It might be hard in the face of argument, but I would go with rather making THEM defend THEIR stand. Where is the plethora of data which proves that homosexuality is ‘natural’, or even that every ‘natural’ behavior is sanctioned? (a lot of men would say that promiscuity is natural, that monogamy is UNnatural. That ‘revenge’ is natural, and forgiveness UNnatural, etc.)
The Church condemns sodomy and any sexual practise outside of marriage that is closed to the gift of life. Homosexuality is condemned only because it is incapable, in its finality, of achieving that which marriage realizes in its perfection, which is God-given life.
Asking them to defend their position is a great way to start. If they try to use the “natural” argument, talk about why they think it is natural for 2 males or 2 females to try and have sex with each other. In fact, in the strictest sense, they can’t have sex (intercourse) with each other, only Male and Female can do that.
Chances are they’re an atheist. If so, ask them how does this act of homosexuality improve the species and progresses evolution when all it does it impede the species and cause disease and corruption of the body?
Would you mind explaining precisely how sexual acts between two men or women cause disease and corrupt the body.
Provided all of us ignore the sexual act which produces a wonderful baby.
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html
Sanctioned by who?
We all seek happiness. Each of the actions we take is to give us pleasure, not necessarily immediately. Would you not suffer on Earth for a thousand years to enter the kingdom of heaven? That aside, happiness does not make homosexuality “right”. You would need to look into what makes it moral/immoral.
That Homosexuality is natural is a good starting point.However its very hard to convince a honosexual that that’s not the case.Psychiatrists say that all children have homosexual tendencies.But they must be reinforced.A person may be inclined to homo.by positive or negative influences(a child may be brought up wearing dresses,he may be the girl his mother never could have).Under such influences a child may identifiy with the opposite sex and it becomes very natural.The only real defense is that the God(the bible) condemns it.You might try since man and women can only produce offspring aand that’s why they were joined together but I doubt that would convince.You might say if homosexuals say they marry because of love and sex is a necessary part why is it not equally ok for 3 homosexuals to be married or since dog is man’s best friend why not a dog and a man.
Pardon me. No need for a long study. Common sense can tell the difference between a man and a woman. Common sense also says that all, which means each and every human person is worthy of our love, understanding, and respect. Obviously, this does not mean that wrongful acts are supported.
Maybe you should them that you and the Church were “born that way.” Isn’t that the most natural and truthful response?
Seems to me that all functions of animals’ anatomies are natural and usually make the animal happy, relieved, or safe.
and obviously you and I differ on what makes it moral/immoral. So which of us is correct if we have absolutely contrary opinions?
I’m not sure it’s possible to respond if they’re irreligious. You can’t say there is an objective meaning to sexuality beyond how we feel about it, and between two consenting adults anything goes nowadays.
Are you suggesting that the mother puts her son in dresses because she wishes to make him the daughter she never had? Perhaps in very rare cases. But, much more likely, it’s the son who wishes to wear his mother’s dresses because he is either expressing homosexual tendencies before puberty or a gender identity issue. Most parents–even liberally minded ones–are quite strict with their children in regard to what they believe and society tells them are gender-appropriate clothes, toys, behaviors, and so on.
You really put yourself on the firing line, didn’t you? Well, I’m not one of your executioners. In fact I agree with you that there are plenty of people who are religious (or, let’s say, religious-minded, not atheists) who are not critical of homosexuals or homosexual behavior from a moral or natural perspective. Perhaps not on this forum, however.I’m not irreligious, but I I view homosexuality as completely natural and moral. Come at me with your best shot.