Animus Towards Gay Sex Means Love for Homosexuals

In February, the journal Social Currents published a survey that purports to show the motivations that drive the overwhelming majority of those opposed to same-sex “marriage.” According to the research, “Nearly all respondents (90 percent) who strongly oppose same-sex marriage also believe that ‘sexual relations between two adults of the same sex’ is ‘always wrong.’” On the other side they found that “approximately five-sixths (83 percent) of responses who support same-sex marriage view same-sex relations as ‘not wrong at all.’”

Given that opposition to same-sex “marriage” has always held that gay sex is wrong, one might think those interested in maintaining traditional marriage would have provided the rational for the perspective—including, but not limited to, HIV/AIDS—by making it a focus of pulpit, cultural, and public policy discussions.

However, the vast majority of America’s conservative and even religious leaders have chosen to ignore or remain silent about the harms of gay sex and if they entered into the fray at all it was mainly to talk about the benefits of heterosexual marriage to children and society.

Contrast this with secular pulpits, which for two decades have without ceasing proclaimed the gospel of the support for gay sexual relationships from every screen, newspaper, magazine and book. The argument for sexual lifestyles free from moral restraint and disregarding medical consequences resonated with America’s political, legal, and popular culture, which has been steeped in heterosexual promiscuity, dangerous sexual acts and high divorce rates even inside religious communities.

It may be too late to salvage traditional marriage, but if America’s orthodox religious, political, and cultural leaders want to defend marriage from homosexual redefinition they must focus on the harms of gay sex.

The most popular and convincing argument for redefinition strikes at the most powerful motivation on earth: love. “If two men loving each other, why can’t they get married,” the rhetorical question goes.  Unless the love argument is responded to with love, the response will lose.

The best motivation for opposing same-sex “marriage” is love and concern for those with same-sex attraction, even when it’s socially difficult—to point to the fact that gay sex is harmful to health and wellness.

There is only one sexual lifestyle that is actually healthy for the human body and mind—one man and one woman, freely and totally, faithfully and fruitfully united. Apart from all the STIs which accompany sex with multiple partners—heterosexual or homosexual—there is the life-long psychological and emotional union that forms with one’s very first sexual partner.

In addition to the mental health of our fellow man, gay sex harms the physical health of men. While sleeping around is bad for anyone’s physical health, the harm of gay sex is astounding.  Just 2 percent to 4 percent of men say they have same-sex attractions, yet the Centers for Disease Control finds that nearly two-thirds of new HIV/AIDS cases every year are in the homosexual male community—and a similar percentage of HIV/AIDS-afflicted people are gay men.

Often, gay activists rebut the above facts by claiming that studies are biased, or that somehow the Obama administration’s bureaucrats are anti-gay researchers. However, they should at least listen to one of their own—Gens Hellquist, who prior to his death was the Executive Director of the Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition.

In 2006, one year after same-sex “marriage” was legalized in Canada, Hellquist gave a powerful testimony demanding more health-care dollars for the LGBT community.

In his testimony, Hellquist said that “We have one of the poorest health statuses in this country … Health issues affecting queer Canadians include lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS.”

“There are all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community,” he added. “We have higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer….”

He concluded this most powerful testimony by saying, “now that we can get married everyone assumes that we don’t have any issues any more. A lot of the deaths that occur in our community are hidden, we don’t see them. Those of us who are working on the front lines see them and I’m tired of watching my community die.”

In many of the federal court decisions overturning state laws on marriage, activist judges have said that federalism doesn’t apply because “animus” is not a valid reason to make laws. However, these judges are, whether on purpose or by accident, misjudging where that animus is aimed.

It is not aimed at homosexuals, who are all children of God and equal to anyone else. They are aimed at the chosen sexual actions of homosexuals, which cause grievous harm to their bodies, minds and souls.

This fight is also about children. As bisexual Professor Robert Oscar Lopez and five other people raised by same-sex parents argued in amicus briefs last month, same-sex “marriage” turns children from valued creations of love to mere cattle, bought and sold on the market. Of specific note are procedures opposed by the Catholic Church, such as use of IVF and other procedures to create children for homosexual couples—which cannot naturally create children.

True love isn’t just emotional—it includes the willingness to stand for what’s right and just for another person, even and perhaps especially when it’s unpopular. While some opposed to same-sex “marriage” have erred in their actions, by acting hateful or by shunning their same-sex-attracted brothers and sisters, the vast majority of people who have supported traditional marriage do so out of a love far greater than judges, politicians, and gay activists realize.

Again, what better way is there to express love than by informing friends, relatives, and loved ones that their lifestyles are harmful?  Such a position does not come from hate—rather, it comes from a love great enough to bear the labels of “hater” and “bigot” in order to fight for the spiritual and physical health of all people.

Editor’s note: The graphic above illustrates one of several statistics released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on recent HIV cases.

John-Henry Westen

By

John-Henry Westen is a co-founder of Voice of the Family, an influential worldwide coalition of pro-life and pro-family groups that defends life and family in the media. He is also a co-founder of LifeSiteNews.com, the world's largest daily news website on life and family issues.

  • The time for this argument was before 1974. We need to be making a similar argument against pedophilia now, before it too becomes normsl.

    • Siwash

      Excellent point. And other abnormal sexual practices as well.

    • Tamsin

      Well, the next station we arrive at on the gay-marriage train is to force all parents to raise children from birth to not know which sex they are, or to which sex they will direct their overtures. “Queering kindergarten” they call it. No more heteronormativity.

      The station after that is to force all parents to facilitate children’s sexual explorations by not drawing any boundaries lest CPS show up at the door. Hey, what is a parent anyway, but a government-licensed child-minder?

      I guess what I’m saying is that the barn door is already open.

      • Very much already open- we blasted past that station last year:

        http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/everyday-cissexism/

        • Tamsin

          🙁

          We, as a Nation, have too much time on our hands.

      • Ruth Rocker

        Nothing sexual about it, but I read just yesterday and NJ parents who let their children (10 and 6 I think) play at the park alone were arrested. They called it “free range parenting” and the state called it child abuse. There is apparently a law that no child under 13 can be out alone. Lord only knows how many hours my brother, cousin and I spent away from home. Our parents didn’t know EXACTLY where we were, but they knew the general vicinity. And they knew that WE knew what would happen if we misbehaved!!

        Nanny state indeed!!

  • MHB

    Yes, Harmful to both body and soul! While we have concern for the dangers of gay sex to the body, the eternal life is also in danger. Today, it seems that everyone believes that we all go to heaven, as long as we are nice people!
    In recent heated discussions with one relative and a close friend, it was interesting when I brought up gay sex. “So you believe that anal sex is okay?” Answer: Well even some straight people have anal sex. “But you believe its okay?” Answer: I don’t get into discussing people’s personal sexual practices. “Do you know that gay sex is harmful to the body? Would you be willing to read an article about the dangers of gay sex?” Answer: Will you read an article about the Vatican’s wrongful conduct?
    “yes”. Answer: Well, I don’t particularly care for learning about gay sex.
    When I brought up gay sex with the close friend whose brother is SSA, she said, ” I try not to think about that ”
    They are all about “rights” but not about truthful information.

    • Objectivetruth

      Th Church for over 35 years has been (with great love and charity) discussing the harmful and deadly aspects of the “gay” lifestyle. It’s not working, they’re not listening, HIV/AIDS is as bad as ever within the homosexual community. We are Catholics, we are to give them Christ as a better way. This includes the hard Truths that with the grave and mortal sin of sodomy, the homosexual’s eternal happiness with Christ is jeopardized by their lifestyle. Great love for thy neighbor sometimes is the sledge hammer of calling out their sin and pointing out the cliff they’re heading towards.

      • Dr. Robert Schwartz

        Correctly and accurately expressed, thanks, and keep it up.

    • comedyeye

      I tried to have a discussion about Church teaching with a relative and was told I am judgmental.

      • Michael.s

        Typical. Your relative made a judgement on you i.e. that you are judgmental!! Reminds me of a conversation I had with my dad. He stated that “you can’t tell other people what to do or how to live”. I said, “you are telling me what to do and how to live”. He got mad and and hit the car armrest. Another time, he accused me of being a literalist. I responded by saying, “should I take you literally dad?”. He of course got mad again. I suggest revealing the self contradictory logic in your relative’s response. The truth will not go void and your relative may reject your truth to your face but it has been implanted in your relative’s mind where there is no escape. God bless.

        • St JD George

          This story is played out millions of times every day and is precisely the tactic of the dark prince to silence dissent. Of course the approach should be with mercy, but there is no salvation in accepting sin as normal under the ruse of tolerance. We are being strong armed into cowering because the evil one doesn’t want anyone to believe he exists to spread evil in the world, intent on destroying Christ’s mission. The day will come when he will return in his glory, in the mean time we need to be ever vigilant and stead fast in faith.

          • Guest

            Another important point that needs to be propagated is that homosexuals are NOT SIMILARLY SITUATED with heterosexuals.

            Male homosexual sex almost always cuts the large intestine which in turn introduces pathogenic bacteria into the blood stream; the large intestine is composed of only 1 very thin lining of cells, and the trauma of male homosexual sex almost necessarily breaks that protective barrier, causing cuts and microscopic bleeding. Thus, gay “marriage” would be based on a commitment to perform physically disordered and traumatic actions.

            On the other hand, the female area has a thick, muscular lining of cells that is clearly made to withstand male-female-marriage uniting. Male-female marriage is physically healthy, whereas gay “marriage” is physically disordered and contrary to health.

        • Kilo 4/11

          Stop baiting your poor dad right now!

      • Strife

        So your relative passed judgement on you for being judgmental….

        Does anybody else see the self-defeating hypocrisy in that?

        Anybody?

      • Tell that relative that THEY are being judgmental by calling you judgmental. I’m not being tongue-in-cheek here. I’m being literal. Those who whine about others being “judgmental” or “judgy” never, ever consider that they are guilty of the same (following their own contrived notion of what judging means) by criticizing others as “judgmental” for simply thinking in a way they disagree with. So, you have to play this game with them.

      • Jacqueleen

        We make judgements all day long…What to wear? Which suit shall I buy? We choose between right and wrong….good and bad in various situations.
        Our Lord did not mean that we should not judge another because in order to help that person, one has to diagnose the situation. What God meant is that we must not condemn another…that is His privilege alone!

        I believe that the gay community know more about the stats and the risks than the heterosexuals know. The gays indeed keep abreast and remain aware and constantly in check…….What a way to live, wouldn’t you say? This is a life lived in fear of getting aids or some other new disease prone to their abnormal behavior. Then, do they really love each other when stats reveal that even a so-called long term commitment only lasts about 2 years, but in most cases the relationship is only a few months?

        Furthermore, I believe that there is a hidden agenda behind the gay movement that is the root of the problem….and one that will not benefit the gay community at all but rather would increase their demise in a depopulation (death) culture that they are going along with. Gays, take the veil off your eyes…We live in end times. The signs of the end of the age are all around us and the day of God’s Justice is near.

      • Judging not to judge is a judgment

      • Ask them to tell you what that means. Then ask them to give you examples of what “it is to be and not to be judgmental” – gather information. Now, cross-examine – ask them if there is any kind of conduct in life that they themselves understand to be “wrong”. Then inquire as to whether or not they are being judgmental given their own criteria – look for logical contradictions. Ask them if they have any “criteria at all” or if calling “the reasoned argument” judgmental is simply a quick “exit strategy” for avoiding any meaningful discussion on the issue.

      • MHB

        I am starting to avoid using terms like the “Church teachings”. What did the Word of God teach us? Where are the same-sex couples in the bible? What did Jesus say about marriage?

      • MHB

        Me too. I told her it is God who will judge, not me, and that I want to live my life by the way that God teaches us by His Word.

    • Anytime I have ever invited an honest, forthright discussion on the matter the answer has always been a : “I’m not interested in anything you have to say.” kind of answer. They already know it’s wrong. They just simply can’t handle the fact that you won’t be hoodwinked by their rhetoric.

      It is unfortunate.

      • PastorWayne

        Yes, logic, reason, and medical, historical, and scientific facts are totally rejected by them. As Christ said, “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the
        world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were
        evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come
        to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” (John 3:19, 20). Often when someone points out the truth to them, they respond with lies, hate, and/or name-calling.

