What makes 'gay' wrong?

[Florida_mom]

It does not violate biology. From an evolutionary perspective, no body parts were created with a specific purpose in mind, we merely gradually evolved to have traits that made us more likely to survive.

There are a variety of evolutionary reasons why homosexuality exists. I suggest you take a look at these two articles: newscientist.com/article/dn6519-survival-of-genetic-homosexual-traits-explained.html and newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html.

Interesting.

Still doesn’t change the plumbing-and leaves out the offspring that the sons may reproduce. I would find that to be highly relevent and not just tracking what the females are doing.

There are genes for cystic fibrosis and other inherited traits that affect the human body in a negative manner.

Nor is it consist with the human experience.

Also–perhaps some have “overcome” their gayness despite having a gene. Doesn’t make it scientifically correct and until there is proof that it is as normal as having blue eyes or black hair–I cannot conclude that it is a scientifically correct way for a human to be.

I also believe that science will be extremely biased by a movement of people who don’t wish to be open to the possibilty of a malfunction in their DNA. If this were a possibility, why would a gay person not want to repair it if it were possible or prevent it if it were possible.

Right now-the only thing that makes gay wrong for me is the overwhelming family issues it presents in my case in that I am expected to wave a rainbow flag at a Gay pride event to show that I do not judge.

I find that to be extreme prejudice and forcefeeding of an agenda versus a promotion of acceptance.

I don’t force vegetarians to eat meat to show their love for me and my love for steak and chicken.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Also–perhaps some have “overcome” their gayness despite having a gene. Doesn’t make it scientifically correct and until there is proof that it is as normal as having blue eyes or black hair–I cannot conclude that it is a scientifically correct way for a human to be.

See, there’s no such thing as a “scientifically correct way for a human to be.” Science does not say that someone’s behavior is correct or incorrect, moral or immoral. That comes from either religious or secular sources of morality. Personally, I think that in order for something to be a law, there should be more than just religious reasons for something. Take abortion, while most of those who are anti-abortion oppose it for religious reasons, I think there are secular reasons for opposing abortion. But I don’t think something should be outlawed merely for religious reasons, and I strongly oppose countries that take this to the extreme of theocracy. Imagine how upset you would be if Muslims ever became the majority in the U.S. and they tried mandating that you adhere to their religion’s morality.

Right now-the only thing that makes gay wrong for me is the overwhelming family issues it presents in my case in that I am expected to wave a rainbow flag at a Gay pride event to show that I do not judge.

I’m sorry that you feel like you are being forced to support gay marriage. I think people are just sick of being denied certain rights without getting a good reason why.

I find that to be extreme prejudice and forcefeeding of an agenda versus a promotion of acceptance.

I don’t force vegetarians to eat meat to show their love for me and my love for steak and chicken.

You could also turn it around and say that gay people aren’t forcing you to have gay sex. All they want is the opportunity to live their lives the way they want without having other peoples’ morals imposed upon them. Imagine how you would feel if vegetarians passed a law banning you from eating meat. You would be rightly angry that other people were imposing their morals upon you.

 

[bugz2007]

You could also turn it around and say that gay people aren’t forcing you to have gay sex. All they want is the opportunity to live their lives the way they want without having other peoples’ morals imposed upon them. Imagine how you would feel if vegetarians passed a law banning you from eating meat. You would be rightly angry that other people were imposing their morals upon you.

Now, see…that’s why nobody is suggesting we pass secular laws dictating that two men or two women can’t do whatever they want in the bedroom. We don’t need the government to enforce morality. Gay marriage, however, or marriage regulated by the state, is quite frankly pointless if it doesn’t have something to do with family creation and child-rearing. All the rights that come along with being married are in place to encourage people to form a family unit, bear children, and raise them. If that isn’t something the government wants us to do anymore, then marriage is pointless from a secular viewpoint. If two people want to be in a monogamous sexual relationship and live together, then the government should have nothing to do with that - they need not be condemning it by outlawing it, and they need not encourage it through civil marriage. That’s why Catholics oppose gay marriage in the secular sphere - it’s pointless to any objective of government.

