Should Marriage for Same Sex Couples be Legal?

Should Marriage for Same Sex Couples be Legal?

The tide of marriage for same-sex couples has ebbed and flowed over the last decade with no end in sight. Because marriage sits squarely at the intersection of religion, law and society, the discussion around same-sex couples’ inclusion into the institution of marriage has been one of the most complex and hotly contested topics in America.

Next question in Society

You are seeing 39 Comments on this Argument. See all 428 Comments on this Question.
Regarding Argument
Homosexuality is Unnatural
- From FRC
No Side
By Family Research Council - Defending Faith, Family and Freedom
Close Argument Open Argument Go to this Argument

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • silverwhisper
    you advance a strange argument

    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.

    - silverwhisperUS July 13, 2008 8:23AM

    Reply to this Recommend (7) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Ralfe Poisson
    Socially Constructed Psychopathology

    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?

    - Ralfe PoissonZA July 25, 2008 12:12AM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag Side: Uncommitted

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • thedr9wningman
    Unnatural?

    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.

    - thedr9wningmanUS August 20, 2008 2:55PM

    Reply to this Recommend (6) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Alex M
    "Is/Ought" problem

    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.

    - Alex MUS August 26, 2008 2:36PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • nbkwx55
    This whole topic is just a red herring

    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.

    - nbkwx55US September 7, 2008 11:52PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • richardsonkr
      Nice

      I do appreciate how you call red herring and then launch an ad hominem. The truth is, it's not us "hate-spewing right-wingers" that even bring the topic up, it's the hate-spewing left-wingers. When it gets voted down, they call the voters hateful bigots and throw a temper tantrum. You are probably right when you say that in a few years it will be legal, but the American people need more time. Have patience. We aren't hateful, just cautious.

      - richardsonkrUS January 17, 2009 4:57PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • nbkwx55
        doens't explaining a red herring require an ad hominem?

        Otherwise I would be arguing the apparent, but not true, reason for the assertion. To directly refute the assertion - no, homosexuality is not unnatural. It occurs across all cultures, geographies and throughout the history of mankind not to mention in other species of animals. President Ahmenijad of Iran was publicly laughed at when he claimed his country has no homosexuals. By definition since it occurs in nature it is not unnatural. That's a much less interesting response, in my mind, than my original posting.

        My argument is that this whole line of debate is a manufactured topic employed by politicians who force their opponents into an argument that's irrelevant to most people but so emotionally charged that it attracts attention away from more important topics. It's a very useful tactic for a politician who could not win on the issues with an opponent but knows how to manipulate the electorate for a win. It should be called out as such to push it aside in political debate and make room for more important issues.

        - nbkwx55US January 20, 2009 1:02PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • richardsonkr
          No, logical fallacies are never required.

          Beating a red herring simply requires you to say, "That's a red herring, a logical fallacy, and therefore will no longer be considered." Nobody said that homosexuality was unnatural, so that line of reasoning is a straw man, a logical fallacy, and therefore will no longer be considered. Your argument that the debate is irrelevant has no bearing at all on the debate itself, nor does it justify your position, though it is a point. While it might not be important to some, even most people, it is very important for many, and as such should not be discarded.

          - richardsonkrUS January 21, 2009 4:49PM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • PvM
    Problematic argument

    --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.

    - PvMUS September 9, 2008 6:45PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • sharky
    Only nature says no such thing.

    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.

    - sharkyUS September 24, 2008 8:01AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Bcereus
    Walk in my shoes

    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.

    - BcereusUS October 13, 2008 1:26PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Marco
    Fear and disgust are behind this claim.

    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.

    - MarcoUS November 9, 2008 2:01PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • steve4
    frc is right

    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.

    - steve4US November 24, 2008 8:47AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • alovelylittlepapercrane
      Humans are Animals too

      You say that the reproductive organs of humans are clearly designed for each other; is this not true of all the animals who engage in homosexuality as well? Or are these animals 'unnatural'? And if they are, whatever could their motive be?

      - alovelylittlepapercraneUS April 5, 2009 3:09PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • GermyJ
        actually...

        "From a scientific view, it is extreemly improbable that life is here by any other means except a designer. "
        There is tons of evidence to show that we evolved. We are not definitely not designed. Read up a little on Biology and the Theory of Evolution before you go spouting what (presumably) someone told you as fact when you don't know what you're talking about.

        "The last time I looked, I'm a human. I'm not a giraffe, I'm not an insect, etc... I'm a human. "
        Well guess what! Whether you want to admit it or not, some humans are homosexual just like some animals are. So it would seem it is a natural occurrence in all LIFE.

        "there is no basis to belive that the designer behind life intends for this to be normative"
        First of all from reading your comment it is apparently you have very little schooling as you can't spell. Secondly you use the word "normative". Homosexuality is not a majority in nature at all... that doesn't mean it's occurrence isn't normal. Just like a previous commenter said... just because red haired people aren't the majority doesn't mean they aren't normal.

        AND we come to the root of your false reasoning:
        "you will need to show that the designer has intended this as normal behavior in the animal kingdom as a whole."
        No wonder you don't know anything about science . You look to your invisible friend as a starting point for a line of reasoning. I'm sorry, but to demonstrate whether something is a fact we do not need to pick up a bible and try to fathom what some mythical being thinks about it! We do just fine without first presuming a god exists and working from what we can demonstrate in the real world.

        - GermyJUS June 2, 2009 3:46PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • madninjamonkey
    Unnatural?

