Homosexuality is Unnatural

I agree that homosexual sex is not an act that our bodies were made for. I won't deny that there are negative physiological effects of male homosexual intercourse especially, and probably negative psychological effects for homosexuals of both sexes. It is for these reasons in particular that I have a moral objection to homosexuality.
However, I don't believe that my or anyone else's moral objections should be a deciding factor in whether or not gays and lesbians have a right to marry. We all know what the first amendment says and what it stands for. I believe that is what makes America what it is, more than how we define marriage. Constitutionally, gays and lesbians should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

First of all the definition of natural is being in nature. Homosexuality is rampant in nature.
Secondly even if it is unnatural that doesn't mean it's wrong . Are you suggesting we ban TV 's, the internet , eyeglasses, cameras, watches, cars , etc...All those are unnatural.

Plastic Surgery?
Hair Extensions?
Pace Makers?
Cheese Wiz?

Whether homosexuality is natural or not does not change the fact that it exists. Homosexuality's origin is not the question at hand. The question is whether citizens who are homosexual (by nature or nurture) should be allowed to legally commit themselves to the person they love. This argument is invalid.

Have you checked out the web site called AMERICANS FOR TRUTH lately? They had an article on the Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco and men where parading around naked in front of children , no less, when are these men going to grow up? You bet NAMBLA was there for that even if they dont hold up signs or where I LOVE BOYS T-shirts how could they pass up and opportunity to run around nude in front of children. When did everything that homosexuals do turn out to be about sex, do they ever do anything else with their lives? I think its all unnatural and shameful.

Gay/Homosexual Serial Killers and number they killed

Jeffrey Dahmer 17 1978, 1988-91 Milwaukee Milwaukee and Chicago homosexual cannibal. He was killed by another inmate while in prison. 21 May 1960 28 November 1994

Andrew Cunanan 5 1997 San Diego, Calif. Minnesota; Chicago, IL; South Beach, FL killed fashion designer Gianni Versace 31 August 1969

Gilles de Rais 300+

Luis Alfredo Garavito 140+ Colombia Colombia Gay serial killer who murdered over 140 boys in Columbia.

Randy Steven Kraft 65 (

Michael Swango 35 - 60 1983-97 Ohio, Illinois, New York, South Dakota,
Virginia "Doctor of Death" -- killed hospital patients

Andrei Chikatilo 52

Fritz Haarmann 40

John Wayne Gacy 33 until 1978 Chicago Chicago bisexual; 27 of his victims (young boys he seduced) were found buried in crawlspace under his house. Executed in Joliet, IL.

Patrick Wayne Kearney 28+ 1968 to 1977 Redondo Beach, Calif. gay cruising areas of Hollywood

David D. Hill 28? 1968 to 1977 Redondo Beach, Calif. Hollywood Patrick Kearney's lover; confessed to being co-killer with Kearney, but police weren't sure about the extent of his involvement

Hans Grans 27+ until 1924 Germany Germany accommplice and love of Haarmann, the "Butcher Of Hanover"

Wayne Williams 27 1979-81 Atlanta Atlanta Gay serial killer who preyed mostly on young black male hustlers.

Dean Corll 27

Elmer Wayne Henley 27 1960s to 1973 Bisexual. Victims were young boys who he kidnapped and tortured.

David Owen Brooks 27

Donald Harvey 25 - 40

Juan Corona 25 1971 From Mexico; moved to Yuba City, CA in 1950s Yuba
City, Calif. Born in Mexico. All of his victims were men that he first raped, and then killed with a machete over the span of six weeks. Presently resides in Corcoran State Prison. Juan Corona's brother is Natividad, the gay, owner of the Guadalajara cafe in Marysville, CA. 1934 ( THIS ONE IS FROM MY NECK OF THE WOODS...NOT A FEW MILES FROM WHERE I WITNESSED THE MURDER OF JOHN DOE...AT LOMO CROSSING BETWEEN YUBA CITY AND LIVE OAK...STORY AT WWW.HOPE7.HIGHPOWERSITES.COM

Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo 21

Larry Eyler 19 1980s Chicago Illinois and Indiana

Huang Yong 17+ 2001-2003 Henan Province, China Henan Province, China Gay. Executed. Murdered boys that he flirted with and picked up at internet cafes. Saved their belts as souvenirs. His 18th victim escaped, leading to his arrest.

