You ask, is homosexuality normal? I answered “no” it isn’t based on mankind’s inherent nature or the natural law. The natural law is based on man’s ability to make generalizations about things having natures, what they are, what is good for these natures and acting in accord with them. All living things have a nature, essence or purpose, an end or goal.

Human beings have an immutable nature that demands acting in accord with reason given that humans have an intellect or ability to think, understand and act based on conscience (while animals and plants don’t). All non-rational creatures like animals participate in the natural law only by instinct. We, humans, are unique, rational creatures that participates by inclination and rational free will. There is a huge difference between human behavior and animal behavior. The intellect enables us to think; the free will allows us to choose. The natural order here is the rational governs over the emotive. In this sense, we cannot compare our human sexuality to animals wild, domestic or otherwise.

JASON POSTS: lol? It (the Bible) may be a good starting ground, but as I have said before, you should search for evidence supporting your beliefs whether the beliefs are from the bible, some other religious book, or just a personal belief. If you cant find anything substantial, then I would seriously start to question if you should really believe the way you do.


You are the one asking the question. Are you searching for truthful answers or music to your ears? I gave you a truthful answer....based on the natural law. I don’t need to search for evidence supporting it, for we are all hardwired with it. It’s an indelible part of who we are. The fact that the natural law is based upon reason, upon thinking about one’s observations about reality, makes natural law a universal ethics since all human beings by their nature are able to reason and think about universal truths. Just as their are universal truths in the sciences, there are universal truths in the moral realm as well.

As I said above, homosexuality is opposed to or against the natural law on the grounds that the body parts don’t fit. Now, I'll add to that--common sense, logic, and the only life that comes of it is bacteriological. The point is if there were only homosexuality, their wouldn’t be any children born to keep the human race going.

JASON POSTS: However, that doesn't mean those couples cant have a full, pleasurable, sexual relationship (oral, anal, masturbation, etc).
So, here you seem to be expressing the answer to your initial question. Your thinking is more in terms of emotivism and hedonism which says that emotions and passions are the most important factors in determining our actions as opposed to reason ruling our emotions and governing our lives. Utilitarianism tells us to act in a way that we can maximize the greatest happiness for the greatest number, suggesting there exists no absolute moral rights or wrongs. What you say, however, doesn’t change the fact that homosexuality is an un-natural sex act or behavior.


"I think that, in the long run, the practice of homosexuality is physically, mentally and spiritually harmful to the individuals involved, their families, friends and society."

JASON POSTS: I think what you are truly condemning is the one night stand, polygamy, and other similar things many people would consider immoral in a "normal" hetero relationship.

I honestly don’t know how you can come up with that from my statement. My convictions regarding the practice of homosexuality are 1st---it is deadly. There is plenty of evidence that reveal astounding levels of promiscuity, bizarre sexual practices and a range of diseases that are directly attributable to those practices such as hepitatis A,B, and C, gonorrhea, siphilis, and gay bowel syndrome. On average, male homosexuals are dead by age 40. That can be bumped up a bit with medication available that slow--but do not cure--AIDS. 2nd---male homosexuals, as a group, are self centered narcissists who are incapable of forming lasting bonds to other homosexuals. 3rd---male homosexuals in general have a compulsion to sodomize teenage boys.
Yes, I know there are individual homosexuals who don’t fit one or more or any of these generalizations. But I’m talking generalizations here.

All three of these are good reasons for not granting homosexuals the same privileges as a married man and woman.I’m concerned with what direction we want our society as a whole to take.
Officiating same-sex “marriage”; Sodo-matrimony? Talk about an idea that goes against the natural law! Why should we wrench apart the 2,000 year old universal institution of marriage as between one man and one woman, the foundation block of civilizations, for a very small homosexual minority within a minority? Doesn't make sense.

First---nothing I have said is "anti-gays", as you put it. I can distinguish between fostering respect for individuals and respect for lifestyles. Thank you, kindly.

Secondly, I didn't say homosexuality was wrong because it's unnatural, you did. Just by the fact that homosexuality goes against the natural law alone has its own negative consequences. I said the practice of homosexuality is harmful...and I stand by that. It would be up to you to convince me otherwise.

Thirdly, let's do get things in perspective (sort of in a humorous way.) Using your rationale, I'd say that not any of those things like beds, mattresses, computers, shoes and eye-glasses could be made if the construction worker used only male electric plugs and no female outlet.