  • Margaret O

    Unfortunately, many people are unaware of the Teachings of the Catholic Church in regard to IVF. Many Catholics do not know about the fate of the ‘substandard embryos’ Many
    Catholics do not know about the fate of the embryos whose lives are held in the balance while parents decide wether or not to access another frozen embryo Many Catholics are ignorant about the research on embryos that are ‘grown’ to a certain stage for the purposes of experimentation. For God’s sake, when will our priests and bishops speak up!

    • What does this have to do with the article posted?

      • Margaret O

        “This fight is also about children. As bisexual Professor Robert Oscar Lopez and five other people raised by same-sex parents argued in amicus briefs last month, same-sex marriage turns children from valued creations of love to mere cattle, bought and sold on the market. Of specific note are procedures opposed by the Catholic Church, such as the use of IVF and other procedures to create children for homosexual couples – which cannot naturally create children.” end of quote. Please see article posted.

        • MHB

          I agree with your comment about unawareness of Catholics on these subjects however the topic of THIS article is to raise awareness of the dangers of sex with the same sex.

          • Margaret O

            And today MHB, we cannot talk of the dangers of homosexual sex without alluding to gay marriage and IVF – because “this fight is also about children.”

  • Lou Iacobelli

    I totally agree with the argument presented. We should tell the facts about the health dangers of anal sex and other homosexual activities. But today political correctness trumps science, belief and truth. Take the new sex “education” curriculum now planned to enter all Ontario schools in Canada. In Grades 7 and 8, the curriculum covers anal and vaginal intercourse along with oral sex. The writers fail to emphasize the connection between HIV-AIDS and anal/homosexual sex. Instead, the course downplays discussion about AIDS because it makes it difficult for those with the disease to live their lives. This is a perverted logic. The document talks about giving children all the information. When it comes to condoms, pregnancies and “safe” sex they do, but on the important issue HIV-AIDS the teacher can overlook the facts, not to mention the high cost to the healthcare system once a person contracts the disease. The approach in comprehensive sex programs is morally and medically wrong. When it comes to human sexuality, the person, marriage and the family, the Catholic Church has it right. Sadly, we have done a terrible job at communicating this wonderful and ennobling Biblical narrative to society and our children.

    • Do you believe, as many obviously do, that HIV/AIDS is a judgment from God? Do you believe that the virus has some kind of moral instructions encoded in its RNA? If that was the case, why do pregnant women with HIV risk transmitting the virus to their newborns? One would have to assume that God is pretty sloppy in His moral judgments.

      You get HIV by getting the blood, sexual fluids, or breast milk from an HIV-infected person under your skin and into your bloodstream. This can happen in many different ways, and different behaviors do carry different degrees of risk. Oral, vaginal, and anal sex have different degrees of risk, and this also depends on whether one person is insertive (“top”) or receptive (“bottom”).

      One thing is for certain, however: If two men who test HIV-negative enter into a monogamous relationship/marriage, HIV is not going to arbitrarily strike them like a lightning bolt hurled by an angry and vindictive God. This is why, from a public health standpoint, it is preferable to encourage monogamy and commitment among Gay couples. This may not comport with your personal religious beliefs, but it’s still a fact.

      • Objectivetruth

        And of course Chuck, this has absolutely nothing to do with the scourge of AIDS in YOUR community.

        You don’t want lifelong commitment, Chuck. You want THIS:

        Promiscuity in the gay community.

        28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: “Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

        79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: “The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
        Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: “In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

        1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: “A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.” (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)

        There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?

        • You know nothing about me.

          • Objectivetruth

            I do know you spend a lot of time on a Catholic website.

            WHY??!!

            INVITATION: do you want to become Catholic, Chuck? Because it’s the only reason I can think of why you’re here so much. We can help guide you and show you the way. Trust us: Christ’s love is a better way than our sins.

          • St JD George

            We know you are here, that speaks volumes. And you are always welcome, it’s good to dialog. I don’t believe that you are here to win converts though because you know that’s not possible. We however do care and pray for you. When you love something selflessly and greater than yourself, with all your heart and with all your soul, pleasing comes naturally and easy. Don’t perseverate on what you are able to rationalize in your mind, and surround yourself with enablers who would keep you in chains of torment. Unlock them, and walk out of the darkness and into the light.

      • Seamrog

        Here’s another fact: if HIV infected homosexuals would stop sodomizing one another, the rate of new infections would drop – dramatically.

        I note that you ignored the social, spiritual and other detrimental baggage that accompanies same-sex behavior:

        lower life expectancy
        suicide
        higher rates of substance abuse
        depression

        • santiago

          According to statistics of Europe and the US, According to statistics of LA, Africa and other parts of the world, you are completely wrong. The places where HIV is being more propagated, heterosexual sex is doing the vast majority of propagating the virus.

      • St JD George

        Let the wicked forsake his way And the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the LORD, And He will have compassion on him, And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.

        Chuck: Set your house in order first, learn to love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul, and you will be set free from the bondage that enslaves you. Don’t concern yourself with God’s judgment for others and the horrific things that happens to his holy innocents, for their reward is not of this world. It can be your reward too, he shows you the way. Defiling his gift of sexuality is an act of offense.

      • Michael.s

        One thing is for certain, if two men commit pedophilia or murder and commit to not inform on each other, punishment (in this life) is not going to arbitrarily strike them like a lightning bolt hurled by an angry and vindictive God.
        Also, during the 80’s the HIV/AID’s epidemic, homosexual men where not admonished to remain monogamous but use condoms which of course is irrational on the face of it. Who would have sex with someone with a deadly disease?

        • BPS

          Google “bug chasing”.

      • CadaveraVeroInnumero

        Oh, please!

        Faithful monogamous sexual relations between two men? Doesn’t, can’t happen. There’s not an ink-spot in the professional literature to support a claim. Tales of this or that “couple” does not counter the obvious (both casual & researched) that homosexual relations are overwhelming unstable and without an inner (drive) motivation towards sexual fidelity.

        Heaven to Betsy, they may be gay but they’re still males!

        • James

          What about two women?

      • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

        While some couples will practice monogamy, a lot aren’t, and a lot aren’t having protected sex either.

        Source: A family member who works for the department of health, with STD’s.

        • Asmondius

          A marriage license is not a behavorial drug – it makes no one monogamous.

          • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

            At least we still have some men and women in society who take their vow seriously.

            • santiago

              Yeah about 3% or less

          • Siwash

            I’m a married male; my marriage has led me to quit the field.

            • Asmondius

              If you didn’t quit the field prior to marriage, you are fooling yourself.

          • santiago

            How right you are, of all the married couples I know, which all are heterosexual, the vast majority (above 98%) are actively cheating. Specially working women, those are the least monogamous of all, and it is in a predominantly Catholic country. I bet in the US is the same, almost everyone cheats.

            • Asmondius

              ‘..of all the married couples I know…’
              .
              Well, you know they say you are judged by the company you keep.
              .
              Anecdotal evidence is always a poor resource for formulating broad assumptions.

              • santiago

                Most of the people that think that are on the path on salvation are actually very good at hiding their true ugly selves. They say one thing, and act another. Most people that are on the right path are not so opinionated and trust God instead. Confrontational people always have something to hide.. What are you hiding?

      • Asmondius

        Unfortunately, according to the CDC, male on male sexual activity continues to be the leading cause of both new and existing HIV cases.
        .
        And this is after decades of workshops, advertising, free condoms, etc. that all of us have paid for.
        .
        Ask your doctor if a lifetime of sodomy is a good choice in life.

        • santiago

          Yes in the US, not in Africa or LA where the leading cause is heterosexual sexual activity.

          • Asmondius

            At issue here is the situation in the United States.

            • santiago

              You are right.

      • Lou Iacobelli

        We all know that there’s bo substitute for fidelity, monogamy, chastity and purity. The question is for us and our children to truly try to live this way and not just talk about it. I’m not saying or believe anything about God punishing anyone. We know that life has all kinds of natural risks, but why add to them. The medical evidence and increased dangers of living a homosexual life are there for the taking and then we must make informed choices.

      • Steve Frank

        “One would have to assume that God is pretty sloppy in His moral judgments”

        I’m not sure why you would be so concerned about God’s supposed “sloppiness” when your side (ie the pro gay sex side) apparently assumes without concern that God was pretty sloppy with his design of the human body. After all, your side assumes God “made people gay” but then sloppily made a few mistakes like forgetting to give anuses the capability to self lubricate or stretch easily like vaginas do, Or forgetting to give men breasts too so gay men can play “Mommy” and give their “babies” optimal nourishment. Or maybe even give gay men uteruses as well as penises so they can naturally produce a family together as a couple. If God really makes some people gay he certainly did a sloppy job with the design of the genders and their body parts. Sorry Chuck but unless they are atheists, it is the gays that have to envision a “sloppy” God in order to suppress any feelings of being abnormal for their sexual orientation.

      • LarryCicero

        “it is preferable to encourage monogamy and commitment among Gay couples.” No it is not. It is wrong, like encouraging masturbation or the watching of porn. Do not encourage evil. This may not comport to your personal religious beliefs, but it is still the truth.

      • simplynotred

        Believing or Not Believing that a judgement from God may apply to a behavior that God rebukes, does not eliminate the responsibility of the individual to NOT HARM OTHERS with his tool. Putting you wang in Gay men, and then having sex with your wife is TOTALLY Irresponsible and damn right evil. But did the wife want the husband to have gay sex? . I think not. Somehow I think you missed this concept!

        Where did the Mother GET THE HIV FROM an AID infected Father who is a Down Low Some creep who raped the woman while her husband not infected with AID was off to another town looking for work?

        Questions reformatted that suggest that Christians are in error are rather self serving for those who Want to Do Harm to Christians, when they claim that HIV is obviously connected with Gay Behavior and that Medical statistics suggest the same, which does not make the Christians people who you would subsequently consider Naive just because the fool husband got his wife infected. Your question is rather Naive if you overlook the Statistical Facts, by suggesting that the Christian is making a poor correlation to the issue.

      • MHB

        Where did you get the idea from the comment above that HIV/AIDS is a judgment from God? The Catholic Church doesn’t even teach that!
        As for your last comment: Statistics apparently reveal that many gay “committed” couples are not living monogamous lives.

    • odunk

      Lets not forget Ben Levin – ex-deputy education minister of Ontario, who has been charged with, and pleaded guilty to, multiple child pornography-related charges. Some activities involved his own daughters. The clear reality to the evil that helped pen this new curriculum.

      • Siwash

        I think a full book could be written about these bizarre and flaky gay rights activist leaders. . . a LOT of inconvenient truths there!

      • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

        So glad to see the protests yesterday, and the liberalists throwing a fit because of it.

    • MHB

      And we really have a moral obligation to do better!!! Who is engaged in discussion at the parish level on these topics?

  • St JD George

    God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,
    so that everyone who believes in him might not perish
    but might have eternal life.
    For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
    but that the world might be saved through him.
    Whoever believes in him will not be condemned,
    but whoever does not believe has already been condemned,
    because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
    And this is the verdict,
    that the light came into the world,
    but people preferred darkness to light,
    because their works were evil.
    For everyone who does wicked things hates the light
    and does not come toward the light,
    so that his works might not be exposed.
    But whoever lives the truth comes to the light,
    so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.

  • TERRY

    ”Gay and bisexual men account for 63% of new HIV infections annually.”

    Whose fault is that? More to the point – whose RESPONSIBILITY is that?

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      Ummm…. the government?

      • Objectivetruth

        Amazing how the liberal media focuses on the absolute horror and attack on human dignity that a Christian baker won’t bake a “gay” couple a cake for their pretend wedding. But absolute crickets from the media when reporting on the continued scourge of AIDS in the homosexual community and that ISIS is dropping them off of ten story buildings.

        • Yes, but White Christian Males are the cause of world catastrophe — ISIS, tsunamis, poverty, slavery, ozone deterioration, pollution…

          See? Scapegoating works against Jews *and* Christians!

          • Objectivetruth

            Amen.

            Once Hitler was able to falsely characterize the Jews as the source of all economic problems in Germany, their fate was sealed.

          • Kilo 4/11

            Against Christians, yes.
            Scapegoating the other ones only “works” for moslems.

