Do You Speak Gayish?

I got some mails from a guy in New Zealand: thanks for writing, Geoff, feel free to flood my mailbox you all *lol*
He said: "I'm sick of guys asking for sex. Do you think I ask for too much? I keep thinking, if i feel this way, surely some other guys out there feel the same way too? "
I hope so: but that's for sure that most of them speak Gayish to try to conceal their real intentions...
Be sure you know the meaning of each sentence (warning: I'll use explicit language).
My personal dating experience has suggested me these equations:

Why don't we meet in person? = Why don't we have sex?
You are too cute = You make me horny
Do you think I'm cute? = Can I try to kiss you?
Is there a better place to have some peace and speak frankly? = I want to make out with you
Are you a top or a bottom? = I want it up my ass
How many partners have you had? = Are you enough whorish to have sex with me?
How are you doing? = I want to try to speak about something not to show I'm just interested in sex
I love you = Are we gonna have sex again?
Sex is not so important for me = I can listen to your stupid yada yada up to twenty minutes
What do you feel like doing with your partner? = To what extent are you gonna fulfill my sexual desires?
I broke up with my boyfriend = I wanna have some fun with you
I'm having a hard time = I'm having a hard on
I'm still a virgin = I like riding bareback
I'm bi = I'm gayer than you

This post is not ironic, it's bitter and sad: of course there are many exceptions...

Can The Natural Law Be Violated?

That's obviously a matter of philosophy but these argumentations aren't so far from everyday life. How many times have you heard that you were violating the natural law?
One of my goals, when I decided to start this gay blog, was to stimulate reflection, and these lines seem particularly suitable to my intentions.
The whole text can be found on the Internet, its author is Burton Leiser.

Theologians and other moralists have said that ... [homosexual acts] violate the 'natural law': and that they are therefore immoral and ought to be prohibited by the state. [...]
The laws of nature, as these are understood by the scientist, differ from the laws of man. The former are purely descriptive, whereas the latter are prescriptive. When a scientist says that water boils at 212° Fahrenheit [...] he means merely that as a matter of recorded and observable fact, pure water under standard conditions always boils at precisely 212° Fahrenheit [...] They differ from municipal and federal laws in that they do not prescribe behaviour [...] their "violation" entails no penalty [...] When a scientist says that the air in a tire "obeys" the laws of nature that "govern" gases, he does not mean that the air, having been informed that it ought to behave in a certain way, behaves appropriately under the right conditions [...] in fact, according to the scientist, it does not make sense to speak of a natural law being violated. For if there were a true exception to a so called law of nature, the exception would require a change in the description of those phenomena, and the "law" would have been shown to be no law at all. The laws of nature are revised as scientists discover new phenomena that require new refinements in their descriptions of the way things actually happen. [...]

My two cents on this issue: so, is everything allowed since it can't violate the natural law?
No, it isn't at all. But this hasn't to do with nature, it's just a moral question...