Man used his natural ability to think, make tools and apply his natural talents to make all these products.

hahahahah I love this. Good one Lula!!

"You ask, is homosexuality normal? I answered “no” it isn’t based on mankind’s inherent nature or the natural law."

Actually you didn't exactly say that the first time.... You said we can "easily describe what is natural as in nature", that it was not natural, and "the body parts dont work as nature intended". You said just nature, which to me, includes animals and humans.

Now what you are saying you meant is that homosexuality doesn't fall into mankind's natural law. Ok, I will agree humans can put be in their own "category". I wouldn't draw such a hard line as you have though...I mean, humans are still animals, incredibly smart and resourceful, but still an animal, part of nature. We can find out much about ourselves, by looking at other species.


"As I said above, homosexuality is opposed to or against the natural law on the grounds that the body parts don’t fit. Now, I'll add to that--common sense, logic, and the only life that comes of it is bacteriological. The point is if there were only homosexuality, their wouldn’t be any children born to keep the human race going."

Well, technically the body parts DO fit not for reproduction of course, but pleasure wise yes. Is anal stimulation pleasurable to support homosexual relationships? Can the prostate be stimulated through anal as a source of pleasure just a coincidence or design? Is perhaps homosexuality simply a built-in population control? Can the anus accommodate a penis by coincidence or design? As for bacteria... good hygiene and the use of a condom can prevent the transfer of bacteria and STDs, and is pretty much a requirement in anal intercourse... gay or straight.


"I honestly don’t know how you can come up with that from my statement."

It is funny, after you say this, you start bringing up a bunch of examples of "promiscuity, bizarre sexual practices", and diseases... exactly what I was getting at. I argue that these, along with the 2nd and 3rd example you gave, would be condemned in heterosexual relationships. You are not truly condemning the love between two monogamous, sexually responsible gays, you instead are condemning irresponsible, careless, sexual activity between two partners whether they are same sex or not... exactly what you should be.

I don't argue that those are not necessarily more prominent, because it is probably accurate. However, the people that are deviant get their own punishment because those that are irresponsible, careless, and practice promiscuous behavior get the diseases that come from that lifestyle... gay or straight. Those that are self-centered and cant form lasting bonds are probably part of the above lifestyle and unless they change their ways will end up diseased and alone... again gay or straight. Those that molest children receive the proper punishment from our laws... once again, gay or straight.


"Man used his natural ability to think, make tools and apply his natural talents to make all these products. "

Agreed, maybe not in balance with the rest of nature, or even helpful to nature, but it is still part of who we are.

I don't see humans as animals at all. Human nature isn't the same as animal nature. Humans are totally distinct creatures and the latest scientific insights into the design of DNA prove that quite concusively.

More time than not, this "pleasure" that you say is associated with homosexuality actually causes a raft of problems both mentally and physically. In this sense, then, those who engage in homosexuality naturally become victims of the "pleasure".

Nah, even thinking "technically", the body parts don't fit. Nature didn't intend for our reproductive parts to be used with the elimination of bodily waste parts. It's unsanitary and the natural consequence is the gay bowel syndrome (tearing of the rectum and subsequent infections, etc.) and disease, even death. The natural "design" or use of human sexual act is unitive and procreative. Homosexuality eliminates both these aspects.

I understand that condoms don't work all that great in preventing STD's and HIV/AIDS...as in they slip right through the latex.

Huh? You do know men piss through their uretha as well as cum, right?

LOL. Good answer.

Cacto, as always, you are da man.

From what I understand, before the ejaculation occurs, the opening where the urine would pass is closed shut so there is virtually no chance of mixing the two.
At the very beginning of arousal, there is also a clear seminal fluid that passes through which purifies the tube before the semem passes through it. Nature is simply marvelous for we are wonderfully made.

Cactoblasta, I'm a gentlelady and if your comments get foul or nasty, I shall not respond.

"normal" isn't a good bellweather, anyway. Murder is normal if you look at how often it happens. It happens without human social constructs, and continues under them. Pedophilia, given the numbers of people molested and the numbers jailed for it, is a "normal", if disgusting, occurrence.

We choose as humans in a culture to promote some acts, and to dissuade people from others. People talk about Greece and Rome, and though homosexuality was rampant, it was also looked down on. Why? Does there really need to be a reason?