  • comedyeye

    Thank you! for pointing out what I have observed for a long time: the Church, in supporting traditional marriage, focuses its teachings on the explanations of natural law and how this law fits God’s plan for one man, one woman, unity, and the procreation of children. I have never heard a talk or seen anyone in the Church write a column promoting traditional marriage by referring to the harmful physical effects of same sex unions. Never.
    Thank you for making these unpleasant facts a part of the defense of Church teaching!

  • publiusnj

    Adopting the term “animus” used by gay marriage proponents is an unfortunate and counterproductive tactic. The term is defined in my on-line dictionary as: “a usually prejudiced and often spiteful or malevolent ill will.” If “Justice” Kennedy (who himself attributes opposition to homosexual sex to an irrational animus) saw this article, he likely would say something like this: “see, I was right all along, they really are animated by hatred.”

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    Remember New York at the height of the AIDS epidemic in the 80’s and early 90’s when there was no cure of any kind and AIDS was a hideous death sentence, The #1 caretaker left for these indigent, abandoned and dying were Catholic religious. In 1985, Mother Teresa established the first hospice for AIDS victims in New York in addition to many other sisters working their in the hospitals where even nurses feared to go. As usual, I contribute nothing to the argument at hand.

    • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

      And it’s still that way, with the RCC providing 25% of care throughout the world. Except we get stomped on by liberals who go on about the condom and birth control view.

    • Objectivetruth

      I recall a fellow lay volunteer at the Missionaries of Charity relaying the story of the “gay” pride parade marching past one of Mother’s AIDS homes in New York. As they paraded by the home, the homosexuals threw condoms and anti Catholic slurs at the front door of Mother Teresa’s hospice. The irony of the “gay” marchers attacking the home of the very place where dieing members of their community were being cared for by the only people that really loved them: Catholic nuns.

      • Siwash

        Wow. Psychotic.

        • And suicidal. True evil arrogates the power of the Divine in the only way it can-destruction.

      • Jacqueleen

        Proof that gay lifestyle is a DISORDER.

    • I do indeed remember that- and one of the big reasons I’m against same sex marriage is because gay activists simply do not.

      It reminds me of that article in the Huffington Post praising the Knights of Columbus for their work with Special Olympics, then throwing in the jibe about how Knights of Columbus is against aborting people with disabilities. They somehow couldn’t see the connection between caring for those who had been born, and caring for those yet to be born.

      • The biggest reason to be against pseudonogamy, as Tony Esolen described it is that it is impossible.

        • I was talking personally, and subjectively, not objectively. When I became a bigot overnight in 2004 without changing a single political viewpoint, that turned me against those suffering from same sex attraction in a way that no church teaching, logical argument, or philosophical definition ever could.

          Funny how betrayal does that.

  • M. J. .A.

    ‘Think of whatever is true, noble , praiseworthy ..’ – thus, in one sense , many Christians who know marriage is not about sex alone , might be giving the benefit of the doubt to the demand for approval, with the idea that it is more about caring about ‘ well being ‘ in general of each other ( and even those who feel they are for the time being ‘ forced ‘ to provide any service, out of humanitarian decency , for these people, might be doing so with a prayer of curse breaking, asking for God’s mercy , that , the relationships become one of spiritual friendship .
    A good institute such as John Paul 11 center, studying all issues of the health of these persons might help the society to come to recognize better , what the impact is on health care dollars , such as the expensive vaccine to prevent cancers from HPV related exposure now is to be given to boys as well ,
    ‘ Woman was made for man ‘ – to help reach the true dignity and identity of men, as protectors and providers of the dignity and role of women as sisters , wives , mothers grandmothers , not in the competing Jezebel spirit induced confusions with its subtle or overt hatred and contempt for the God given roles , which affects and curses the culture as already seen by that spirit of hatred and lies , true to The Lord’s warnings of the spirit behind such confusion –
    ‘ he has been a liar and murderer from the beginning .’
    Thus ,we see that spirit of hatred and murder getting ever more vocal ; if one would not hesitate to lie about one’s God given role , not hesitating to destroy the roles of each other ( for when one destroys same for another , one does so for oneself too ) what else would they not lie about or care about protecting !
    What are the far reaching implications for such, for our country and culture !
    Yet, we Christians / Catholics, we might have been negligent , in not having been vigilant enough , in trying to discern the inroads of the enemy and engaging the mercy of God , in curse breaking , of whatever and whenever the origins might have been , whether through operation of bestial spirits from the beginning of time ;
    we do have hope , that our Mother, powerful , holy , Mother of us all , can do so , helping each of us to know we belong to Her and She to us and with Her, The Holy Spirit , The Sanctifier ..that , every futile search for love is for That connection , to know and trust in the depth of our hearts , who we belong to , WHO IS infinite love and holiness , that allows us, to claim Him as our own …
    human hearts are made to rest in that truth and we as Christians – our role is too , to pray and wish on behalf of all in our lives , that , every heart finds that love , that , we do not become hard of heart to not care !

  • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

    We consider our sex-driven, selfish, me, me, me, society to be progressive. I wonder what things will be like in 100 years.

    • St JD George

      Regressed, all the way back to the second dark ages.

      • Siwash

        Pagan times. It’s so odd for me, a former Democrat, to think that the party now is run by these sex-obsessed types. It’s as if the Chief Good of mankind is just a few seconds of sexual pleasure.

        • St JD George

          I have been a life long republican, and I’m sure my conservatism still shows. After my baptism I’ve re-purposed my life though and am starting to see things differently, including putting Christ first and realizing that no party has a lock on God’s favor. Our society has a spiritual deficit fever, it needs the healing that only the love of God can provide.

      • AugustineThomas

        “The Dark Ages” were a dynamic time when the Christian West was developing modernity precisely because it was finally succeeding at moving past heathenism. Where we’re headed will be more like the time before “the Dark Ages” when pagan heathens ruled and society was brutal and perverted (which, of course, we can already see, with all this sexual perversion, abortion/baby murder and euthanasia/elder murder).

        • St JD George

          Put your tray table up, seat in the upright position, fasten seat belt, and remain focused on Christ … there’s turbulence in the skies ahead to endure before arriving at our final destination.

    • Guest_august

      Fine, lets repeat again:
      There will be no more hundred years.
      The time is up; we are in the last decades of man’s existence on earth as we know it.
      read more: http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/12/29/category-archive-message-board-214-acceptable-year-of-the-lord/

  • Ruth Rocker

    Wonderful article. I’ve discussed with my friends the fact that the gaystapo phrases things to appeal to emotions, not intellect. Who can argue that love is a bad thing? They never mention the “hows” of homosexual interactions because most people would be grossed out if they stopped to think for a moment what this actually entails.

    My own son argues with me about the relationship between the rise in homosexual activity and HIV/AIDS. He’s in the boat that claims bias and refuses to listen to or read anything to the contrary. I’m not sure how he got so far left, but there he is. All I can do is pray for him to see the light of reason and come back towards the middle.

    • Seamrog

      “the gaystapo phrases things to appeal to emotions, not intellect.”

      A thousand times THIS. Look at how many times homosexuals come to these essays, totally ignore the content and attempt to spin and distort the conversations into emotional hysteria.

      It is a pattern they practice, and they’re getting good at it. Our schools are churning out young adults why cannot think critically or logically and this emotional crap sticks like glue.

      Politicians do this too…it is sickening and it is dumbing down our entire nation.

    • Kilo 4/11

      That must hurt. I pray mine will not go by the left path, but boy, the odds sure are steep. Scary.

      • MHB

        How old are yours?
        Check out Focus on the Family material on teaching children about homosexuality.

    • How old is he?

      • Ruth Rocker

        He’ll be 40 in August of this year. I keep waiting for him to come back to his senses (he certainly wasn’t raised with those ideas), but . . . With God all things are possible 😀

  • Siwash

    The reason the State is involved in marriage is because there is a legitimate social interest in the care and provision for the next generation of its citizens. Love has nothing to do with marriage; this is really a 20th century notion that the prevalence of divorce seems to contradict!

    It’s the children, stupid! Love has nothing to do with this.

  • R Rogers

    While agreeing with the point of this article I see the problem as – logic does not change emotion. SSA is emotional and time will tell if the dangers it presents will have an effect on this reality. The cover-up will only last so long, truth eventually becomes evident but will LGBTs choose to continually deny truth and willing take risks? In some if not many cases members of this community are already aware of the dangers.

  • James

    What about lesbians? They are physically incapable of engaging in the same risky sexual activity that gay men are.

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      Please…. too many descriptions here already! Let me live in ignorance.

      • Objectivetruth

        If you’re on a diet and want to lose your appetite, Google “gay bowel syndrome.”

      • MHB

        until your kid comes home and says, Dad, I’m gay. Ignorant is just what most people are when it comes to the subject of gay sex.

        • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

          We have protected our children from the lunacy of the public school system, where they are encouraged to have delusional thoughts such as “I am gay.” No one is “gay.” Some people have an unhealthy same sex attraction, just like some people have an unhealthy addiction to gambling, to tobacco, to danger, … It’s more serious than most addictions, but not of an entirely different nature.

          • MHB

            After watching nine of my nieces and nephews graduate from Catholic elementary, high schools and AND colleges, I have come to the conclusion that lunacy is everywhere. Only one of the nieces subscribes to any thought resembling Catholic. The rest of them have been indoctrinated into the love= “approve of” mentality of their so called Catholic professors. Beware of sheep in wolves clothing Dr. Tim! My daughter found the truth with FOCUS at the University of CT, of all places!!!

    • they have their own risky behaviors. A lesbian cousin of mine was killed by leukemia on her death certificate, but the last crisis was brought on by a yeast infection due to fisting.

      • James

        Do you even know how yeast infections work? Or leukemia?

        Anyway, there are very few lesbian activities that are more risky than heterosexual intercourse. Yes, even in a monogamous relationship.

        • Yes to both, and few is not none.

          • James

            Even so, heterosexual relations are still riskier for women than same sex ones.

            • Only if you discount motherhood, and the mental anguish caused by denial of motherhood, to insignificance. Heterosexuality still has a better survival rate when it comes to suicide.

              Which, admittedly, is the point of homonormalcy- to reduce heteronormative parenthood to the point that families cease to threaten the power of the corporations and the state, which demand your total obedience.

              • James

                Show me the data

                  • James

                    And which ones don’t also apply to heterosexual women?

                    • You clearly didn’t read the link given, since comparison to heterosexual women was discussed in every paragraph. I’m done, you’re not interested in reality, only emotionalism.

                    • James

                      No, apparently you didn’t read the article or if you did, you didn’t understand it.

                      1. Lesbians have many of the same health risks as heterosexual women in the area of sexual health, but since they aren’t trying to get pregnant and don’t need to see an OB-GYN for birth control, many fall through the cracks and don’t get proper care.

                      2. The article acknowledges that lesbians have a greater incidence of mental health issues and substance abuse, but the article attributes this to the stress of social stigma against lesbians.

                    • There is good reason for the stress of social stigma against lesbians, and it is directly related to #1. But of course, I’m sure you don’t understand that, preferring instead a liberal fairy tale to reality.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Jamming. Troll.

                  Go do your own homework.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Jamming.

                  Troll.

                  • James

                    The poster named “Objectivetruth” is objecting to a call for data.

                    Irony meter at 11.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Troll meter at 15.

                      You’re “gay”, correct?

                    • James

                      Not even close.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Yea…….sure…..

                    • James

                      Now who’s trolling?

                      That a commentator named “Objective truth” would engage in ad hominem attacks is even better. Irony meter at 12.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      How is calling you “gay” an ad hominem attack? Based upon your postings, I was coming to a natural conclusion that you’re a homosexual. An “objective” observation. What’s the matter……don’t you like “gays?” You find it an insult to be categorized one?

                    • James

                      Judging by your postings, you intended it as an attack to discredit me in the eyes of others on this thread.

                      I’m not insulted by it, it’s just laughably incorrect.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      That’s a subjective observation on your part.

                      You are “gay” though, correct?

                    • James

                      Nope. Not gay. Not in the slightest. Sorry to disappoint you.

                • MHB

                  look up the data dude

    • AugustineThomas

      Women who suffer from homosexual perversion have much higher rates of depression and suicide. Furthermore, society in general suffers when people are encouraged to deny parenthood. The West is currently dying from population suicide because so many of its members murder their children or refuse to procreate due to sexual perversions like homosexuality.

