Can you help me prove that homosexuality is unnatural and is a disorder?

[buffalo]

But God created nature. Are you saying God’s creation is imperfect?

Also, thank you. Base instincts in nature. Homosexuality is a base instinct in nature. Humans are natural. I thought I would have an issue proving my point on my own but thank you for helping.

Nope - God created nature and called it good. After the fall corruption set in.

The Animal Homosexuality Myth

The following article is adapted from the author’s recently published book, Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement. In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement[1] turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:

1. 
   *]Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
   *]Homosexuality is irreversible;
   *]Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.
   
   Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises,[2] the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.[3] Animals Do It, So It’s Natural, Right? The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:
   • Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
   • Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
   • Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
   • Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
   • Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature. This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly “homosexual” acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature? In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:
   1. 
      *]There is no “homosexual instinct” in animals,
      *]It is poor science to “read” human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
      *]Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.
      
      **There Is No “Homosexual Instinct” In Animals
      
      more…
      **

 

[CharlesDarwin]

Its against moral standards. Also it contributes nothing to society.

since when do rights have to contribute something to society? also it contributing nothing to society is your opinion

If you look throughout history, God’s moral code has been standard

who’s god? not yours, yours has only been standard in the last say 1500 years or so in the west, it wasnt until the mid 1800s that it was standard in the US

We do it all the time, not just with homosexuals. Older men cannot marry underage girls for one thing. Should we lift that restriction as well?

two consenting adults != under age children unable to consent

Your opinion. Homosexual relationships contribute nothing to society, therefore what good comes out of it?

your opinion contributes nothing to society therefor i reject your right to have opinions please surrender all opinions by the end of business monday

 

[rossum]

Do you know the health risks and costs associated with the homosexual act?

Lesbian sexual acts are generally less risky than heterosexual penetrative sex. Anal sex happens between heterosexual as well as male homosexual couples.

This is a very weak argument, I suggest that you look for a stronger one.

rossum

 

[LemonAndLime]

Nope - God created nature and called it good. After the fall corruption set in.

The Animal Homosexuality Myth

The following article is adapted from the author’s recently published book, Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement. In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement[1] turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:

1. 
   *]Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
   *]Homosexuality is irreversible;
   *]Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.
   
   Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises,[2] the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.[3] Animals Do It, So It’s Natural, Right? The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:
   • Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
   • Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
   • Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
   • Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
   • Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature. This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly “homosexual” acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature? In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:
   1. 
      *]There is no “homosexual instinct” in animals,
      *]It is poor science to “read” human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
      *]Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.
      
      **There Is No “Homosexual Instinct” In Animals
      
      more…**

1. 1. 
      Funny how the scientific proof you have comes from a Catholic source. Please provide a non-biased one next time. Whenever a Catholic organisation tries to use science to prove its moral objective it either does not work, is flawed, or abuses statistics. I think this is the case. This study has a conflict of interest as it has set out to prove that homosexuality is “unnatural”.
      
      Secondly, there is a homosexual instinct in animals. “Gay” swan partners have been known to adopt baby swans and raise them - and such baby swans have a higher survival rate than those raised by “heterosexual swans”. How on earth this study thinks that by saying that some animals are cannibalistic - therefore homosexual behaviour is not related to animals therefore does not exist in nature, is beyond me. It has been proven by scientitists who do not have a vested interest in proving one way or the other.
      
      Just to add - I find it very odd when Catholics try to justify their moral teaching by referring to science. Just don’t, it doesn’t work and so far whenever I have seen it done the “evidence” has a conflict of interest, messes with statistics, and generally is flawed. Also, surely you should continue with the moral argument instead of a scientific one? You cannot tell a homosexual man that he is unnatural when he believes he was born that way. Going to lose a lot of support by arguing a scientific argument.

 

[buffalo]

You cannot tell a homosexual man that he is unnatural when he believes he was born that way. Going to lose a lot of support by arguing a scientific argument.

He is then deluded.

The science supports the natural law.

 

[CrimsonCatholic]

How many children can an infertile man and woman create together? 0

Why? Because they were not meant to, for God created a Man and a Woman.

Infertility is against the natural laws of nature.

[Right back at you by the way].

If you’re going to argue that homosexuals are bad an unnatural just because they can’t reproduce, you’re going to have to explain why infertile couples are still allowed to have sex if they engage in sex knowing it will not lead to conception. I know what the explanation is, I just like proving a point.

Also, if homosexuality is against the laws of nature - why do we see gay swans, penguins, etc? Why does homosexuality occur in humans naturally also (which the Catholic Church recognises)? You also cannot say its against the law of nature without explaining why its different from the above examples. If you mean natural law as in reproducing, then see above.