 

[Newbie2]

once again, devil’s advocate here…

Just because it’s illegal, that makes it wrong? Is it also morally reprehensible to let a 20 year old drink a beer?

And who’s definition of marriage are we talking about here? What makes your definition more valid than a gay persons’?

Murder hurts people.
Lust hurts people.
Hurting people hurts people.

What does homosexuality do? Implicitly why is it wrong?

Gay sex hurts people. See below.

It does not violate biology. From an evolutionary perspective, no body parts were created with a specific purpose in mind, we merely gradually evolved to have traits that made us more likely to survive.

Um…from way, way back, the terminal end of the digestive system in mammals is made for elimination purposes ONLY. Male gay sex does indeed violate biological function.

No body parts were created with a specific purpose in mind? Do you have a degree in the biological sciences? If not, you really don’t know what you’re talking about. If so, you should get your money back.

We’re talking about mammals that have already evolved, with a specific reproductive system and a specific gastrointestinal system. We are not birds, or reptiles, we are humans. The two biological systems are not meant to interact as what happens with gay sex.

Gay sex is indeed harmful from a biological standpoint. I won’t go into the gory details, but let’s say when things aren’t used as designed, they will not continue to function as designed.

 

[mark_a]

Without quoting the Bible, why is it wrong?

If homosexuality were perfectly normal, homosexual sex would have the possibility of producing homosexual children.

 

[wapsi]

If marriage isn’t a legal union of two people whose primary purpose is the creation and raising of children, then what purpose does it play in furthering society?.

It furthers society by promoting the health and welfare of the two persons who are wed. If the primary purpose of marriage was procreation and raising of children, then marriages would be forbidden to infertile individuals and childless couples would have their marriages dissolved.

I’m not sure if the Catholic Tradition would argue that, within the context of a secular government, same-sex civil union is inherently wrong. I haven’t seen anything in the catechism about the issue of same-sex civil union.

But the Catholic Church does oppose same-sex civil unions in the secular realm.
"Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

If homosexuality were perfectly normal, homosexual sex would have the possibility of producing homosexual children.

That doesn’t make any sense. Heterosexuals seem to have no problems producing homosexual children. According to your argument, this shouldn’t happen, assuming heterosexuality “were perfectly normal.”

 

[bugz2007]

It furthers society by promoting the health and welfare of the two persons who are wed. If the primary purpose of marriage was procreation and raising of children, then marriages would be forbidden to infertile individuals and childless couples would have their marriages dissolved.

Given that the government has a vested interest in accomplishing that goal through the means of legal contracts, which are also legally dissoluble (what now?!), why are there all these benefits tied into marriage? What purpose do those benefits accomplish? And why must they be present in order to accomplish the goal of the promotion of the health and welfare of two persons? And why do polygamist unions not also accomplish that goal?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Now, see…that’s why nobody is suggesting we pass secular laws dictating that two men or two women can’t do whatever they want in the bedroom. We don’t need the government to enforce morality.

There were laws banning sodomy until very recently. I would love to believe you that every single person would now oppose such laws, but I don’t think it’s true. Thankfully though, such people are no longer in the majority.

Gay marriage, however, or marriage regulated by the state, is quite frankly pointless if it doesn’t have something to do with family creation and child-rearing. All the rights that come along with being married are in place to encourage people to form a family unit, bear children, and raise them. If that isn’t something the government wants us to do anymore, then marriage is pointless from a secular viewpoint.

There are plenty of gay couples who want to get married and raise children together. A lot of gay couples adopt, and I think allowing gay marriage would only encourage people to settle down and start a family. Considering that there are tons of children who spend their whole lives in one foster home after another, I think that allowing gay marriage would do a lot of good. And if marriage was only valuable if the couple could produce children of their own, then sterile people shouldn’t be able to get married.

If two people want to be in a monogamous sexual relationship and live together, then the government should have nothing to do with that - they need not be condemning it by outlawing it, and they need not encourage it through civil marriage. That’s why Catholics oppose gay marriage in the secular sphere - it’s pointless to any objective of government.

