Oh, no, let me clarify. It is exactly this "natural order" idea that I refer to as "platonism." It's explained in one of my recent writings here, but it's tough to find your past posts without some means of search. I don't have time to look for it right now.

I have to admit, my concept of what nature consists of is totally derived from ... what nature consists of. Evolutionary biology, which includes all aspects of nature related to biological life on this planet, is completely incompatible with the idea that a typological standard like "Adam and Eve" could somehow prescribe (that's teleology, which is impossible for nature to accomplish) a pattern of sexual behaviour to a species. Even if the species was sexually uniform, the idea that there would be a sort of prior prescription accomplishing that uniformity would simply be impossible. As it happens, the species - us- has built-in diversity, just as all evolutionarily derived species do. So the "nature" you speak of has nothing to do with any natural sort of nature. You are proposing a completely different, "gold-standard" sort of prescriptive nature that humans must bend to voluntarily rather than being actually produced in by their biological nature.

On the other hand, I am not convinced that St. Paul shares your view of nature. I think his is more naturalistic.

The Nature you believe in is a fusion between traditional biblical typology (very well explored, though with some queasy moments, by Northrop Frye in his classic The Great Code: The Bible and Literature) and the Platonic strand of ancient Greek philosophy. Plato proposed that all living things existed on two planes, reality and the plane of the Idea, so that all ducks, for example, were merely castings, as it were, of the ideal Duck, that actually existed as a prototype in an unearthly sphere. Abstracts like Nature and Idea itself also existed as Ideas. So nature as found on earth was a rough knock-off of ideal Nature, and things might be found in nature that seemed flawed and could thus be called unnatural.

Now where does this idea come from? In fact, it is identical to shamanistic ideas that there is an upper world (or more than one) and a lower world that can be attained in trance conditions by people in our middle world. Shamanism was once a world-wide religion. There is no culture that doesn't have a history of it. You can see it in the bible in remarks about sorceresses who had 'pits:' this was a portal of entry into the underworld. The Greek mystery religions were probably heavily shamanistically based. In the spiritual upper and lower worlds, animals and other entities could be encountered in their typological states. A typical shamanistic cure is to go to the lower world, find an Eagle spirit there, capture it, bring it back to our world, and blow it into the head of your medical patient.

Adam/Eve, when they are conceived as a prototype, are the exact human equivalents of an Eagle spirit. They are ideal Man and ideal Woman from ideal Nature and thus their spirits should animate real men and women.

A prototype like this is, in effect, a mental idol, a sculpture of human classifying and categorizing thought. In strict Judeo-Christianity, we do not accord such things divine powers.

I believe that your logic that turns a perfectly functional, loving sexuality, into a tormenting disability, is an intrusion of shamanistically-derived Greek philosophy into Christianity. The Jewish roots of Christianity are remarkably free of shamanism and it is very odd to see this prescriptive, pseudo-biological typology suddenly show up in the New Testament. On the other hand, it's not so surprising to see a church that grew up in a Greek-speaking area become confused by this appealing pagan idea, which offers a handy bit of extra legalism that can be used to sort out the confusion created by Paul saying that all things were legal, and then having some members of the community cast out for their naughty relationships.

Paul made some uncomfortable accommodations to Greek culture, for example in his injunction to slaves to obey their masters, and in his ascribing all worldly authority, even tyranny, to God. I don't see any evidence, though, that his usage of "nature" conformed to this reductive, idealistic, pure-taxonomic idea of nature; I think he just used "against nature" in a naturalistic way that was just slightly stronger than "out of character." In other words, it referred to peoples' real natures rather than to a prescriptive Idea.