The unpleasant scenarios you posit happen only because bigots, closed-minded, and the self-righteous cause them to happen; not because they are inevitable.
Ah, the call of the liberal: the
ad hominem attack. If you can't assail the thesis, assail the messenger with inflammatory names and references. Dismissed as venting and irrelevant.
As for homosexuality being 'unnatural', you must not know your biology very well. Homosexuality is VERY common among mammals in general.
You mean queer fish, queer bears, queer squirrels, something like that? No gay bars exist for any of them to seek anonymous encounters. Incidentally, who cares about how the baser animals conduct themselves? That many engage in homosexual acts sounds suspiciously made up, especially if it's espoused as natural or normal. Common animals mate for procreation, have coitus for that purpose only. Only dolphins (before they're fertile) seem to fool around like humans. Parthenogenesis doesn't count as homosexual, either.
And please don't start on about acting like animals, as 'normal' sex is just as animalistic. YOU were the one talking about natural after all.
Actually, that's a good point to talk about. If you would like to compare your most intimate of behaviors to the unreasoned, purely instinctual, id-based, superego-absent acts of common animals, go right ahead. It's sad you would debase yourself that way. No person need feel that they're imitating animals by engaging in coitus; it's better said that the animals imitate us. While humans far too often abuse the sexual gift, it is often engaged in as the truest act of (heterosexual) love toward one's partner, whether intended as procreatory in that encounter or not. Humans are animals, incidentally, because we deign through taxonomy to refer to ourselves as such. We're also homo sapiens, wise man, and above the mob of other creatures.
If you are such a moral person who is so against 'unnatural' things, why the hell are you even HERE?
(answer) This is an interesting place to visit, with a stimulating topic and concept. If one wishes to equate an enjoyable diversion such as bondage with sexual feeling or activity across the board, then said person would be flat wrong. Youngsters who tie someone for fun do so for that reason. They're not looking for "pleasure". As for those who do like bondage in a more mature way, so? It's an enjoyable, safe, consensual experience with no chance of transmission of STD's or disease (the biggest problems with homosexuality, esp among males). It's what they enjoy as a hobby, just as some like coin collecting. Is it unnatural to feel a twinge of excitement when you find a 3-legged buffalo nickel?
TuGs are more 'unnatural' than homosexuality is, strictly speaking.
A values argument, an assertion, one not backed up with any visible evidence. Reply: it's not unnatural. Evidence: bondage and such are paraphilias. People get turned on by different things. Divers and sundry heterosexuals get off on bondage, smell, the voice, virtually every part of the body, porn flicks, porn stories, topless bars, menages-a-trois, menages-a-quatre, cinque, whatever; food, spanking, and 100,000 other things. Any of those interests, or their absence, is particular to each human as part of his personhood, and are found universally. You can't look at them in a vacuum and say, "Oh, that's perverse." That's not how people engage in these things. However, it -is- possible to observe what the active homosexual does for real "fun". Those acts, the bedrock of the argument against homosexuality, speak for themselves. No, you say, heteros engage in anal also. Count that under disgusting and perverse as well.
Are you merely a hypocrite, or are you some kind of troublemaking troll?
The call of the lib-... oh, we went over that at the start. Names over substance. Let's see, I am straight and against homosexuals marrying or adopting children. That makes me Satan, right? I will stand up and speak my mind as forcefully against this proposition of homosexuals having rights based on their salacious acts and nature as they will speak for it. That makes me a bigot, a hateful misanthrope, small-minded, possessed of 3000-year-old morals, and the shooter on the grassy knoll, right? For I say things outside the realms of PC and the enlightened left. That makes me guilty of abusing free speech because the left doesn't like what it hears. Too bad, it's gonna be said anyway. As for the rhetorical question, no, there's no hypocrisy in liking TUGs, being straight, and not going for the homosexual agenda, and all at the same time. Straight bondage and homosexual cavorting are apples and (rotten) oranges. And I assert my right to free speech at all times. That's neither being a troll (whatever you mean by that; trolls lurk, and I'm right here) nor a troublemaker (other than to the left).
Love whom you want. Care for whom you wish. And be responsible with your body and theirs, for your actions can end up having farther-reaching effects than you know.
Is it any different to be tied up vs being tied down? One of the great things about English, its flexibility :p