By that logic, we should test people to see if they are still able to have children before allowing them to get married. Marriage is not, as you seem to think, intended solely for those who wish to produce children. It is instead a legal recognition of the level of commitment between two individuals and entitles them to a number of different rights that are important to people in such a long-term committed relationship.

 

[Florida_mom]

See, there’s no such thing as a “scientifically correct way for a human to be.” Science does not say that someone’s behavior is correct or incorrect, moral or immoral. That comes from either religious or secular sources of morality. Personally, I think that in order for something to be a law, there should be more than just religious reasons for something. Take abortion, while most of those who are anti-abortion oppose it for religious reasons, I think there are secular reasons for opposing abortion. But I don’t think something should be outlawed merely for religious reasons, and I strongly oppose countries that take this to the extreme of theocracy. Imagine how upset you would be if Muslims ever became the majority in the U.S. and they tried mandating that you adhere to their religion’s morality.

I think you are missing the point–

What “law” is there that you speak of that says the kidneys filter waste out of the body, that the bladder is to fill with urine and that it is urinated out via the urethra? What “law” is there that defines the function of an ovary? What “law” is there that defines how the circulatory system works and when you have too much of a particular white cell count, there is trouble?

There is a scientific basis for how the body functions.

You are twisting what folks confuse with love and sex and the legal right to party–with what the bodily functions are and what particular organs are used for. No law created this–an anus–poops. It’s an exit system. Now sure there are laws that were anti-sodomy–but let’s get real. It’s a cavity for removing solid waste from the body.

And if we are going to go purely one the free will of a human being to use their body as they see fit for pleasure AND removing religion from the equation as a basis–there is no law that prohibits a consenting adult (and some minors) from engaging in sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

But the topic is what makes “gay” wrong and a request was made that it be non-religiously based.

That leaves science, and you can say that we as a society made our own rules–but then I ask what legal system defined how other species behaved or for that matter, where in the constitution was photosynthesis defined?

No law forced my bladder to hold urine, yet my body–by design, uses it for that purpose. I’m sure if someone could figure out a way to use that in sex, they would–but it doesn’t change its biological purpose.

I’m sorry that you feel like you are being forced to support gay marriage. I think people are just sick of being denied certain rights without getting a good reason why.

I haven’t denied my brother diddly squat. Haven’t denied his partner either–and in their defense, they have been generally respectful of where I come from. But then my mother and sister poison things a little bit by their overwhelming monumental obvious support of their journey to unite. Totally fine–except that those two–who on their account are 100% HETEROSEXUAL see that I am no where at their level–so thus anything I do is not enough and is my way of making a statement.

I would be happy to quietly sit on the side–but the heterosexuals won’t hear of the Catholic doing that. Jesus does not judge and in their hetersexual world view of homosexuality, the only way one cannot judge is by being a fully complicit supporter in all ways.

It’s ridiculous.

You could also turn it around and say that gay people aren’t forcing you to have gay sex. All they want is the opportunity to live their lives the way they want without having other peoples’ morals imposed upon them. Imagine how you would feel if vegetarians passed a law banning you from eating meat. You would be rightly angry that other people were imposing their morals upon you.

Haven’t interfered, but the heterosexual folks in their lives can’t deal with the lack of “obvious” over the top support. Never mind that I had no wedding shower, NOR would I have refused my brother to bring a date if he had one at the time. (It’s been a long while, I cannot remember his relational status at the time.) I wouldn’t have said “sure you can bring a date as long as it is a female.”

Introducing intercourse in your argument is crude I might add when it is brought to the personal level of something I am experiencing right now. Obviously they aren’t forcing me to engage in such an intimant activity.

I do wish sometimes–even on such sensitive topics that folks would use a little bit of decorum when trying to make a point.

 

[Miserissima]

I think Pope Benedict disagrees. In his encyclical God is Love he mentions that often a distinction is made between eros and agape, and that eros is deemed lacking. But the Pope lays out the reasons why eros is fundamental to human nature and why humans are fulfilled by it (in its proper expression of man and woman coming together in marriage.)

I think this one is one of the better answers. Homosexuality (or Same Sex Attraction) is not wrong, only acting on it is wrong. One may feel agap-ic love in many forms, but acting on it in a same-sex situation is ero-tic.