      • James

        Show me the data.

        • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

          It’s a well known fact that they face higher rates of mental illness, addiction, and suicide than the general population. If you don’t believe us, http://www.scholar.google.com has all the peer-reviewed literature you could ask for. Nobody denies this truth.

          • James

            Even assuming that there is a correlation, correlation is not causation.

            Just because women who have sex with women are more likely to have mental disorders does not mean that engaging in a lesbian relationship causes mental disorders.

            • Strife

              On the contrary, causation is not automatically dismissed by correlation. In fact, it makes it all the more probable. But it’s strange, because you homo-advocates tell us that same-sex attraction is innate – but then, you want to distance the problems that are associated with the dis-orientation.

              • James

                Ok, so what should someone with exclusive same-sex attraction do?

                Do you believe orientations are changeable? Should they enter a heterosexual relationship anyway? Should they remain celibate? If so, would not celibacy or heterosexual relationships also cause mental distress for a person with exclusive same-sex attraction?

                • Strife

                  First of all -every human being has a moral freewill to choose their actions regardless of their desires. And if they don’t, then they are definitely suffering from a compulsive mental dysfunction. Secondly, celibacy will be challenging – but it does not cause any harm, regardless of what conventional “wisdom” would have you believe. Thirdly, there is absolutely no verifiable scientific evidence that homosexuality is innate or genetic. There are recent attempts to misconstrue that fact – but the research is highly suspect and the conclusions are merely theoretical extrapolations. Fourthly, there have been people who have turned away from homosexual attraction and are living full lives in heterosexual relationships. The problem with all of this current secular humanism is that it views people as merely advanced primates enslaved to their animal urges. This of course is insanity. Because our souls most resemble fallen angels in search of a peace that must curb and govern our reckless appetites.

                  • James

                    1. Agreed, but not really relevant to the conversation.

                    2. Among heterosexuals it is commonly acknowledged that not everyone is cut out for celibacy. Those who are celibate against their will (later marriage/loss of spouse) frequently talk about the difficulties of celibacy. To require lifelong celibacy of someone not inclined to celibacy would likely cause mental distress.

                    3. There is quite a bit of evidence that homosexuality has a biological component. Wikipedia has a well-sourced article on “Biology and sexual orientation”.

                    4. And there are plenty of people who have homosexual attraction and have tried a heterosexual relationship only to have things end very badly. Mixed orientation marriages are possible, but difficult for all involved.

                    I think you want a secular argument against homosexual relations, but this is not a secular argument, but an attempt to shoehorn a religious argument into a secular framework.

                    • Strife

                      1. On the contrary, it is very relevant.

                      2. When did I ever say that “everyone” should be celibate? And how do you determined if someone is inclined to cleibacy or not? Should the incestuous person remain celibate? The pederast? The pedophile? You seem to think that lack of sex leads to mental dysfunctions. That in itself is insane and void of any evidence. Celibacy can be difficult. So?

                      3. There is NO conclusive evidence. I’ve read the wiki articles. It also lists the reservations and criticisms of the so-called “research” and conclusions.

                      4. Celibacy should be their choice.

                      This is very much a secular argument based upon the self-evident observation of Natural Law.

                    • James

                      1. If you think this is “very relevant”, then you have not understood my argument. What is wrong for two consenting adults to choose to enter into a homosexual relationship?

                      2. If you are married, is your relationship with your spouse all about heterosexual sex? Procreation? Probably not. Nor is a same sex relationship all about sex. There is also companionship and all the other things that go into a relationship.

                      As for incest, pederasty, and pedophilia, the problems with these are that these cannot be a relationship of equals. Pederasty and pedophilia necessarily involve a power imbalance between the older and younger partner, while incest almost always does at the family level, even between adults. In other words, such relationships rarely, if ever, exist without some sort of coercion.

                      3. I am reading a very long list of physiological differences that have been found between gay and straight persons in the article. On what grounds do you dismiss these?

                      4. See #2. Having no interest in that way I will not tell those who do how to live their lives.

                      “Self-evident observation”? I don’t see it as self-evident at all. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion, now would we?

                    • Strife

                      1. The problems have already been listed all over this thread.

                      2. Really? Then why the demand for “marriage” as opposed to civil unions or any combination of contractual agreements?

                      Incest can’t be a relationship of equals? Prove that. As far as the other relationships, what exactly is unequal about them? What exactly makes people unequal if they are in “love”? Are all homosexual relationships between people of the exact same age? Really? And as far as the age of consent – when did the boy scouts or elementary children in public schools ever “consent” to be indoctrinated by the same-sex curriculum that they are now exposed to? Is that coercion?

                      3. Pure BS. Most of that is limited to observations of the brain and the conclusions are purely hypothetical speculation. And they certainly are open to the question of cause and effect. The brain can certainly “rewire” itself to some extent based upon environmental stimuli. This has long been known. The plethora of gay-agenda “research” is a joke. The Gay-Lobby has very very deep pockets to fund this junk science.

                      4. I’m not telling anyone how to live their lives. So why do you homo-fascists keep forcing everyone else to validate and celebrate your lies?

                      And of course you don’t see the self-evident objective reality of Natural Law. Why would you? You’re delusional.

                • MHB

                  A person with same-sex attraction should definitely go to this website and get help with the good people they will find in this Catholic ministry:
                  http://www.couragerc.org and find a Courage group to meet with.
                  And also, watch the documentary Desire of the Everlasting Hills as well as The Third Way.

            • disqus_qkOcYNTXOW

              OK.

            • MHB

              No one said that it causes it but there is a correlation and that is just as valid. Why the correlation?

              • James

                Could be one of four things:

                1. Homosexuality causes mental disorders.

                2. Mental disorders causes homosexuality.

                3. Covariance – Homosexuality and mental disorders have a common cause. (e.g. brain structure differences, hormone imbalances, etc.)

                4. Some more complex combination of 1, 2, and 3.

                5. Coincidence – There are lots of spurious correlations.

                The article seems to be implying that the correlation implies #1, but this is not the case.

                My own view is that homosexuality is primarily biological and orientation is generally unchangeable. This can cause mental distress from (1) issues within the gay community, most notably promiscuity among gay men (2) rejection from society at large (3) shame and self-hatred over one’s unchangeable sexuality (4) the stress of involuntary celibacy and singlehood, if one believes this is the only appropriate way to live.

                The problem with the conservative position is that it tells gay people: “Well, you’re broken. Too bad. Just don’t do anything I think is icky or you’ll go to hell. Live alone so I don’t have to think about you doing something icky.” (If this is not the conservative position, please clarify.)

                The liberal position is “Go find someone like you and love them.” Perhaps it is a bit naïve, and it is certainly idealistic, but I believe this is more helpful advice than the alternative.

          • MHB

            he knows that already.

        • Objectivetruth

          Jamming.

          Troll……

        • AugustineThomas
        • MHB

          oh come on James, can you not look it up yourself? Really?

    • James of Clan Scott

      Your response shows us the problem with relying solely on utilitarian consequential-ist objections to homosexuality rather then essentialist ones.

      Given the later philosophical view gay sex acts would still be immoral even if they didn’t lead to any ill medical consequences or psychological ones.

      • James

        Ok, then what is a secular essentialist argument against homosexuality?

        • Strife

          It is completely contrary to the human paradigm: physiologically, mentally, and spiritually. And it is the ultimate evolutionary dead end.

        • James of Clan Scott

          It is a philosophically moral one based on natural law.

          Go read up on natural law theory. You can’t explain Quantum Physics in a soundbite in a combox so why should ethical theory be any different?

          • James

            The theory of Natural Law (i.e. that there is a natural law of morality much like the natural laws of physics or chemistry and that this moral law can be known from the world around us) is absolutely brilliant and one I agree with.

            The problem is that the evidence does not support the assertion that homosexuality is per se always wrong for everyone. It’s like arguing for Newtonian physics in the era of Einstein.

            This article is an attempt to show evidence to support the conclusion that it is, but is haphazard and incomplete. Even assuming for the sake of argument that everything in article is true, it still fails to prove what it set out to prove.

            • James of Clan Scott

              I am glad you like Natural Law.

              >The problem is that the evidence does not support the assertion that homosexuality is per se always wrong for everyone.

              Morally from the perspective of natural law and divine law it is always intrinsically evil to have homo-erotic sex.

              Apart from spiritual damage it may not be physically or psychologically damaging to all people.

              >It’s like arguing for Newtonian physics in the era of Einstein.

              I don’t get the analogy? As long as you don’t get near the speed of light Newtonian Physics applies.

              >This article is an attempt to show evidence to support the conclusion that it is, but is haphazard and incomplete. Even assuming for the sake of argument that everything in article is true, it still fails to prove what it set out to prove.

              At best it shows a correlation between homosexuality and certain adverse consequences. So we should be weary.

              • James

                “Morally from the perspective of natural law and divine law it is always intrinsically evil to have homo-erotic sex.

                Apart from spiritual damage it may not be physically or psychologically damaging to all people.”

                Says who? My point is that you can’t make this argument without appealing to religion. You say “Natural Law”, then make a religious argument. That’s not how Natural Law works.

                “I don’t get the analogy? As long as you don’t get near the speed of light Newtonian Physics applies.”

                Perhaps a more accurate analogy is that it is arguing for Aristotelian physics in the era of Newton and Einstein.

                Aristotle is not the cutting edge in either philosophy or behavioral science. To trot out a 2500 year old philosopher as proof of “Natural Law” when more modern and scientific tools are available is dubious at best.

                • James of Clan Scott

                  >Says who? My point is that you can’t make this argument without appealing to religion. You say “Natural Law”, then make a religious argument. That’s not how Natural Law works.

                  So acting contrary to your nature isn’t bad or unethical?

                  Since when?

                  >Perhaps a more accurate analogy is that it is arguing for Aristotelian physics in the era of Newton and Einstein.

                  What does Aristotle’s discredited physics have to do with metaphysics or ethics?

                  >Aristotle is not the cutting edge in either philosophy or behavioral science. To trot out a 2500 year old philosopher as proof of “Natural Law” when more modern and scientific tools are available is dubious at best.

                  I see you are a fraud. You say you like “Natural Law” but you diss Aristotle? That is like saying I accept Quantum Physics but I reject all the works of Schrödinger.

                  • James

                    “So acting contrary to your nature isn’t bad or unethical? Since when?”

                    This statement begs the question “what is your nature”?

                    You can’t answer this question without a religious appeal. Some people try to answer the question by appealing to dubious psychological or social science, but they are “cherry picking” the data to fit their religious or philosophical beliefs.

                    “I see you are a fraud. You say you like “Natural Law” but you diss Aristotle? That is like saying I accept Quantum Physics but I reject all the works of Schrödinger.”

                    One can accept the idea of Natural Law without accepting specific conclusions of what the Natural Law is. Your problem is that you equate the broad concept with the specific details.

                    If you would like a physics analogy, it is like acknowledging Einstein’s brilliance and contribution to the field, but also recognizing his mistakes. Either the theory is true or it is not. Whether Einstein came up with it is irrelevant.

                    • James of Clan Scott

                      >This statement begs the question “what is your nature”?

                      I thought we where assuming Natural Law? Clearly you don’t know what that is anymore then you understand Aristotle or Essentialism.

                      >You can’t answer this question without a religious appeal. Some people try to answer the question by appealing to dubious psychological or social science, but they are “cherry picking” the data to fit their religious or philosophical beliefs.

                      No I am making an appeal to Essentialist philosophy in terms of Aristotle.

                      >One can accept the idea of Natural Law without accepting specific conclusions of what the Natural Law is. Your problem is that you equate the broad concept with the specific details.

                      So you are just going to equivocate your way out eh? You clearly don’t accept Natural Law.

                      >If you would like a physics analogy, it is like acknowledging Einstein’s brilliance and contribution to the field, but also recognizing his mistakes. Either the theory is true or it is not. Whether Einstein came up with it is irrelevant.

                      Except you have not pointed out any mistakes in Aristotle’s metaphysics or natural law claims you cited his physics so you are already making catagory mistakes,

                    • James

                      I think we are getting confused here. To summarize.