Just to repeat: I disagree with homosexual marriage, but I do not agree with discrimination and logic behind why they’re not allowed marriage which seems to deviate from doctrine. We’re taught that they cannot get married because it’s meant to be between a man and a woman. We’re taught that any extra-marital sex they had will always be a sin because they cannot get married. We however are NOT taught that it is unnatural. It is recognised as naturally occuring.

Wrong.

Explain to me what your definition of marriage is? Is marriage between and man and a woman as God set it up to be? Why is that? So if a man and man cannot reproduce, its okay because an infertile couple cannot? The couple that may not be able to be fertile, still have a better chance than Joe and Bob.

Why? God created Woman for Man.“it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18)

Any sex outside of marriage is a sin, Therefore since Bob and Joe cannot get married, its pretty clear that they are sinning against God.

As a result, “a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Marriage can therefore only be between and a man and woman.

"We have to remember that all people are created in the image of God and deserve to be treated as such, no matter what their behavior. We make a distinction between person and behavior, sometimes expressed as “hate the sin, love the sinner.”

The Catechism describes homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered”: “They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

So the argument of infertile couple is a weak argument, not good enough!

Please Read: catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

 

[estesbob]

This is not a good argument. Far less that 3% of the population of an ants nest or a beehive are queens, yet the queens are not unnatural. Far less than 3% of the human population are Catholic Bishops yet …

A minority may not be unnatural. Are left handers or people with blue eyes unnatural? You will need better reasoning than this.

rossum

I find it ironic that when people try to justify homosexual behavior they seem to always resort to comparing them to animals. If a behavior enaged in by a miniscule number of people is not unatural then there is no such thing as unatural.

 

[estesbob]

Just a general point - all official western scientific/medical/psychiatric organisations recognise homosexuality as a naturally occuring sexual orientation.

So does the Catholic Church by the way.

What’s the basis of this argument again?

The Catholic Church does not recognize same-sex attraction as bein genetic. The church takes no stand on what the causes is but makes it clear that regardless of the cause of same-sex attraction acting upon it is a grievous sin.

 

[estesbob]

Funny how the scientific proof you have comes from a Catholic source. Please provide a non-biased one next time. Whenever a Catholic organisation tries to use science to prove its moral objective it either does not work, is flawed, or abuses statistics. I think this is the case. This study has a conflict of interest as it has set out to prove that homosexuality is “unnatural”.

.

There has been no scientific study that has proven homosexual behavior is genetic. The evidence is overwhelming that it is not. It is a interesting that you keep berating us for not depending on science when science backs up our view

 

[buffalo]

I find it ironic that when people try to justify homosexual behavior they seem to always resort to comparing them to animals. If a behavior enaged in by a miniscule number of people is not unatural then there is no such thing as unatural.

Remember, humans are just bags of chemicals that have no self control over disordered desires. :nope:

 

[LemonAndLime]

There has been no scientific study that has proven homosexual behavior is genetic. The evidence is overwhelming that it is not. It is a interesting that you keep berating us for not depending on science when science backs up our view

Are you sure about that? By the way, the following are only a select few I can produce when asked for. If you want more, no problem. The following three prove that, for some people at least, homosexuality can be determined before birth e.g. purely genetics. When did you hear that science is on the side saying that it is unnatural?

Study based on fingertip ridges:
J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kimura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada found a relationship between the number of fingertip ridges on men and their sexual orientation. 7 They compared the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the left hand with the number on the corresponding fingers of the right hand. They found that 30% of the homosexuals tested had a surplus of ridges on their left hand, whereas only 14% of the heterosexuals did. This is a particularly interesting finding, because fingerprints are fully determined in a fetus before the 17th week of pregnancy, and do not change thereafter, through birth, infancy, childhood, youth and adulthood. This would seem to prove that for at least some adult homosexuals, their sexual orientation was pre-determined before birth, perhaps at conception; certainly by the end of the 4th month of pregnancy. 8,9

Study based on finger-lengths:
A California psychologist, Marc Breedlove, “conducted his research at three street fairs in the San Francisco Bay area in the fall of 1999.” Each study participant had his or her hand photocopied on a portable copy machine to record finger length. Participants also filled out a questionnaire on sexual orientation and birth order. 720 volunteers participated. They found that lesbians tended to have shorter index fingers (relative to their ring fingers) than did heterosexual women. They also found that gay males tended to have shorter index fingers (relative to their ring fingers) than heterosexual males. The relative size of a person’s fingers is determined well before birth. These findings imply that sexual orientation is at least partly decided before birth – perhaps at conception when a person’s unique DNA is established. 10

Studies based on fraternal birth order:
In the mid 1990s, researcher Ray Blanchard studied families in which there is a male child with a homosexual orientation. He found that a gay man is more likely to have older brothers than older sisters. He found that the probability that a male child will grow up as a homosexual increases by about 33% for each brother born before he was. Blanchard suggests that this effect may be caused by an immune response within the mother during pregnancy. 11,12,13 According to the program 60 Minutes, recent studies have shown that this effect only happens among right-handed brothers. 28
Reply With Quote

 

[buffalo]

Are you sure about that? By the way, the following are only a select few I can produce when asked for. If you want more, no problem. The following three prove that, for some people at least, homosexuality can be determined before birth e.g. purely genetics. When did you hear that science is on the side saying that it is unnatural?