Dennis Nilsen 16 1978-83 U.K.

Marcelo Costa de Andrade 14

William Bonin 12+

Henry Lee Lucas 12+

Ottis Toole 12

Vaughn Greenwood 11+ 1974-75 Los Angeles

Richard Speck

Cayetano Hernandez

Eleazor Solis

David Bullock

Vernon Butts

Paul Bateson

Marc Dutroux 6 1995-1996 Belgium Belgium Bisexual. He is unusual among gay serial killers, in that his victims were all girls, who he kidnapped and tortured before killing. One of most notorious serial killers in Belgium's history.

Michael Terry

Orville Lynn Majors

Charles Cohen

Arthur Gary Bishop 5 1984 Utah Utah Utah serial killer of young boys. Years before his murder spree, in 1978, he had been excommunicated from the LDS Church. Bishop was an active homosexual and was no longer a member of the LDS Church when he became a serial killer. Executed in Utah State Prison. He said of his crimes, "With great sadness and remorse, I realize that I allowed myself to be misled by Satan. Pornography was not the only negative influence in my life, but its effect on me was devastating. I am a homosexual pedophile convicted of murder, and pornography was a determining factor in my downfall."

Michael Lupo 4+ 1986 from Italy London

Peter Moore 4 1995 north Wales north Wales

Westley Allan Dodd 3+ Washingon Washington, Oregon
David P. Brown
. Victims were all young boys.

Charles Manson 3+ 1968-72 Los Angeles Los Angeles Bisexual. One of nation's most famous serial killers. Murdered actress Sharon Tate, the wife of film director Roman Polanski. Deeply interested in the occult.

David Edward Maust 5+ 1981; 2003 Germany; Galveston, TX (1981);
Hammond, IL (2003) Gay. Killed teenage boys, usually by stabbing

Bruce Davis 2+ 1968-72 Los Angeles Los Angeles Charles Manson accomplice

Erik Menendez 2 20 August 1989 Beverly Hills, CA Beverly Hills, CA with his straight brother Lyle, Erik killed his parents (Jose Menendez and Kitty Menendez).

Although homosexual murderers of single victims are too numerous to list here, a number of particularly famous ones include: Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb (the wealthy and academically bright gay Chicago couple who murdered a boy in 1924 just for fun; their story became one of the nation's most famous murder cases, and was the basis for many movies, including Hitchcock's film "Rope"); Armin Meiwes (the sexually deviant German cannibal known as "Der Metzgermeister" - The Master Butcher, who met a victim over the Internet who he ate and killed); John E. du Pont (the gay member of the wealthy du Pont famil who shot Olympic wrestler David Schultz to death);and on and on

As a gay person and advocate. I have yet to read any type of document, order, newspaper article etc that prints out a "Gay Agenda" Lord knows no two gays can agree on anything let alone an agenda. If you have such a copy please Print it out here as that way we all can see what our plans are.
As for gay marriage, No religion , I said NO religion or bible prohibits gays or str8's from getting married. In fact the Catholic church has ceremonies that were used in the past for just such type of marriages. My god ( Budda ) does NOT prohibit such marriages at all. Nor do most religions in the world. Many Christian churches allow such unions. So to say that it is abnormal is your only arguement and that one is bogus also. Nature itself has gay couples, Penguins, Horses, cows, elephants, birds, bats, and so on. So that arguement is bogus also. I suggest you study nature and you will see that it is a fact of nature. Then come back here and place a new arguement FOR gay marriages.