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

    - madninjamonkeyUS December 14, 2008 10:05AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • stupidteenager
    A bunch of things are unnatural

    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?

    - stupidteenagerUS December 22, 2008 12:55PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • QuinceyQuick
    "Since the Dawn of Civilization..."

    "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.

    - QuinceyQuickUS January 26, 2009 6:39PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • The Monk
    God Has No Place in Politics

    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.

    - The MonkUS February 15, 2009 10:23PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • tripleayex
    Uh?

    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?

    - tripleayexUS February 25, 2009 8:36PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Emar
    How?

    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".

    - EmarUS March 1, 2009 5:08PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • alovelylittlepapercrane
    Innate? Can you hear John Locke laughing?

    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.

    - alovelylittlepapercraneUS April 5, 2009 3:32PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • oldfoxbob
    Gay agenda

    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.

    - oldfoxbobUS May 20, 2009 12:01PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Hope7
    Unnatural? Its down right criminal.

    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

    - Hope7US June 15, 2009 4:54PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • MrBook
      Crimes of heterosexuals?

      That's a long list... but in going over it I've got to say that I doubt that they are all homosexuals. Looking at Charles Manson the only evidence of homosexuality I can see is one instance early in life. Indeed he seemed to prefer the company of women almost exclusively.

      You seem to be rather stuck on this notion that all homosexuals are brutal, child molesting, killers... and that hardly matches the statistical evidence. The majority of women are raped by straight men... so do you consider all straight men rapists? African Americans commit crimes... does that make all of them criminals?

      - MrBookUS June 16, 2009 6:23AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Hope7
        Marriage means they will be adopting little boys

        And I believe based on all the literature Ive read and the behaviors Ive seen and experienced from the homosexual community is the only reason, besides the sad attempt to destroy the concept of a moral institution we call holy matrimony, is to adopt little children .
        You say you doubt that the men I mentioned above could all be homosexual,despite their own admissions and sexual appetities, but you are very wrong, they were, by all standards set by those in the homosexual community are homosexual according to the misguided information that homosexuality is not a choice to be made but a born condition,something that despite the fact we have free will they have no CONTROL over and are subject to its every whim, despite genetic proof, so if anyone did live out their homosexual fantasies that would make them homosexual by definition of the homosexual community.
        However, I find it upsurd that so along as the lines of are obscenely defined by the homosexual community that the definition of homosexuality becomes fluidly convienent when they wish to undermine a practicing homosexual. How they can find some loophole that excludes a persons sexuality, in these cases, homosexuality from "true" homosexuality, which is, a whole new class they could teach our children in school , oh yes children you can practice homosexuality and not really be a true one of us unless we give you your own card as proof of your TRUE homosexuality. It appears that whatever they desire to use as the current up to the minute definition of homosexuality even if that definition holds absolutely no medical or scientific basis is taken as fact.
        Now lets let these individuals that make up this pseudo-sexuality teach our young boys how to dress like woman and maybe someday our enemies will say on the news.....WE GOT AMERICA BY GETTING THEIR CHILDREN!!
        I dont know, just a mother who witnessed the murder of a 17 yo boy trying to fight for his life when a homosexual man tried to rape him..oh yah and they attacked me.

        - Hope7US June 16, 2009 6:53AM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • MrBook
          an objective look

          "And I believe based on all the literature Ive read and the behaviors Ive seen and experienced from the homosexual community is the only reason, besides the sad attempt to destroy the concept of a moral institution we call holy matrimony, is to adopt little children ."
          -Hope7

          Not to be happy, enjoy legal protection, and spend their life with someone they love?

          "by all standards set by those in the homosexual community are homosexual according to the misguided information that homosexuality is not a choice to be made but a born condition,something that despite the fact we have free will they have no CONTROL over and are subject to its every whim, despite genetic proof,"
          -Hope7

          What is the genetic proof that homosexuality is not a product of genetics? Yes, no single gene has been found yet... but that does not prove the opposite.

          "if anyone did live out their homosexual fantasies that would make them homosexual by definition of the homosexual community."
          -Hope7

          [Citation needed] on that one...

          "oh yes children you can practice homosexuality and not really be a true one of us unless we give you your own card as proof of your TRUE homosexuality."
          -Hope7

          wait... now there are cards?

          "Now lets let these individuals that make up this pseudo-sexuality teach our young boys how to dress like woman and maybe someday our enemies will say on the news.....WE GOT AMERICA BY GETTING THEIR CHILDREN!!"
          -Hope7

          What about homosexual women?

          "I dont know, just a mother who witnessed the murder of a 17 yo boy trying to fight for his life when a homosexual man tried to rape him..oh yah and they attacked me."
          -Hope7

          You bring this up every time... but it is not a valid argument, it is anecdotal at best. Follow that logic if I am robbed by a white guy I can say "all white guys are thieves"

          - MrBookUS June 16, 2009 7:20AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • angelmama
    I agree homosexuality is unnatural

    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.

    - angelmamaUS August 8, 2009 10:52PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Katherinebaird
    Americans don't like things that are unnatural? Since when?

    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.

    - KatherinebairdUS January 24, 2010 4:48PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • VarGulF42
    Unnatural?

    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.

    - VarGulF42 February 19, 2010 3:00PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Spotlight

 
 
  • FRC
    Family Research Council
    Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes... More

Subscribe to Opposing News

Biweekly updates on new debates and experts

Thank you for signing up

Please check your email to confirm your subscription.