                      Do I believe that there is a natural moral law? Yes. I am not a relativist.

                      Do I believe that Aristotlean essentialism is the correct way to understand this law? No.

                    • James of Clan Scott

                      To make a separation between Aristotlean essentialism and Natural law is like separating quantum uncertainty with the theories of Heisenberg.

                      Weird.

    • Statistically Lesbians are least at risk for HIV.

      • Strife

        And homosexual men are at the greatest. And AIDS began as a gay disease and predominantly remains so. Why, it’s almost as if unnatural bu++-sex carries with it inherent dangers. Funny that.

    • cestusdei

      So you can’t deny the article and try to change the subject.

      • James

        Even assuming everything the article says is true, it fails to make the case that it claims.

        The risks of anal sex have nothing to do with the morality of lesbian relationships.

        • Kilo 4/11

          What is it with defending lesbians? All same sex unions are an affront to normal people because they act out contemptuously toward what we hold dear. No different than if someone decided to hold a conversation in the back of a courtroom: Contempt! cries the judge. Or, for that matter, so would be in contempt even a married couple who decided to plop down and have at it on the street. Homo couples are mini “gay pride” parades, and are inescapably contemptuous of 98% of society. That is what is most important, not their health.

        • Strife

          From Mayo Clinic online: “All women face certain health risks. However, sexual minority women, such as those who identify as lesbian or bisexual as well as women who have sex with women, have some specific health concerns.”

          Now why would lesbians have their own designated health risks?

          • James

            As mentioned upthread, women’s health “system” is designed for heterosexual women: Women see their OB-GYN when trying to have a baby or to get birth control. Lesbians can’t get pregnant (without a third party) and don’t need birth control, therefore, they can fall through the cracks. Also, some people believe that they can’t get STDs when they are not having intercourse, which isn’t true.

            Additionally, there are the mental health stresses that come from social rejection and isolation for their relationship that heterosexual women don’t have to deal with.

            • Strife

              Mayo specifically listed lesbians- because they have increased risks associated with them. And pregnant women get their specific classification as well. Otherwise, why the sub-categories?

              And please, just stop with the poor victimization excuse. There is no valid evidence that the mental health and domestic issues decrease in societies where lesbianism is more widely accepted. But even more so, homosexuality in general is inherently odd and unnatural to heterosexuals. And that is only blunted by desensitization. But the natural repulsion remains.

              • James

                “But even more so, homosexuality in general is inherently odd and unnatural to heterosexuals.”

                Yes, and I’m sure the reverse is just true as well.

                Do you believe that homosexuals exist? Or do you think that they are simply heterosexuals with a strange sexual perversion?

                • Strife

                  The reverse is true? Ah, but the heterosexual is physically designed heterosexual. In what way is any human being physically designed homosexual? Riddle me that.

                  The dysfunction of homosexuality exists. I have a couple of family members and several friends who suffer from it. And yes it is an unnatural perversion and completely contrary to the design of the human paradigm. And they have been free to pursue their desires for most of their lives – and it has brought them nothing but misery.

                  • James

                    Do you believe that human sexuality is all about fitting Tab A into Slot B?

                    As for myself, I know far more lesbians than gay men. Most of them are not terribly different from heterosexuals. In fact, many are almost a heterosexual couple themselves, featuring one very feminine partner and another with, well, lets just say a likely hormonal imbalance.

                    As for the gay men I know, yes, promiscuity is more common in the gay community. But the harms of promiscuity are not unique to gay relationships. In other words, I see the promiscuity as the problem, not the gayness.

                    • Strife

                      It certainly isn’t antithetical to the observable compatibility of the two designs of human genitalia. And the human rectum is in no way designed for penetration.

                      Ah, so the lesbian couples you know TRY TO MIMIC HETEROSEXUALS. Well what do know. Now why is that?

                      Open-“monogamy” is the rule in homosexuality. Not the exception. And your only “moral” argument for this lifestyle is the acceptance of a lower standard of fidelity based upon the increased promiscuity of our crumbling society. All you’re doing is “noramlizing” further dysfunction. So where does that slippery slope ever end? At what point do YOU stand in the way of further “progress” and further sexual liberation?

                    • James

                      So if a gay couple lives nothing like a heterosexual couple, it is proof that this is a perversion, but if a lesbian couple lives like a heterosexual couple, then they are mimicking. Guess they can’t win either way.

                      Who brought rectums into the conversation? I don’t believe rectal
                      penetration is a common practice among lesbians (at least no more common
                      than it is among heterosexuals).

                      You keep trying to change the subject back to gay men, anal sex, and promiscuity even though I was discussing the nice lesbian couple in the suburbs. One can only guess why that is.

                    • Strife

                      No they can’t “win” because they are living contrary to their natural design. What part of that seems to be eluding you still? And the fact that they try to mimic a heterosexual paradigm just gives further SELF-EVIDENT proof that their desires are completely contrary to their intended design.

                      We’re talking about homosexuality – that includes sodomy. And yes, sodomy is dysfunctional in heterosexuals too (I mean why? After all there’s a perfectly good vagina there.) But at least the rest of the hetero paradigm is there. A woman is still a woman. But again – you have to selectively pick out the dysfunctional heterosexuals in order to give any moral validity to homosexuality. It’s always a bargaining down to the lowest common moral denominator with you and your ilk.

                      Why do you insist on running away from gay men? Are they somehow inferior to lesbians in your summation? Are they not both part and parcel to the LGBT movement?

                      And why are lesbians so mean to each other? Oh wait – society made them that way. Riiiight.

                    • James

                      Why are you so concerned with what other people do in the bedroom? Mind your business!

                    • Strife

                      Why do you insists on dishonestly misconstruing the reality of the homo-fascists aggressively militant agenda? When will they actually keep their lifestyles in in their bedrooms? Oh but wait – that’s not good enough for you homo-fascists is it. Oh no no. Instead, you and your ilk insist on forcing your sick perverted agenda into the elementary schools and organizations like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts so children will be indoctrinated. You have to force it into private businesses and make it a matter of work related office policy and active sensitivity training. And you insist on targeting private businesses and Christian Churches and Church organizations with frivolous unconstitutional lawsuits that are promoted by activists on the judiciary.

                      So do everyone a favor and stop advancing this dishonest meme that you homo-fascists just want to be left alone. The fact is – you’re perverted bullies who use ruthless tactics to force people to advocate and celebrate your depraved lifestyle. And all the while you do it under the fallacious guise of “victim hood”.

                      When will you sociopaths in the Gay-Stapo finally mind YOUR own business? When?

                    • James

                      Bullies? Are you even vaguely aware of history?

                      Are you familiar with Oscar Wilde? Alan Turing? Why did these men go to prison? They would have loved to have been “left alone”.

                      Even as late as 1998, the Indigo Girls were barred from playing a free concert at a public high school because they were lesbians.

                      You lost the majority and you are now reaping what you once sowed.

                    • Strife

                      As a Roman Catholic I’m quite familiar with Oscar Wilde – are you aware that he died receiving the Last Rites in complete contrition for the depraved life he led? And there is considerable reason to speculate that Turing’s initial troubles (burglary of his house) was actually perpetrated by a jilt gay-lover. And Turing openly revealed his lifestyle to police.

                      And the Indigo Girls SHOULD have been barred. The LGBT movement has no business indoctrinating other people’s kids.

                      But more to the point in recent years: When the AIDS crisis was in full bloom in the 80’s (brought on entirely BY the gay reckless sub-culture) and all health institutions and care-givers were shunning the patients out of fear of contracting the disease – there was ONE primary institution that openly received the sick and dying and cared for them endlessly through out the entire dying process. And the institution WAS and IS The Roman Catholic Church. And they STILL provide my assistance than any other organization – bar none. And yet- they are ruthlessly targeted by you Homo-Fascists.

                      But of course – your last sentence says it all. Your entire movement is based solely on vengeance. And you just confirmed that. Well there is a push-back. And it won’t go away. The private fund-raising for the Indiana Pizzeria and the push-back in the Chick-Fil-A cases attest to that reality. You Fascists have the deep-pockets and the key institutions in your corner – but people are finally waking up to the reality of the totalitarian aspect of your movement. You’re drunk with power and your petulant immature psyche (that is a mainstay with you little p*ssy b*tches) is starting to severely irritate the h*ll out of people. But we have learned some key things from your movement: 1 – ALL laws can be challenged and changed. ALL of them. All it takes is diligence and creative presentations. 2 – Bullying works. 3- Financial Lobbying returns dividends eventually. 4 – Now that Homo-F@ggotry is the new normal – Progress demands that things keep “progressing” And that will mean the inevitability of normalized pederasty, pedophilia, polygamy, and incest. And you perverts will openly welcome that. Because “Progress!”. In fact, those movement are well under way. And if you oppose those societal trends (which you won’t) then YOU will be the new puritanical close-minded bigots of hate.

                      So mark my words – this ain’t over by a long shot. You pervs will eventually eat your own – you always do. Because normalized dysfunction never rests. Established depravity always leads to more and more depravity. That lesson is as old as humanity itself. Your fate is sealed in doom. Our road is Life itself. You will fade. And we will be there to consecrate you and scatter your ashes. Good luck with your Pyrrhic Victory.

                      “There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.” – Oscar Wilde

                    • James

                      There is nothing that says love and tolerance quite like a rant full of starred out words.

                      You should hope that God is not as angry and vindictive as you are.

                    • Strife

                      Jesus was not tolerant:

                      “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe [in me] to sin, it
                      would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck
                      and he were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to
                      sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than
                      with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes
                      you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled
                      than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna. And if your eye causes
                      you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of
                      God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’” – Mark 9:42-48

                    • James

                      And BTW, there aren’t enough gay people to have made the social changes that have happened in recent years. GLBT persons are what, 5% of the population? It’s not a large number.

                      It was straight people. Straight people want nothing to do with your bile and hatred. The very children you tried to “protect from indoctrination” have turned on you. Think about that. What percentage of under 30 voters support same-sex marriage again?

                      You declared a Culture War and you lost. You’re not even negotiating a surrender, but are determined to hold out until bitter end in your bunker fantasizing about being rescued by armies that don’t exist.

                    • Strife

                      Ah yes the argument of inevitability. We Christians have heard it all before over the last 2000 years.

                      The thing that propelled the LGBT movement was an overall decline in morality. And as far as those brilliant under 30 somethings – you might want to note the rate of STD’s among them is exceptionally high. And they’re not reproducing – nor will they. And you might want to note that when it comes to commonsense and philosophical reasoning – they’re dumber than a box of chicken f@rts.

                      You think you’ve won? You haven’t. The only thing you’ve won is your own demise. Your lifestyle will abuse you far worse than any affliction we could even dream of. It will torture you mentally, physically, and worst of all – spiritually. In fact it already does. But don’t worry, we will be there to bury your disease ridden corpse and pray for your horrid soul.

                      You will never kill us. You can only martyr us. And Christianity always blooms in the fertile soil that is nourished by the Blood of Martyrs.

                    • James

                      “You think you’ve won? You haven’t. The only thing you’ve won is your own
                      demise. Your lifestyle will abuse you far worse than any affliction we
                      could even dream of. It will torture you mentally, physically, and worst
                      of all – spiritually. In fact it already does. But don’t worry, we
                      will be there to bury your disease ridden corpse and pray for your
                      horrid soul.”

                      My “lifestyle” is a monogamous heterosexual man happily married for nearly 13 years. Not quite sure how that will lead to a disease-ridden corpse and a horrid soul.

                      It blows your mind that a straight person could possibly support gay rights. It blows your little black-and-white world apart that someone could possibly come to a conclusion different than your own without some sort of ulterior motive. A committed, loving, monogamous relationship is good for practically everyone, gay or straight.

                      You know what will eat at your soul? Anger. Hatred. Self-righteousness. Does your venom that you have spewed on these pages really come from God?

                    • Strife

                      I’m straight too and I used to support gay-“marriage” So no, it doesn’t “blow my mind” at all.

                      But no – I seriously doubt you’re straight. You’re simply using that in a obvious “gotcha” attempt.

                      And as far as anger:

                      “Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are.” – St Augustine of Hippo

                    • James

                      So what changed your mind?