So, homosexual marriage is wrong because…it is not open to life. But, that’s a theological perspective, and you seem to want something that isn’t defined by a religious institution. After all, can a sam sex couple feel agapic love? Can they be open to life, same as infertile couples?

It’s a dizzying argument for me, and I’m not getting to an answer that the OP wanted.

Question: Since Church doesn’t recognize civil unions as Sacramental Marriages, what is the position of the orthodox Catholis in Spain, where same sex civil unions are allowed?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Um…from way, way back, the terminal end of the digestive system in mammals is made for elimination purposes ONLY. Male gay sex does indeed violate biological function.

From an evolutionary perspective, no body parts were designed with a given function in mind. We came about as a result of random mutations. Those that had mutations that made them more likely to reproduce were more likely to pass on their genes. None of our body parts were designed for any particular purpose. And there are plenty of cases in evolution where one thing that was originally beneficial in one way later evolved so that it was used in some other way (such as the bacterial flagellum). You are falsely attributing purpose to a process that is not driven by purpose. Now you may disagree with this account of how we evolved from a theological perspective, but that’s essentially the secular view of evolution.

Gay sex is indeed harmful from a biological standpoint. I won’t go into the gory details, but let’s say when things aren’t used as designed, they will not continue to function as designed.

Again, evolutionarily speaking, there was no design. But aside from that, there are plenty of ways we use our bodies differently than what they were “designed” to do. For example, the human eyes were not “designed” to read from a computer screen (and there can be serious problems for those who use a computer a lot). But I don’t think that’s a good reason to say that it is wrong to use a computer.

 

[wapsi]

why are there all these benefits tied into marriage? What purpose do those benefits accomplish?

I suppose they encourage marriage, and the long-stability that marriage brings. Are you suggesting that the legal and economic benefits of marriage be done away with?

And why do polygamist unions not also accomplish that goal?

Polygamists don’t seem to need encouraging. I’m sorry for the flip answer, but they do arrange their lives with minimal government support (unless you count welfare payments for unwed mothers with children.)

 

[bugz2007]

There were laws banning sodomy until very recently. I would love to believe you that every single person would now oppose such laws, but I don’t think it’s true. Thankfully though, such people are no longer in the majority.

There are plenty of gay couples who want to get married and raise children together. A lot of gay couples adopt, and I think allowing gay marriage would only encourage people to settle down and start a family. Considering that there are tons of children who spend their whole lives in one foster home after another, I think that allowing gay marriage would do a lot of good. And if marriage was only valuable if the couple could produce children of their own, then sterile people shouldn’t be able to get married.

By that logic, we should test people to see if they are still able to have children before allowing them to get married. Marriage is not, as you seem to think, intended solely for those who wish to produce children. It is instead a legal recognition of the level of commitment between two individuals and entitles them to a number of different rights that are important to people in such a long-term committed relationship.

First, I wasn’t saying that nobody on Earth is saying that a law should prohibit sodomy. I was referring to we, as in the people in this thread. Nobody in this thread has said that the government should do that.

Second, there is no good, definitive evidence that a same-sex couple can raise a child as well as a traditional couple. In fact, there is no good, definitive evidence that any kind of non-traditional family structure can raise a child as well as a traditional couple. Shouldn’t we be doing our best to putting adoptive and foster children in family situations where we can be more assured of the best environment for the children?

Regardless, there is nothing currently, in most states, saying that children can’t be placed with non-married gay couples any less than with married gay couples. So they don’t need to get married to do so. I wouldn’t say that that is the best for the children, but it’s currently allowed, most places.

Third, well…I suppose I have left out the mentioning of a vital assumption I have made in coming to all of my conclusions. I have assumed that the government no longer cares that children are being born, and that they then have no reason to support the individuals who would give birth to them, only those who already have.

I maintain that “marriage” IS, from the government’s perspective, only valuable as a way to ensure the continuing population of the country. Other than that, it isn’t valuable. Allowing the contracts is just simply a way to make people happy. The government has no need to recognize the level of commitment between people because long-term commitment doesn’t accomplish anything for them except for the keeping up of morale. Secular marriage is, in my opinion, without a goal of producing a growing population, as silly as the government deciding to hand out free ice cream every Thursday.