First, advocates of gay marriage are not anti-marriage or anti-family. Opposite sex couples who love each other and wish to get married and have children may continue to do this, just as they've always done. The change? Same sex couples who love each other want similar legal rights.

Second, the law should not be based off of religion . It is important for a society to have morals; individual rights and freedom should be protected, whether it's their right to life , property, or opinions. But the majority should not be able to take rights from the minority. Besides, not everyone is Christian, or believes that nature was divinely created. As a secular state, why should the Bible supersede the Constitution?

Christian beliefs and dictates apply only to those people who choose to believe in them. There is no way to justify forcing others to follow them.

And then- innate realizations? Please. For something to be innate, it would have to be agreed upon widely, consistently, and from birth. No exceptions. Even if I were the only one who feels that homosexuality is nor unnatural, it would be enough to prove that the concept is not innate.

If homosexuality is so unnatural why are there so many homosexual people? For those who look at it from a religious standpoint: If God felt being homosexuality was as unnatural as you claim it to be, why would he allow it to happen in so many instances? These things should be considered. I don't think anyone has the right to claim that a sexual preference is wrong and that their preference is the one that is "normal" or "correct".

This may be a question that many have considered already, but I feel that it's fundamental. If it wasn't natural for somebody, why else would it exist? Why would there be homosexuals at all if it was "unnatural"? Unless it is some kind of innate attraction, how would it have come about in the first place? Has the proposer of this question yet considered this?

If FRC could prove that an overwhelming amount of people think homosexuality is unnatural, what would that mean? Just many people think homosexuality is unnatural does not mean that it actually is. Still, if FRC could demonstrate that homosexuality was unnatural, why would it matter? Why is something that is “unnatural” immoral? Why do we place so much trust in the dictates of nature? FRC would say that the law of the Lord is against homosexuality, in that, if homosexuality is against nature, homosexuality is against God and His nature. That might work for a theological argument, but in this context, we’re wondering what policy our government should take. The government rules over a people free to practice any creed, or lack thereof, and to guide the government by religious dogma, or ideas derived from that dogma, is to impose articles of faith on the People. We cannot allow our government to veer from secularism; else, our government threatens our civil liberties and our freedom of religion. When our officials make decisions, they must use secular reason, else they stand to threaten the establishment of religion.

"Those who would reject this law find themselves in opposition to the Divine intent for mankind, a reality that every culture from the dawn of civilization has either recognized – or failed to acknowledge at its peril."

Oh, that's convenient. All civilizations have condemned homosexuality. And those that didn't... well, they died -because- they didn't condemn homosexuality. The other civilizations fell for other reasons.

As for past civilizations who did not condemn homosexuality... I'm currently doing research, and my list looks something like this:

Zuni community (late 19th c.)
Roman community (4th c.)
Egypt (2600 B.C.)
Mesopotamian codes (2375 B.C., 2100 B.C., 1750 B. C., 1726 B.C., circa 800 B.C.)
Plato and other contemporary philosophers (4th c. B.C.)
Classical Greek philosophers (Cicero and Curio, no date)
Native Americans (1500s - 1800s at least)

Not comprehensive in the least, and clearly not all civilizations condemned homosexuality.

I don't believe homosexuality is unnatural, but, even if it was, why does it matter?
Air conditioners are unnatural.
Televisions are unnatural.
Phones are unnatural.
Computers and the internet (and all of technology) are unnatural.
Even marriage is unnatural, because it's a legal agreement between two people and the state, it doesn't occur anywhere else in nature: only humans marry.

Allowing gays to marry isn't advocating homosexuality or anything like that, it's simply allowing gays to marry, so it isn't advocating unnaturalness, so why does it matter if gays marry?
Anyway, we learn about computer programs in school, is that promoting unnaturalness?