                    • Strife

                      The struggles of a gay family member, a gay relative, and several gay friends and associates over the years. Every single one of them experienced nothing but ultimate misery from their lifestyles. And they would be the first to tell you that the most pain ever inflicted upon them was from other gay people. Most of them are celibate now and a couple of them are dead. And both deaths were from health complications cause explicitly from their gay lifestyles. And let me just say – anal cancer is NOT a pretty death. You can’t imagine the suffering and shame. The poor guy paid the price for his desires many times over. May he rest in peace.

                    • James

                      Were there health problems caused by their “lifestyle” or their promiscuity? Were your friends gay men or lesbians or both?

                      Promiscuity isn’t good for anyone, gay or straight. Heterosexuals have plenty of STDs too. I’m all for encouraging gay people to settle down and not be promiscuous.

                    • Strife

                      My gay friends are both men and women. And not a single one of them (or any of their “lovers”) were monogamous. Monogamy in homosexual relationships is a fallacy. Especially with the men. In the gay sub-culture so called “open-monogamy” is the rule in any long term relationship. All of this talk of “committed” same-sex relationships is pure propaganda from the activists. And most gay people (if they’re honest) will readily admit to that. I don’t know of any that even lasted five years. The gay men are notoriously promiscuous and the lesbians are notoriously neurotic or outright nuts. There’s an old joke “What does a lesbian take to her second date? Answer: A U-Haul.”

                      And a quote from my gay friend Brad on “marriage”:

                      “Honey, love is painful enough – I don’t want to take a mortgage out on it!”

                      The truth is – many (if not most) homosexuals have no interest in “marriage”. This entire movement is nothing more than vengeance against the traditional family unit and especially traditional Christian religions. That’s it. That’s pretty much the motivation.

                    • James

                      That’s strange. I know several gay couples who have been together for years. Mostly women, but a couple men, too. One gay couple I know has been married ever since it was first legalized in 2004 and is still together.

                      But then again, I live a pretty suburban existence. Most families in my social circle are pretty stable.

                      Anyway, how are your straight friends doing?

                    • Strife

                      Those gay couples you know may still be together – but I don’t buy for a minute that they’ve been monogamous.

                      My straight friends definitely have a higher rate of stability and I don’t know of any of them with open relationships.

                    • James

                      Open relationships are uncommon among straight couples, but affairs are not.

                      I don’t know, but I have no reason to believe these couples haven’t been monogamous.

                    • Strife

                      Affairs among straight couples is not the majority of cases. But then, pointing to immoral behavior in order to validate other immoral behavior actually defeats the entire premise of morality.

                      In my experience, gay couples are quite adept at concealing open relationships. You get a group of gay individuals together and let them get comfortable, and you will see just how cynical they truly are about marriage and monogamy. The most insulting statements I have ever heard launched towards gays were actually spoken by other gays. This entire wholesome Cleaver family next door image is a facade. But then – the real point to the entire movement is one of vengeance.

                    • James

                      As for vengeance, considering what society has done to gay people over the years, the desire for it is not surprising.

                      It’s kind of like the Russians pillaging Berlin in 1945. The Russians were angry for a reason.

                    • Strife

                      I’m sorry, I completely reject that perpetual victimization mentality. That’s a cop-out. And a desire for vengeance completely negates their claims of protected class. Few gays of the last few decades have had to face any serious persecutions. But they’re still not going to convince the majority of the people that they’re normal. Even heterosexuals who support their cause are in truth inherently disgusted by the thought of homosexual sex. And that’s simply the primordial nature of our innate design. And no political activism will ever counter that. But more than anything else – gays will forever be their own worst enemy. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – homosexuals treat their own kind with more contempt than any heterosexual could ever dream of. Because the fact is, same-sex desire is an inherently unnatural stagnation of the maturity process. And no amount of societal tolerance will ever cure that. In fact, it only more fuel to the dysfunction. Mark my words.

                    • James
                    • Strife

                      I’ve already read it – and it’s ludicrous. And it also flies in the face of previous research. But then given the source of the “study” I’m not surprised. This is purely agenda driven “scientism” by a university and a researcher that both have a well established pro-gay history. But then, what’s new?

                      Social Scientist Sees Bias Within:

                      http://www.nytimes.Com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=0

                      How academia’s liberal bias is killing social science:

                      http://theweek.Com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bias-killing-social-science

                    • GG

                      Those are your examples? Not really making a point then.

                    • GG

                      Do you know what health and pathology are?

            • GG

              They have mental issues because they have mental problems regardless of “society”.

              • bassbait

                Belief in God is a mental illness. My evidence is your willingness to believe and act on behalf of entities that nobody can see but that you believe are speaking to you or to others and are convincing you and others to harm those around you psychologically or physically.

                Go ahead, tell me I’m wrong. Tell me that the people who did something like 9/11 were not insane. You believe in the same God (the Abrahamic one, Yahweh).

                • GG

                  Wow that was so deep, man. What an intellect you have.

                  You think materialism is the sole basis for reality?

            • MHB

              In the Netherlands, it is very accepted in society to have same sex relationships, yet the incidence of mental health problems is still high among homosexuals. The stresses of rejection don’t exist there, so how do you explain that James?

        • MHB

          Explain what is moral about lesbian sex.

        • cestusdei

          So using meth is morally good despite the risks?

    • bonaventure

      Actually, they are. But of a different kind.

      HPV and oral cancer

      Links have been reported between oral sex and oral cancer with human papillomavirus (HPV)-infected people.[34] A 2005 research study suggested that performing unprotected oral sex on a person infected with HPV might increase the risk of oral cancer. The study found that 36 percent of the cancer patients had HPV compared to only 1 percent of the healthy control group.

      A 2007 study suggested a correlation between oral sex and throat cancer. It is believed that this is due to the transmission of HPV, a virus that has been implicated in the majority of cervical cancers and which has been detected in throat cancer tissue in numerous studies. The study concludes that people who had one to five oral sex partners in their lifetime had approximately a doubled risk of throat cancer compared with those who never engaged in this activity and those with more than five oral sex partners had a 250 percent increased risk.

      • James

        You do know that most straight couples have oral sex, don’t you?

        Promiscuity is risky, gay or straight, but heterosexual intercourse is still riskier than oral sex.

        • bonaventure

          Heterosexual intercourse is not risky if the partners are married and faithful.

          • James

            Neither is oral sex.

  • BillinJax

    I recently gave this example on another subject. Applying similar logic to this discussion it carries even more importance and moral weight.
    Can we can love our neighbor and at the same time disapprove of the way he beats his wife, abuses his children, and kicks his dog?
    Yes, and sure we should keep him in our prayers but when discussing his behavior with
    some of our neighbors who witness the same in him are we not at liberty to tell
    the truth and within our community point out those short comings for the sake
    of the entire neighborhood? Turning a blind eye or failing to inform such would
    be a disservice to the common good of our community and could at some point
    become a sin of omission. We can hold our tongue in cursing him personally but
    attesting to his lack of concern and love for others is not unkind or unloving,
    it is the very heart of love and concern for God’s law and creation.

  • The perverse nature of homosexual sex — gay and lesbian — is not touched upon by most people at all. The argument against gay sex and FOR natural heterosexual sex is actually very compelling. But you have to approach from biology and science, not from theology or emotions.

    • James

      What do lesbians do that is so perverted and risky compared to heterosexual sex?

      • Are you serious?

        • James

          Yes.

          What do lesbians do that the majority of heterosexual couples don’t? What do they do that is as risky as anal sex? Do be specific.

          • Strife

            Well first of all, they suffer from mental health issues and violence at a significantly higher rate than heterosexual couples. But physically, they are incomplete. The female genitalia was specifically designed to be penetrated by the male genitalia AND to ultimately reproduce. And cognitively and spiritually two females can never be as one like the harmonious and complimentary design of the union of male and female. Hence the predisposition for mental health issues, which are ultimately spiritual issues…

          • Dude, your question is disturbing.

            • James

              The commentators on this thread are more than eager to talk about the risks of anal sex, but nobody wants to answer questions about lesbianism.

              • Because although we discuss certain things, that doesn’t make them any less uncomfortable to discuss. I have a feeling you know exactly what lesbians do. You’re trolling here, and no matter what answer you get from us it will never be the “right” one.

                Not interested in your game, and I’ve given you more time than you deserve already.

                • James

                  Yes, I do know what lesbians do–and 90% of straight couples do the exact same thing.

                  • GG

                    90% of heterosexuals are lesbians?

                  • I’m amazed that you really believe you know what 90% of straight couples are doing in private.

                    • James

                      That’s what the surveys say.

                    • Oh boy, if I didn’t realize how un-intelligent you are before, I sure know now: you actually believe surveys. You ACTUALLY BELIEVE that surveys provide a birds-eye view into the private lives of an entire nation of people.

                      Wow.

                    • James

                      Do you have any data to contradict that most heterosexual couples engage in oral sex or are you just making things up?

                    • This is not about oral sex. Oral sex between a man and a woman is not deviant.

                    • James

                      So why is oral sex between two women (or two men) any worse?

                    • MHB

                      Because if it is done as foreplay and leads to the sexual act of intercourse, open to new life, it is then a moral act. Two women and two men cannot do that. Its about not separating the reproductive organs from the possibility of new life, naturally, as opposed to in a petri jar or artificial insemination. That’s why they are named reproductive organs.

                    • James

                      And this is a religious/philosophical argument that the ONLY moral use of reproductive organs is for reproduction.

                      It’s hardly self-evident, most people disagree with it, and the scientific (behavioral) research does not support the conclusion.

                    • MHB

                      Most people disagree with it isn’t an argument. What is unique about reproductive organs? Think about it. Is there any other organ in the body that requires two sexes in order to do what they are there for?

                      Behavioral research most certainly concludes that sex with the same sex is harmful. Go to the CDC website and look up male with male sex, for example, and see the statistics. Make sure you take in all the scientific evidence that gives you the proof you need to know!

                      http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/marriage-and-family/sexuality/the-health-risks-of-gay-sex.html

                      And be sure not to miss this!

                      http://www.aleteia.org/en/lifestyle/article/top-10-studies-showing-risks-to-couples-in-same-sex-unions-5868607636504576

                    • James

                      Do you believe wine tasting is immoral? What about chewing gum?

                      Biology clearly shows us that the purpose of the mouth is to ingest food for human nourishment, not to taste and spit or chew until your jaw gets tired.

                      This is, of course, an absurd argument. Enjoying tasting or chewing is not immoral. The biological purpose of the mouth tells us little about the moral use of the mouth.

                      Yet this is the same argument you are making about the reproductive organs. Why look for morality from biological purpose from the reproductive organs, but not the mouth?

                    • MHB

                      No, James, it is not the same argument. The mouth does not need another organ of someone of the opposite sex in order to taste wine or chew gum. Are you avoiding the point on purpose? Biology clearly shows the purpose of the reproductive organs of male and female.

                      But lets get away from science for a bit. Why don’t you take a chance and read the book, “The Courage to be Chaste” by Benedict Groeschel and get back to me later.
                      Peace of Christ, James.

                    • James

                      Now you’re moving the goal posts.

                      The purpose of the reproductive organs is reproduction, correct? And you believe that any use inconsistent with reproduction is immoral, correct?

                      Well, the purpose of the mouth is eating, is it not? (And breathing, speaking, etc.., but these are not relevant to this discussion) Putting wine in your mouth, then spitting it out just to enjoy the pleasure of tasting is a use that is inconsistent with this purpose. Chewing gum to enjoy the purpose of chewing without swallowing is also inconsistent with this purpose. Kissing, too, is inconsistent withe this purpose.

                      Why is using the reproductive organ in a manner inconsistent with their purpose immoral, but not the mouth? Why look to Teleology with the genitals but not the mouth?

                      Now you say to forget the science, and we can have that discussion if you concede that you are making a religious argument against homosexual sex, not a biological or psychological one.

                    • MHB

                      I simply believe that science and religion compliment each other, James. Perhaps I am not smart enough to prove it to you, but others have convinced me of this. You need to question someone who has more background in this than I do, such as a moral theologian. Do you live near a seminary? This is where you can take these questions of how science and religion compliment each other. I have had my time of questioning too, and have studied the arguments and have come to peace with it. I hope you find that too.