I’ve kind of resigned myself to the fact that the government is willing to have this frivolous institution and isn’t willing to get rid of it, even though it’s not doing them much good. Any other purpose of civil marriage could just as easily be accomplished through alternate means. The government doesn’t like to redo it’s systems, though. It just likes to watch them crumble and fall apart, and then try to plaster the holes shut to make it last longer.

 

[Thales]

Right now-the only thing that makes gay wrong for me is the overwhelming family issues it presents in my case in that I am expected to wave a rainbow flag at a Gay pride event to show that I do not judge.

It’s unfortunate the innate troubles with homosexual behavior have been so well hid and disguised under cries of discrimination and denial of rights, that all one finds objectionable is waving the rainbow flag.

For me there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual. Similarly, I do not find take problem with those born blind, disfigured, paralyzed, or mentally handicapped. Homosexuality is a disorder like any other, a coss one must bear and accept the consequences that come with it. There should be no discrimination against homosexuals.

My trouble is with homosexual lifestyles and behavior. A homosexual man can have intercourse with a female within the bonds of marriage just like any other strait man. Likewise it would be an abomination for a straight man to lay with any other man. It is not the individual that is condemned it is the act. Homosexual intercoure is a sin, not necessarily being a homosexual. Why is it a sin? The homosexual lifestyle is dangerous and harmful to those involved.

Some statistics include:
-Much higher rates of STD’s, AIDS, and other blood diseases.
-The CDC has banned blood donations from homosexuals because the high insidents of blood diseases and AIDS.
-The life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is 20 years less than the average Canadian man;
-According to the Center for Disease Control, more than 82 percent of all known sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact.
-43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.

• Anal intercourse has been linked to a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
  -50% of the female prison population are lesbian, where they only represent 4% of the female total population.
  -Domestic violence is many times more prevalent between same sex couples. (not a good thing for children to be around)

The negative health, phycological, and emotional effects of the gay lifestyle go on and on. This is why homosexuality is a moral evil, because it increases pain, suffering, and despair not only to the individuals involved but to the entire society as well.

We all have to wage war against our inordinate desires. No one is exempt from having to face this. For some it is anger and a short temper, others vanity, or a desire to gossip. The homosexual simply has a specific inordinate same sex attraction, which needs to be fought against, as much as my desire to severely hurt the person who stole my car hubcaps or made fun of my new shoes.

Sources:
dakotavoice.com/2009/05/homosexual-group-admits-health-risks-of-homosexual-behavior/
allaboutworldview.org/homosexual-behavior.htm
virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2940

 

[bugz2007]

I suppose they encourage marriage, and the long-stability that marriage brings. Are you suggesting that the legal and economic benefits of marriage be done away with?

Polygamists don’t seem to need encouraging. I’m sorry for the flip answer, but they do arrange their lives with minimal government support (unless you count welfare payments for unwed mothers with children.)

I’m suggesting that I would rather see the legal and economic benefits of marriage done away with than see gay marriages recognized.

Ideally, I think the best way to handle the situation would be to do away with civil marriage entirely and replace it with civil unions of sorts that have nothing at all to do with sexual attraction or romantic love, if the government thinks that long-term, legally bound commitments are beneficial to the health and well-being of it’s citizens. If that’s the objective, it shouldn’t matter what the nature of that relationship is. Trouble is, marriage has sexual connotations. Two platonic friends should be able to contract a marriage-type union to obtain the benefits without having to feel like they are taking advantage of the system. And people shouldn’t be criticized for getting “married” when they aren’t in love.

What does the government care about love? Civil marriage is just a contract, anyway.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

And if we are going to go purely one the free will of a human being to use their body as they see fit for pleasure AND removing religion from the equation as a basis–there is no law that prohibits a consenting adult (and some minors) from engaging in sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

I am not saying that the government should not put any restrictions on how people behave. My only point was that I think there should be more than just religious arguments. I think that people should follow their religion’s moral teachings, but I don’t think they should impose them on others without some additional reasons.