I don't believe that we should have witch hunts and jail people and all the dark things we've done in the past. On the other hand, there's no reason why a society has to rate it as an equal practice to heterosexuality just because it occurs whether we like it or not. Lots of things that we consider negative do, too.

LULA - "More time than not, this "pleasure" that you say is associated with homosexuality actually causes a raft of problems both mentally and physically. In this sense, then, those who engage in homosexuality naturally become victims of the "pleasure"."

Well, doing things for pleasure plagues both types of relationships.... maybe more with homosexual via testosterone, but every time you use birth control (whether it is knowing your cycle, or human made) you are doing it for pleasure. However, doing things for pleasure sure isn't a problem... it depends on how responsible you are. If you have to enter into a dangerous promiscuous lifestyle, have endless partners, etc that is when you have gone to far.

Also, i have to ask, since you didn't respond to the other points I made (about what you are really condemning) does that mean you think there can be fully functional same sex relationships? I think that will all that has been said, there is probably more promiscuous activity, but that activity alone is not good enough to prevent marriages, screwed up people get married all the time. One of the bigger things I worry about is the children. However, I would hope adoption agencies do enough research to weed out the couples that shouldn't have kids. I would also hope a surrogate mother knew and trusted the gay couple. Sperm donors and artificial insemination might be a bit harder to take care of, however, an interesting thing I just thought of.... unwanted kids are much harder to have in an infertile relationship, so I would hope that same sex couples that wanted kids would be void of the promiscuity, more responsible. A better question is, how many of those that are promiscuous would want to have a kid with their partner?

BAKER - "Does there really need to be a reason?"

There does if you are going to limit the rights of people.

BAKER - ""normal" isn't a good bellweather, anyway. Murder is normal if you look at how often it happens. It happens without human social constructs, and continues under them. Pedophilia, given the numbers of people molested and the numbers jailed for it, is a "normal", if disgusting, occurrence."

There is a point to that.... .whether homosexuality is built-in or not is not a good way to judge the behavior, since it says little about the behavior itself.

BAKER - "I don't believe that we should have witch hunts and jail people and all the dark things we've done in the past. On the other hand, there's no reason why a society has to rate it as an equal practice to heterosexuality just because it occurs whether we like it or not."

Agreed on the first point, to the second.... this whole debate has been on the merits and downfalls of homosexuality not "the relationships will happen no matter what you do so it is equal!"

Geesh, there are so many things to talk about on this ONE issue, being a good politician must be extremely difficult Do I dare bring up an abortion article?

Those same people determined what "rights" there are, right? Don't think about "rights" out of context. There's no tablet set down by nature or God or whatever not written by man that tells us what rights we have. Our rights are amended and changed every day.

"Those same people determined what "rights" there are, right? Don't think about "rights" out of context. There's no tablet set down by nature or God or whatever not written by man that tells us what rights we have. Our rights are amended and changed every day."

I guess I dont get what you are getting at. If people in a culture are going to promote/dissuade some acts by using law that is really forcing compliance.... it is a law, so they should have good reason(s) for making that law. Just promoting/dissuading is a bit different, as that can simply be ignored... though you should still have good reason for doing even that.

Do you think it is possible man wrote the meaning incorrectly (in the bible or other religious books), misinterpreting what was truly meant? Could the meaning be REinterpreted (via translations) incorrectly? Or is it flawless between them all?

I think your misunderstanding springs from the idea that we have some "rights" that our society, itself, didn't define. We don't. You make the assumption that there is a rule that we should have reasons to make a law. Why? Where is that written? If it is... well, wouldn't that be a law, too?

The overall discussion has been about gay marriage. Marriage in terms of the government is just official recognition and a piece of paper. I can call myself married all I want, and the government doesn't kick my door in and force me to say I am not.

When I go to the government and demand a license, though, why should I expect they have to give me one? Not everyone can get a drivers license, pilots license, etc. We make specific definitions of what we will and won't license in terms of animals, etc.

No one is making homosexuality illegal. The government just isn't licensing gay marriages. Someone telling them they have to holds doesn't require a "why not", rather telling them... well, why at all. You aren't telling them to stop doing something, you're telling them to start doing something.

Why not licenses for someone to marry their cat? What would it hurt? Shall we discuss the over all benefit and problems of animal love? Do we need to? Nope. We just decide we will continue not doing it until we have a reason TO do it.