                    • James

                      To reply to your articles:

                      1. The section on the health risks of male-male sex are primarily risks of promiscuity. Promiscuity is unhealthy. (Center for Obvious Studies)

                      2. The section on the health risks of lesbian sex acknowledges that most lesbians have had male partners. Surprisingly, lesbians have more male partners than heterosexual women. The primary health risk for lesbians is their HETEROSEXUAL behavior, not their homosexual behavior. Other risks come from risky lifestyle choices, such as intravenous drug use. Women who have more heterosexual partners and IV drug use are more likely to have health problems. (Center for Obvious Studies)

                      3. The study shows a correlation between homosexuality and mental health problems. But it does not show any causal or covariate relationship. It certainly does not show that homosexuality causes mental health problems. Therefore, it does not provide answers for those who do have primarily same-sex sexual attractions.

                      The most we can get from this is that straight people should not enter into same-sex sexual relationships. (Center for Obvious Studies)

                      You can’t just throw up random statistics and yell “Science!” in order to prove a religious or philosophical point. That’s not how it works.

                    • MHB

                      Ahh, we now resort to mockery, following the trendiness of so many others of your like. These are not random statistics. Try the Center for Disease Control, hardly random statistics and quite sobering.

                    • James

                      No, your statistics are not random at all. I believe them completely. In fact, they all state obvious, non-controversial points.

                      They do not, however, prove your case.

              • Might I just simply say that it is both a biological and metaphysical absurdity and that that alone, should be sufficient to deter anyone?On the question of morality…Here is some natural law! I’ve posted this before but just in case it had gone unnoticed…

                The nature of “any one thing” from an Aristotelian point of view is “the form or essence it instantiates”.

                Let us take the triangle as our example. It is of the essence, nature, or form of a triangle to have three perfectly straight sides. Notice that this remains true even if some particular triangle does not have three perfectly straight sides and indeed even though every material instance of a triangle has some defect or other. The point is that these are defects, failures to conform to the “nature” or “essence” of triangularity; the fact that such defective triangles exist in the natural world and in accordance with the laws of physics doesn’t make them any less unnatural in the relevant sense.

                When we get to biological organs we have things whose “nature” or “essences” more obviously involve certain final causes or purposes. So for example the “function” or “final cause” of eyeballs is to enable us to see. But suppose someone’s eyeballs are defective in some way, making his vision blurry. In that case, to wear eyeglasses isn’t contrary to the natural function of eyeballs; rather it quite obviously restores to the eyeballs their ability to carry out their natural function. On the other hand, bicycles don’t do this but they do extend rather than conflict with the ability of the legs to carry out their natural function of allowing us to move about.

                Finally, to round out this initial reply to some standard bad objections to natural law theory, while it is true that some defenders and critics of traditional sexual morality seem to worry themselves endlessly about whether homosexuality has a genetic basis, the question is actually largely irrelevant, and they shouldn’t waste their time. For it is quite obvious that the existence of a genetic basis for some trait does not by itself prove anything about whether it is “natural” in the relevant sense. To take just one of many possible examples, that there is a genetic basis for clubfoot doesn’t show that having club feet is “natural”. Quite obviously it is unnatural certainly in the Aristotelian sense of failure perfectly to conform to the “essence” or “nature” of a thing. And no one who has a clubfoot would take offense at someone’s noting this obvious matter of fact, or find it convincing that the existence of a genetic basis for his affliction shows that it is something he should “embrace” and “celebrate”. Nor would it be possible to suggest that God made him that way any more than God makes people to be born blind, deaf, armless, legless, prone to alcoholism or autistic. God obviously allows these things, for whatever reason; but it doesn’t follow that he positively “wills” them, and it certainly doesn’t follow that they are “natural”. So, by the same token, the possibility of the genetic basis for homosexual desire doesn’t by itself show that such desire is natural. Homsexual activists often breathlessly cite this or that alleged “finding” that such a basis exists; someday they might even cite something plausible. “Whatever dude” as the kids say. Even if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that there is such a basis with respect to the question of the “naturalness” of homosexuality this would prove exactly zip.

                Of course, that by itself does not show that homosexuality is immoral either. After all having a clubfoot is not immoral and neither is being born blind or with a predisposition for alcoholism. These are simply afflictions for which the sufferer is not at fault and can only call forth our sympathy. On the other hand if someone born with normal feet wanted to give himself a club foot through surgery, we would find this at the very least irrational; and if someone concluded from having a genetic predisposition for alcoholism that regularly drinking to excess would be a worthwhile “lifestyle” for him to pursue, then we would regard him as sorely mistaken even if he could do this in a way that allowed him to hold down a job, keep his friends and family and avoid car accidents. Even amid the depravity of modern civilization most people realize that the life of an alcoholic is simply not a good thing, even if the alcoholic himself thinks it is and even if he “doesn’t hurt anybody” else. We know in our bones that there is something ignoble and unfitting about it. In the same way should it turn out that the desire to molest children has a genetic basis, no one would conclude from this that sexual attraction toward children is a good thing even if the person who has it was able to satisfy his disgusting urges without actually touching any children. We all know in our bones that someone obsessed with masturbating to pictures of naked toddlers is sick and not living the way human being ought to live even if he never leaves the darkness of his own room or his own soul.

                Now I realize, of course, that many readers will acknowledge that we do in fact have these reactions but would nevertheless write them off as “mere reactions”. “Our tendency to find something personally disgusting” they will sniff “doesn’t show that there is anything objectively wrong with it.” This is the sort of stupidity masquerading-as-insight that absolutely pervades modern intellectual life, and it has the same source as so many other contemporary intellectual pathologies: in abandonment of the classical realism of the Greek and scholastic philosophers and especially of Aristotle’s doctrine of the four causes. For we need to ask “why” there is universal, or near universal, reaction of disgust to certain behaviors and why certain traits count is unnatural even though there is a genetic factor underlying them. And when the “evolutionary psychologists”, “rational choice theorists” and other such “Bright Young Things” and trendy’s have had their say there can still be no satisfying answer to these questions questions that does not make reference to Aristotelian final causes – even if only because there can be no satisfying explanation of almost anything that doesn’t make reference to final causes.

                Let’s back up then, see what morality in general looks like from a point of view informed by Aristotelian metaphysics, and then return later on to the question of sexual morality in particular. Like Plato, Aristotle takes a things “form, essence or nature” to determine the good for it. Hence, a good triangle is one that corresponds as closely as possible to the form of triangularity, its sides drawn is perfectly straight as possible etc. A good squirrel, for example, is one that has the typical marks of the species and successfully fulfills the characteristic activities of a squirrels life, e.g. by not having broken limbs, not gathering stones for its food rather than acorns etc. So far, this is obviously a non-moral sense of “good” – the claim isn’t that triangles and squirrels are deserving of moral praise or blame – and corresponds closely to the sense in which we might think of something as a “good specimen” or “good example” of some kind of class of things. but it is the foundation for the distinctively moral sense of goodness.

                But why should we choose to do what is good for us in this Aristotelian sense? The answer is implicit in what has been said already. The will, of its very nature, is oriented to pursuing what the intellect regards is good. You don’t even need to believe in Aristotelian final causes to see this; you know it from your own experience insofar as you only ever do something because you think it is in some way good. Of course you might also believe that what you are doing is morally evil – as a murderer or thief might – but that doesn’t conflict with what I’m saying. Even the murderer or thief who knows that murderer and stealing are wrong nevertheless thinks that what he’s doing will result in something he regards is good, e.g. the death of the person he hates or some money to pay for his drugs. I mean “good” here only in this thin sense, of being in some way desirable or providing some benefit. And that is all Aquinas means by it when he famously tells us that the first principle of the natural law is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil to be avoided”. This is not meant by itself to be terribly informative; it is meant only to call attention to the obvious fact that human action is of its nature directed toward what is “perceived to be good” in some way, whether it really is good or not.

                But when we add to this the consideration that the good for us is in fact whatever “tends to fulfill our nature or essence” in the sense of realizing the “natural ends or purposes” to which various natural capacities, then there can be no doubt as to why someone ought to do what is good in this sense. For you do by nature want to do what you “take to be good” for you; reason reveals that what is in fact good for you is acting in a way that is conducive to the fulfillment of the ends or purposes inherent in human nature; and so if you are rational, and thus open to seeing what is in fact good for you, you will take the fulfillment of those ends or purposes to be good for you and act accordingly. This may require a fight against one’s desires and such a fight might in some cases be so extremely difficult and unpleasant that one might not have the stomach for it. But that is a problem of will, not reason. It doesn’t show that the rational thing is not to struggle against one’s desires, but only that doing the rational thing can sometimes be extremely difficult and unpleasant.

                • James

                  Do you take Aristotle’s view on physics as well? Point is that Aristotle is not the final authority on anything, certainly not psychology or human sexuality.

                  As for defects, we recognize that being born blind or deaf is a defect, but we nevertheless have braille and closed-captioning to accommodate these people. We have handicapped parking spaces and handicapped accessible buildings for the physically disabled.

                  So even if homosexuality is in fact a defect, it does not follow that we should not accommodate this as well.

                  You try to compare homosexuality to alcoholism, but to make this point one must show objective harm from the behavior for the individual for this argument. This article tries to make this argument, but fails.

                  The “know in our bones” argument is a subjective one. My wife thinks pickles are disgusting. Does this mean that pickles are somehow poisonous? Of course not. Is it “stupidity masquerading-as-insight” to claim that despite her disgust that pickles are actually harmless, if not good? Of course not. Neither her nor mine nor your tastes are the arbiter of morality.

                  Conversely, the practice of bleeding as a medical practice has existed across cultures until very recently in history. People “knew in their bones” that if you let blood out of the body that the disease would be flushed out with it. Their bones were, of course, wrong.

                  • MarkSRobertson

                    You “smart” people are deadly.

                  • GG

                    Do we need proof of what is self evident? Homosexual acts are perverse.

                    Self evident to the uncorrupted.

                  • James of Clan Scott

                    >Do you take Aristotle’s view on physics as well? Point is that Aristotle is not the final authority on anything, certainly not psychology or human sexuality.

                    That is a logical fallacy. How does it follow his views on Natural Law & general metaphysics are wrong because his physics are wrong?

                    Is the Principle of Non-contradiction (Something cannot be X & notX at the same time in the same relation) wrong because his non-Newton view of physics is wrong?

                    Fess up you haven’t studied philosophy or ethics?

                  • Hello James,

                    I’ve parsed your post to better address the points you have raised. I hope this goes some way to clarifying any misunderstandings. God bless.

                    James: Do you take Aristotle’s view on physics as well? Point is that Aristotle is not the final authority on anything, certainly not psychology or human sexuality.

                    Joe: His physics? No I do not. However, we can observe the veracity of his metaphysics easily enough by “taking for our example” whatever contemporary scientific discoveries happen to be available to us… (That he thought there was a divine pinky-finger prodding the spheres so that they might continue to make their heavenly music neither diminishes nor undermines his metaphysical contributions in the least. These (planets and such) were examples of their kind, nothing more. He was addressing classical knowledge through the lens of sound logic. Logic doesn’t belong to Aristotle incidentally. He is not the authority – just in case there was any confusion.

                    I think I adequately covered where logic and reason lead us regarding sexuality in my post, the rest of the argument can be left to the biologist who might, at his or her leisure, demonstrate “the biological imperative” for us * thank you principle of public confirmation!

                    James: As for defects, we recognize that being born blind or deaf is a defect, but we nevertheless have braille and closed-captioning to accommodate these people. We have handicapped parking spaces and handicapped accessible buildings for the physically disabled.

                    So even if homosexuality is in fact a defect, it does not follow that we should not accommodate this as well.

                    Joe: What you have said in your first paragraph concerning the blind unwittingly serves to entirely illustrate my point. However, your second paragraph (sentence) doesn’t follow logically given what you have said in the first.

                    Braille is not accommodation, it is an attempt to remedy a defect (like glasses). This is the point. We do not “celebrate” the child’s blindness. We accept that he/she is blind, certainly, but we don’t let it go at that and leave it.. as you seem to suggest we ought to where homosexuality is concerned. It seems that you are talking about two different things here James when you use the word “accommodation”.

                    James: You try to compare homosexuality to alcoholism, but to make this point one must show objective harm from the behavior for the individual for this argument. This article tries to make this argument, but fails.