Homosexuality is just having feelings for someone else. That's not unnatural.

The design argument is a valid, compeling argument. It is also very simple: Life clearly speaks of design. From a scientific view, it is extreemly improbable that life is here by any other means except a designer. For that fact, is it so improbable that life is here by any other means than a designer, that from an engieering perspective, it is a certainty that a designer behind life exists.

Given this, it is extreemly clear that male and female sexual organs are "desgined" for each other. Therefore, we as humans, are designed to engage is sexual realtions with the opposite sex. We are NOT desgined to engage in sexual realtions with the same sex.

Now to the argument that other species engage is same-sexual relations: The last time I looked, I'm a human. I'm not a giraffe, I'm not an insect, etc... I'm a human.

It is also clear that we live in a world that has significant problems. These problems are clearly seem in bad and destructive behariour of man, deseases, etc... The who reason phycologists and counselaors can make a living is that we, as humans have problems. Not only do humans have behavior problems, but there is behavior problems in the animal kingdom as well. In order to show that homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom validates human homosexual behavior, you will need to show that the designer has intended this as normal behavior in the animal kingdom as a whole. Excluding the species that can actually propogate themselves with this kind of behaviour, there is no basis to belive that the designer behind life intends for this to be normative. the further a species is from humans, the less the analogy applies logically.

We all have our likes and dislikes in life, and some of the things we like are not legal because they harm ourselves or others. Broadly speaking that's what law is based on. The majority of those laws are based on harm to others and harm to oneself. Homosexuality does not harm others and homosexuals would obviously agree that it does not harm them.

If human beings are taught to fear and hate homosexuals as they very often are, particularly among religious groups, there is going to be an attempt to suppress it. Fear and disgust of homosexuality is the root causes of all activity to suppress it.

Now imagine if you will, a thousand years in the future, humankind is traveling the galaxy and comes across an alien world of alien cultures and alien reproductive habits. If in those thousand years we have not learned to conquer our fear of homosexuality, how will we ever be able to face the shock of alien cultures on distant planets?

We are provincial, paranoid, and feeble to succumb to fear that is behind homophobia. Future generations already show signs of courage and tolerance. The embarrassing truth is older generations steeped in homophobia are in positions of authority to continue the assault on gays and lesbians.

First let me be clear. As a homosexual, I do not support gay marriage. I agree with those who believe marriage only between a man and a woman should be legal because the institution provides the optimal framework in our society for raising children. But let me tell you clearly. Only one who is a homosexual can determine if it is a normal condition of life. Apart from the dubious biblical interpretation, your argument is as silly to homosexuals as the idea that red hair is not normal because most people do not have red hair.

You've seen those pictures of giraffes with their necks entwined so that their necks form a heart, right? It's on "LOVE" cards and greeting cards everywhere. It's perfectly natural, and it's a mating behavior that causes the animals involved to sexually react to each other. But no female giraffe engages in this behavior. Every time you see it, it's two male giraffes.

"Cnemidophorus uniparens," the whiptail lizard, reproduces after a ritual involving two females. There are no males. The females partogenically lay eggs afterward that produce female babies. This is also clearly "natural," since it's in nature and it's how the species survive.

Take out the claim of "divinely created natural order" and all you're left with is "divine creation" as your argument, which is a matter for individuals, their gods, and their churches, not the judgement of the Family Research Council.

--divinely created nature itself. According to the above-mentioned Pew Poll, the next most frequent reason given for opposing gay marriage is that “homosexuality is not natural/normal” (9 percent).--

Of course, the problem is that the opinion of those opposing gay marriage does not really matter. Sure, some people may be unfamiliar with the facts and consider homosexuality to be not natural, but surely we have outgrown such primitive logic and come to realize that homosexuality is not only commonly found in nature but also seems to have a (significant) genetic component.