I haven’t denied my brother diddly squat. Haven’t denied his partner either–and in their defense, they have been generally respectful of where I come from. But then my mother and sister poison things a little bit by their overwhelming monumental obvious support of their journey to unite. Totally fine–except that those two–who on their account are 100% HETEROSEXUAL see that I am no where at their level–so thus anything I do is not enough and is my way of making a statement.

I would be happy to quietly sit on the side–but the heterosexuals won’t hear of the Catholic doing that. Jesus does not judge and in their hetersexual world view of homosexuality, the only way one cannot judge is by being a fully complicit supporter in all ways.

It’s ridiculous.

I definitely understand where you’re coming from, and I didn’t mean to imply that you had done anything wrong. I was just trying to say why people are often passionate about gay rights and upset at those who disagree.

Haven’t interfered, but the heterosexual folks in their lives can’t deal with the lack of “obvious” over the top support. Never mind that I had no wedding shower, NOR would I have refused my brother to bring a date if he had one at the time. (It’s been a long while, I cannot remember his relational status at the time.) I wouldn’t have said “sure you can bring a date as long as it is a female.”

Introducing intercourse in your argument is crude I might add when it is brought to the personal level of something I am experiencing right now. Obviously they aren’t forcing me to engage in such an intimant activity.

I do wish sometimes–even on such sensitive topics that folks would use a little bit of decorum when trying to make a point.

I really do apologize for introducing intercourse, though it’s hard to avoid with a discussion like this. I was merely trying to use your vegetarianism/meat-eating metaphor to show you my perspective on the issue.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

First, I wasn’t saying that nobody on Earth is saying that a law should prohibit sodomy. I was referring to we, as in the people in this thread. Nobody in this thread has said that the government should do that.

Second, there is no good, definitive evidence that a same-sex couple can raise a child as well as a traditional couple. In fact, there is no good, definitive evidence that any kind of non-traditional family structure can raise a child as well as a traditional couple. Shouldn’t we be doing our best to putting adoptive and foster children in family situations where we can be more assured of the best environment for the children?

Well, aside from it being worse due to ridicule from other children, I’m not sure that it’s any worse. But I completely agree with you that we should put children in the best family situations possible, and if gay couples are found to provide a worse environment, straight couples should be given preference. However, we have a huge number of children who move from one foster home to another without a good stable environment. I think such children would be better off if they were adopted by a loving gay couple.

I maintain that “marriage” IS, from the government’s perspective, only valuable as a way to ensure the continuing population of the country. Other than that, it isn’t valuable. Allowing the contracts is just simply a way to make people happy. The government has no need to recognize the level of commitment between people because long-term commitment doesn’t accomplish anything for them except for the keeping up of morale. Secular marriage is, in my opinion, without a goal of producing a growing population, as silly as the government deciding to hand out free ice cream every Thursday.

I’m sure that some 50 year-olds that fall in love might disagree.

 

[bugz2007]

Well, aside from it being worse due to ridicule from other children, I’m not sure that it’s any worse. But I completely agree with you that we should put children in the best family situations possible, and if gay couples are found to provide a worse environment, straight couples should be given preference. However, we have a huge number of children who move from one foster home to another without a good stable environment. I think such children would be better off if they were adopted by a loving gay couple.

I’m sure that some 50 year-olds that fall in love might disagree.

Then I would ask why they need the government to validate something they already know - that they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. They don’t need a piece of paper or a legal status so know that.

 

[Ahimsa]

But the Catholic Church does oppose same-sex civil unions in the secular realm.

Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

Notice, though, this:

If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good.

The CDF document claims that “grave detriment to the common good” will result from the legal recognition of same-sex civil unions, but it presents no empirical evidence that that is the case.

 

[Exalt]

1. Gay sex is a perversion of the natural instinct. Now, then some people say “fruit flies and manatees have gay sex, so therefore it is natural.” To that I reply “Chimpanzees wage war on other family groups and practice cannibalism, does that make it ok for humans?”

Wow, it looks like judging the moral character of something based on it’s occurrence, or lack thereof, in nature doesn’t make much sense. In fact, whether something is “natural” or not pretty much has nothing to do with whether it’s moral or not.