Study based on fingertip ridges:
J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kimura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada found a relationship between the number of fingertip ridges on men and their sexual orientation. 7 They compared the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the left hand with the number on the corresponding fingers of the right hand. They found that 30% of the homosexuals tested had a surplus of ridges on their left hand, whereas only 14% of the heterosexuals did. This is a particularly interesting finding, because fingerprints are fully determined in a fetus before the 17th week of pregnancy, and do not change thereafter, through birth, infancy, childhood, youth and adulthood. This would seem to prove that for at least some adult homosexuals, their sexual orientation was pre-determined before birth, perhaps at conception; certainly by the end of the 4th month of pregnancy. 8,9

Study based on finger-lengths:
A California psychologist, Marc Breedlove, “conducted his research at three street fairs in the San Francisco Bay area in the fall of 1999.” Each study participant had his or her hand photocopied on a portable copy machine to record finger length. Participants also filled out a questionnaire on sexual orientation and birth order. 720 volunteers participated. They found that lesbians tended to have shorter index fingers (relative to their ring fingers) than did heterosexual women. They also found that gay males tended to have shorter index fingers (relative to their ring fingers) than heterosexual males. The relative size of a person’s fingers is determined well before birth. These findings imply that sexual orientation is at least partly decided before birth – perhaps at conception when a person’s unique DNA is established. 10

Studies based on fraternal birth order:
In the mid 1990s, researcher Ray Blanchard studied families in which there is a male child with a homosexual orientation. He found that a gay man is more likely to have older brothers than older sisters. He found that the probability that a male child will grow up as a homosexual increases by about 33% for each brother born before he was. Blanchard suggests that this effect may be caused by an immune response within the mother during pregnancy. 11,12,13 According to the program 60 Minutes, recent studies have shown that this effect only happens among right-handed brothers. 28
Reply With Quote

Study of Male Triplets Lends Support to Neurohormonal Theory of Sexual Orientation, Say Psychologists

Study is based upon one monozygotic set; homosexual triplet scores more towards the female direction than do his heterosexual cotriplets.

 

[estesbob]

Are you sure about that?

A shaky foundation
Research by Robert Jason
September 15, 2002

<
**A shaky foundation
**Research by Robert Jason
September 15, 2002

The whole homosexual agenda is built on a shaky foundation of homosexuals being “born that way”. It is a house built on sand. We must deal with this matter in some depth and dispatch this monstrous hydra once for all. Here are the facts provided by experts with years of experience in the field:

 

[buffalo]

[Homosexuality And Biological Factors: Real Evidence – None;
Misleading Interpretations: Plenty

Dr. van den Aardweg explains why he believes the claims for a biological basis
for SSA have little merit.](http://www.narth.com/docs/aardweg.pdf)

 

[buffalo]

and from the article:

Gay Activists Dominate Research
Whence this 19th century step-motherly treatment of psychology by our present-day professors
Mégevant? It is because with few exceptions they are gay persons wedded to the gay ideology.
They are the Weinbergs, LeVays, Hamers, Baileys, Hershbergers etc., who openly admitted that
biological roots of homosexuality favor social acceptance of the gay agenda (and right they are).
It is in their interest to be single-mindedly biology-biased. And since the gay ideology has become
the party line in the official establishment of the human sciences, inclusive of most professional
journals, all findings “support” homosexuality’s biologic origin and mental normality or at
least “suggest” it. Free research and free thinking is taboo as soon as it seems to threaten the gay
cause. The ideologically distorted science thus produced and sponsored profoundly misleads the
public. On a deeper level, it is often motivated not by thirst for the truth, but by the wish to rationalize
or justify the normality sought by so many persons who are committed to a sexually
abnormal lifestyle.

 

[estesbob]

Are you sure about that? By the way, the following are only a select few I can Reply With Quote

A shaky foundation
Research by Robert Jason
September 15, 2002

The whole homosexual agenda is built on a shaky foundation of homosexuals being “born that way”. It is a house built on sand. We must deal with this matter in some depth and dispatch this monstrous hydra once for all. Here are the facts provided by experts with years of experience in the field:

Dr. Elizabeth Moberly, world-renowned psychologist: “No one has yet proven a direct link between genetic and hormonal research and homosexual orientation. There is no evidence for it.”

Masters & Johnson, famous sexologists: “The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today. No serious scientist today suggests that a simple cause-effect applies.”