As to the divine part, it seems that God managed to create something in which homosexuality was all but unnatural, although perhaps poorly understood by some. However, homosexuality is but one aspect of same-sex marriage and a focus on sex, while understandable given the fascination of some with gay sex, seems rather misplaced.

It resurrects itself every 4 years when Republicans need to get out the vote. It inflames (and funds) liberal and conservative support organizations and forces moderate politicians to choose between hate-spewing intolerant right-wingers and a lifestyle that most Americans find distasteful. Thanks Karl Rove!

To approximately quote Jon Stewart, I don't have to marry a gay person, right? Just like you don't have to marry someone of another race. or religion. or hair color. The only reason same-sex marriage is not legal is you can't get reelected in most states if you support it. Give the US another 25 years and maybe the general consensus will have changed.

The philosophical/religious/parenting debates are incredibly emotional, stirring discussions that attract voters' attention but lead to no resolution. No rational person can agree that somehow limiting two consenting adults from entering a recognized marriage benefits society in anyway. However politics is highly irrational, religious views won't be swayed by research and lobbying organizations don't attract money by avoiding emotionally charged rhetoric.

So should it be? Sure. Will it be? Not for awhile.

I suspect a philosophical fallacy in the Family Research Council’s argument here. They write, “This response is followed by “the purpose of marriage is to have children” (4 percent), which also recognizes a purposeful – and thus “natural” – design for human sexuality.” This, admittedly, may have some validity. Marriage, as it has been traditionally defined, may imply “procreation.”

However, as David Hume argued, questions about what “ought to be” cannot be derived from questions about what “is.” The fundamental question in this debate is: Should two consenting male adults, for example, be allowed the right to marry? To respond as FRC has done, by appealing to what “is” (or what has always been) and therefore what “should be,” is fallacious because these are two fundamentally different questions. As their argument rests on this assumption, it should be questioned for its validity.

If homosexuality is unnatural, then surely its behaviour would not be found in humans across the globe; but it is--even in cultures where acting it out is punishable by death. If homosexuality were a construct, it wouldn't exist in the non-human world , but it does.

The forced ideal that homosexuality is 'wrong', is a judgment call. Living one's life the way that they see fit is not wrong, it simply is. It's like telling a cat to stop eating meat. You can do it and get upset, but they'll still catch a bird. America's resistance to sex and sexuality only perturb it and make it dysfunctional. Judge not. It isn't your place to tell others how to live their life.

I would like to put aside religion and family values for a moment.

Although considered normal during antiquity, homosexuality in contemporary Western society arose in sharp contrast to societal norms, caused people much anxiety, confusion and persecution. As such, homosexuality met the criteria for a psychopathology, which can be defined as a severe deviation from social norms which brings about psychological discomfort. It was thus included as a psychosexual disorder in the DSM. However, it was subsequently removed as it became increasingly more popular, and thus more socially normalized.

There have been numerous studies showing a physiological basis for homosexuality, such as an increased serotonin metabolism or hemispheric symmetry. However, such studies are shunned as they go against contemporary ideals of choice and free will. We must consider the question though, what if those choices are as a result of pathology? What is the implication then? Are we ready to think about that?

you suggest that opposing gay marriage on the basis of its "unnatural-ness" is a completely logical stance. i find that...strange.

the word itself, "unnatural" is one of those bogeyman words that in itself means nothing, while saying much of the speaker. by some standards, it is "unnatural" to conduct discussions with people one has never met, nor indeed am ever likely to meet. while it certainly recalls to mind epistolary debates such as the lively exchange within the screwtape letters, the immediacy we are offered now is certainly unnatural.

pointing out that you consider a thing to be "unnatural" is not a valid basis for public policy and indeed simply isn't logical.

but perhaps more importantly, advancing the "unnaturalness" argument reveals the true heart of your objection: that you simply dislike homosexuals. it has little to do with the subject of marriage per se, and advancing the unnaturalness argument spells that out in blazing, 40' tall letters for all to see.