same sex can freely and joyfully consent to love, to intimacy, to partnership. A child cannot consent. That is the difference between love and exploitation, between freedom and violence. To equate the two is not just intellectually dishonest… it is morally grotesque.

Consent is the boundary, the bright line that separates liberation from harm. LGBTQ+ relationships honor that boundary… pedophilia annihilates it. One builds families, communities, and futures. The other destroys lives. No LGBTQ+ advocacy group on earth fights for the “right” to harm children… quite the opposite. Many queer people dedicate their lives to protecting children from abuse, because they know what it means to grow up marginalized, unheard, and unprotected. And many have stories of being abused as children themselves.

To conflate the two is not only a lie but a smear tactic, an attempt to weaponize fear in place of reason. It is the last refuge of those who have lost the argument on every other front. They cannot disprove the reality of love, so they resort to slander. But truth will always outlive slander.

So here is the line, clear as day… relationships between consenting adults are valid, beautiful, and human. Exploitation of children is abhorrent and criminal. If you cannot see the difference, the problem is not with LGBTQ+ people. The problem is with your own failure of empathy, logic, and integrity.

In the end, the anatomy argument collapses under its own weight. The slippery slope argument dissolves under scrutiny. And the prejudice that fuels both will be remembered not as a mark of strength, but as a confession of fear.

Love… real love, authentic love, love that risks, that sacrifices, that holds fast… will always outlast the fragile objections of those who cannot bear to see it flourish.

Love transcends physical compatibility. It is about an effortless connection between two souls, a profound bond where everything inside each other, simply "clicks." This intrinsic understanding, far beyond the superficial, is the true essence of love.