Dr. R. Kronemeyer, New York psychologist (working among New York’s enormous ‘gay’ population): “With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither genetic nor the result of some glandular disturbance. Homosexuals are made, not ‘born that way’. From my 25 years’ experience as a clinical psychologist, I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned experience and that it can be unlearned.”

Dr. Joseph Berger, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Toronto (working among the largest ‘gay’ community in Canada): “In my 20 years of psychiatry I have never come across anyone with ‘innate homosexuality’.”

New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene Theory

drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=128

Scientists, many of them homosexuals, have failed to find a “gay gene” after decades of trying. The well known studies by such scientists as Dean Hamer, Simon LeVay, Bailey & Pillard, have proven to be a dead-end.

Even homosexual activists such as the famous lesbian activist, Camille Paglia, are forced to admit the truth. The brutally honest Paglia admitted: “No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous. Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.”

 

[FOFEBA]

Eating their young also exist in many species, as well as killing each other for dominance. The desire for violence also appears in pretty much the same percentage of the population regardless of culture, religion or other factors. In other words, violence is something that occurs naturally. Therefore we should legalize murder and physical assault.

I hope this helps you find the truth in the matter.

Are you referring to the Church? Burning at the stake, torture, unholy wars, greed avarice, persecution of all sorts of people including homosexuals, the obstruction of scientific progress, and most recently the sexual molestation of 10,000 boys and young men.

You hold this up as the standard? Get a grip.

 

[FOFEBA]

Oh… and let’s not forget the Pope’s quiet support of Hitler and Mussolini. Talk about a spineless and immoral legacy…

Yet Catholics today will try to sweep topics which make them uncomfortable under the rug.

I have even read one of the more “respected” members of this forum rationalizing the molestation of 10,000 males by pointing out that many of them were young seminarians who were of legal age, and even posting a graph showing that “only” about 1,000 have actually come forward to file against the Church. How sick is that?

So, while you try to rationalize your bigotry and hatred, and proclaim bigotry to be morality, keep in mind that the history which you draw upon to make such assertions is morally bankrupt.

Compare your retrograde hatred and ignorance to the advance of science in this topic. As we know, the Church (which only took 500 years to apologize) encountered the same difficulties when Brahe discovered that there was a new planet. It is incomprehensible today that the Church forced Galileo to remain under house arrest, or to face capital charges.

Anyone who spouts bigotry for homosexuals on this site should hold their heads low in shame, and reflect on the Church’s history of hatred, bigotry and persecution.

 

[buffalo]

Oh… and let’s not forget the Pope’s quiet support of Hitler and Mussolini. Talk about a spineless and immoral legacy…

Yet Catholics today will try to sweep topics which make them uncomfortable under the rug.

I have even read one of the more “respected” members of this forum rationalizing the molestation of 10,000 males by pointing out that many of them were young seminarians who were of legal age, and even posting a graph showing that “only” about 1,000 have actually come forward to file against the Church. How sick is that?

So, while you try to rationalize your bigotry and hatred, and proclaim bigotry to be morality, keep in mind that the history which you draw upon to make such assertions is morally bankrupt.

Compare your retrograde hatred and ignorance to the advance of science in this topic. As we know, the Church (which only took 500 years to apologize) encountered the same difficulties when Brahe discovered that there was a new planet. It is incomprehensible today that the Church forced Galileo to remain under house arrest, or to face capital charges.

Anyone who spouts bigotry for homosexuals on this site should hold their heads low in shame, and reflect on the Church’s history of hatred, bigotry and persecution.

I do not defend acts that are sinful, however, you need to get the facts straight before you launch a litany like this.

 

[estesbob]

Oh… and let’s not forget the Pope’s quiet support of Hitler and Mussolini. Talk about a spineless and immoral legacy…

Yet Catholics today will try to sweep topics which make them uncomfortable under the rug.

I have even read one of the more “respected” members of this forum rationalizing the molestation of 10,000 males by pointing out that many of them were young seminarians who were of legal age, and even posting a graph showing that “only” about 1,000 have actually come forward to file against the Church. How sick is that?

So, while you try to rationalize your bigotry and hatred, and proclaim bigotry to be morality, keep in mind that the history which you draw upon to make such assertions is morally bankrupt.

Compare your retrograde hatred and ignorance to the advance of science in this topic. As we know, the Church (which only took 500 years to apologize) encountered the same difficulties when Brahe discovered that there was a new planet. It is incomprehensible today that the Church forced Galileo to remain under house arrest, or to face capital charges.

Anyone who spouts bigotry for homosexuals on this site should hold their heads low in shame, and reflect on the Church’s history of hatred, bigotry and persecution.

You forgot the inquisition and the crusades -or were you saving them for a later post? Once we dispose of all these straw men perhaps we can get back to the topic at hand?