                    Joe: I did not demonstrate the point because it has been adequately demonstrated by others and is subject to public record. I simply bring it up to lend “understanding” to the point. It is not an “argument from analogy” as some might be tempted to suppose.

                    James:The “know in our bones” argument is a subjective one. My wife thinks pickles are disgusting. Does this mean that pickles are somehow poisonous? Of course not. Is it “stupidity masquerading-as-insight” to claim that despite her disgust that pickles are actually harmless, if not good? Of course not. Neither her nor mine nor your tastes are the arbiter of morality.

                    Joe: I knew someone would call me up on that (Lord, I dislike a narrow reading); the “know it in your bones” phrase is not an argument. It is an observation. The argument belongs to the later part of my post – that is to say – I deliver on the promise of that observation when I discuss “that end to which the instantiated nature of the thing tends”.

                    James: “Of course not. Is it “stupidity masquerading-as-insight” to claim that despite her disgust that pickles are actually harmless, if not good? Of course not.”

                    Joe: By now, I hope you can see how a comment like this misses the point entirely. I would agree with you that pickles are harmless even though I dislike them myself. We know that they are. Things do have “a nature in and of themselves” independent of “whatever we may come to think of them” (Now, that is my point and a good one, no?) – I shan’t go on and address leaches, the black blood, and trepanning..having addressed the point, I need not address all the examples.

                    All that being said. It was a well written post and I appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into it. You thought enough of what I had said to consider it worth commenting on and so, you have my gratitude. I hope I have provided a little more clarity. If you are interested in the “clock work” of the argument or any kind of follow on discussion, we can talk about “act and potency” “formal, efficient, final, eminent…causality etc.” or whatever metaphysical underpinning you like…God bless

                    • James

                      Thank you. That’s a good analysis of our respective positions.

                      I would object to the view that sexuality is only proper when restricted to the “biological imperative”. I think there is far more to it than that. It is an important act of human bonding and intimacy.

                    • I’m off to work now, but I would like to address the “I think there is far more to it than that.” observation. I agree of course but there is a caveat I would like to add to it…if you can wait and are patient with me. For later. Take care James. God bless.

                    • My contention is that just because distinctions can be made between “human bonding, intimacy, appetite etc,” and “the biological imperative” it doesn’t necessarily follow that a separation is entailed.

                      Furthermore, I am curious to know what the “far more” of your comment argues for (you’re not alone in using these two words and I have yet to find a satisfactory development to that end). I touch upon the intimations of what that might mean later on below but I should like to know your thoughts on the matter as well.

                      Here’s the argumentation:

                      Where LGBT people are concerned, the “minor principle”
                      of pleasure (which they always call love when sex is on the cards) -talk about your ubiquitous term – is equal to or can be made to trump the “major principle” of procreation (and all of this is persistently folded into a narrative of: “natural affection”, “a spiritual something”,
                      “friendship” and so on – this being the common ground as it were.)
                      Yet this is dishonest on its face. Speaking in this way is merely another way to “sneak sodomy into the house” under the auspices of universally acceptable credentials. In this way, the LGBT community look to “talk past the issue” regarding their own sexual mores. Moreover, this assertion (the distinction/division fallacy) like many “LGBT arguments” proves too much.

                      What I mean by this is that “it”: “there is more to sex than…” must, because of the principle upon which it rests its argument, be open to any kind of sexuality that one can “think of” and “indulge in” regardless of whom or what they “indulge in it with” – and not least of all because how ambiguous this kind of reasoning is. (just consider
                      that for a moment – I certainly hope there are limits to what that “far more” intimates). Of course this sort of reasoning is a reductio ad absurdum (a fault inherent to the position they have adopted – logical fallacy number 2).

                      Permit me, by way of explanation, to flesh out what I have just said by means of the following analogy (This is not an argument from
                      analogy. What follows is meant to be explanatory – just in case there is any misunderstanding): I shall take “the eating of food” for my theme.

                      Where food is concerned, would anyone seriously contend that
                      “a healthy appetite for what the food tastes like” takes precedence over, is separable from, or equal to “the need to nourish oneself”? This is the kind of argument which underpins comments of the following kind: “well, there is more to eating than just keeping you alive” (of course we all understand what that means: Enjoy the food! and little else besides…but what if we were to take it seriously, that is, what if we were to hold to it with the same degree of seriousness and earnestness that we do with a statement like: “there is more to just sex than babies”. What then?– I ask you, what kind of “premise” is this for any kind of “preference”?” Now, just in case you are tempted to misunderstand me here, I’m not saying that one doesn’t eat a hamburger because it doesn’t taste better than a kiwi for example. In fact people do eat more hamburgers than they do kiwis’ precisely because they do taste better for the most part (vegetarians not withstanding). “Appetite”, the “friendship of a shared meal” brings us to the table but it is the hamburger that is “the end to which the appetite tends”. Despite distinctions, it’s a package deal. Another way (though formal) to understand this is: The effect is inherent in the cause. It is not 1. Cause followed by the separable 2. Effect.

                      Now, hopefully the first difficulty with a “there is more to it than that” sentence becomes clear: just because “a distinction” can be made (between “enjoying food” and “nourishing oneself” or “space” and “time” or “sex” and “emotional bond”) it doesn’t necessarily follow that a “separation” is entailed (logical fallacy). The question is one of “comprehensiveness”. A meaningful corollary might be found in the scientific disciplines: “the best theory is the theory that takes into account most of the information available.”

                      Yet, despite this, despite what we can know, there are many who would like to believe or simply maintain whatever they like and by means of whatever assumed fallacy insist that both – “the appetite” and the “ends to which the appetite tend” are separable and can be validly appealed to depending on one’s preference.

                      Consequently, false choices are set up and promoted as something substantially valid (where “eating” is concerned, space/time) and yes, even where thoughts and arguments concerning sexual proclivity abound.

                • littleeif

                  “while it is true that some defenders and critics of traditional sexual morality seem to worry themselves endlessly about whether homosexuality has a genetic basis, the question is actually largely irrelevant, and they shouldn’t waste their time. For it is quite obvious that the existence of a genetic basis for some trait does not by itself prove anything about whether it is “natural” in the relevant sense. ”

                  The genetic issue is not whether homosexual behavior is natural, but whether or not it is willful. Our society has elected to grant class status and protections to homosexuals. Can individuals become members of a protected class based on acts they willfully perform? If so, why those performing these specific acts and not others? And if sodomy has its origin in genetics and not in the will, does the entire spectrum of paraphilia have genetic origins, and beyond sexual behavior, all human activity? How can we assign culpability to acts people unwillingly commit?

                  We have pretended that we have answered the question as to homosexuality, or that the question is passe as you have here. We have pretended that a supposed genetic basis to homosexuality has no implications for other human behaviors and how society responds to them when in fact such conclusions not only upend reason but the rule of law itself.

                  If, in fact, people can become members of a protected class based only on their self proclamation they have performed sodomy with a person of the same gender, society itself cannot be protected.

                  • GG

                    Acts are willful whether genetic or not.

                    • littleeif

                      I do not believe sodomy is genetically determined. At the same time, I think your blanket statement is too broad.

                    • GG

                      How are acts not willful? Free will exists, right ?

                    • littleeif

                      Obviously there’s reflexive activity, autonomic activity, activity that results from certain genetic or biological conditions. Should a person with Tourette’s syndrome be punished for cursing?

                    • GG

                      Reflex is not a willful act. Sodomy is not a reflex.

                    • littleeif

                      Now you’re being circular. You: “How are acts not willful?” Me: “Obviously there’s reflexive activity…” You: “Reflex is not a willful act.” Me: “Duh!”

                    • GG

                      Acts are referring to those chosen, but autonomic like swallowing or sneezing. Why confuse the two categories?

                    • littleeif

                      Why redefine the word “act”? You are obfuscating. Reflexive activity – acts – are one of several examples I offered where the human act is not within the control of the will. There are other examples, if you prefer. Would you see a person with Tourette’s punished for cursing? Or rather would you concede not every act is within the command of the will?

                      That having been said, to place homosexuals in a protected class based on the self proclamation of the commission of the act of sodomy is completely absurd, and yet that is precisely what we have done. It assumes we cannot be held accountable for any human act. One need not take the equally absurd position that ALL human acts are willful to know this.

              • MHB

                Well, lets give some thought to the actual purpose of specific body parts. Are women with women serving the purpose of the design of these body parts or something other than that?

        • Kilo 4/11

          “James” is serious, all right. Serious about keeping himself as ignorant as possible.

      • Have you heard what Michael Douglas attributed his throat cancer to?

        • James

          Last I checked, Michael Douglas isn’t a lesbian.

          • bonaventure

            Cunnilingus is the female homosexuals’ favorite sex act.

            • James

              A lot of straight women like it too.

    • bassbait

      There are health benefits to masturbation, swallowing semen, and prostate stimulation. Try again.

    • MHB

      But have you tried discussing the biology of it? Maybe you have had better success than I have! If so, you must be very skilled. I find it exasperating because people won’t discuss it, steer the conversation away, refuse to acknowledge the truth. Why on earth don’t people see the logic of it all- the way we are physically designed!

  • Strife

    The human rectum did not recently redesign itself. It has one specific purpose: To expel the most vile pathogen-laden substance the human body can produce. End of story.

    Feces: Nature’s little “Exit Only” sign.

    • bassbait

      Soap: Man’s little “I’ll pass through here anyways” sign.

      Why does direct stimulation of the prostate produce arousal?

      Did you know that trees didn’t redesign themselves to become paper? Trees have a specific purpose, and humans perverted that purpose by using trees to make the stuff you wipe your ass with.

      • Strife

        The lower colon was not designed for soap. And it does not lubricate itself and it tears easily. All of which means “Exit Only”.

        Arousal can also be accomplished with electrodes placed in various parts of the pelvis – but does that mean you should do that? And manual manipulation of the prostate has inherent health risks as well:

        “Vigorous prostate massage has been documented to have injurious and life-threatening consequences: periprostatic hemorrhage,[7] cellulitis, septicaemia, possible disturbance and metastasis of prostate cancer to other parts of the body, and hemorrhoidal flare-up, and rectal fissures.[8][9]” – Wikipedia

        And trees did not design themselves in the first place. And neither did man. However, trees (as all vegetation) serves mans needs. But the trees themselves do not betray their own design.

        • phranthie

          And it can all be found on the websites of teaching hospitals.

      • MHB

        Crass comments are not welcome here.

      • Objectivetruth

        CRISIS EDITOR:

        Is this sewage necessary?

        • Crisiseditor

          He has been banned. I usually don’t announce those decisions publicly.

    • MHB

      That’s the truth of it!

    • mollysdad

      In other words the human rectum was designed to expel Elton John from David Furnish.

    • santiago

      This is your personal view not the Church’s I believe there are some treaties out there that actually hold permissible to use anal stimulation in marriage.

      • Strife

        No, it’s actually a self-evident reality of natural law and confirmed by a plethora of medical research. And I would like to see any authoritative Church teachings contrary to this. There are inherent risks to the act of sodomy because of the
        physiological design of the human rectum. Tearing do to the lack of natural lubricate and the fragile lining of the orifice. And that of course leads to the direct contact of highly pathogenic bacterial microorganisms with the blood supply. Not to mention prolapses and loss of sphincter control after long term abuse. Even the porn industry recognizes these risks. Dr Susan Mitchell a former porn star and current physician specializes in the medical treatment of actors in the industry – she has long noted these inherent risks.

        • santiago

          You want Authoritative teachings on the subject. There is at least on my understanding of the Catechism. It gives a little room for interpretation but anus play can definately be within that interpretation. also have you considered what are the natural erogenous zones of men and women? The anus is definitely one of them, so is the neck. I know there have been many writing about oral sex, or is that also according to you an aberrant act?

          • Strife

            Anus play but not actual rectal coitus. And no, oral is not morally categorized on the same plane of Natural Law as actual rectal coitus. Because there is no abuse of the multifaceted physiologic design of the mouth, as opposed to the specifically limited design of the rectum. But of course in all of this, ejaculation must be in the vagina for the completion of the full intent of the sacred marital act.

            • santiago

              Agreed. The marital sexual act can only be when it serves it’s true purpose.

  • redfish

    The idea that conservatives have avoided talking about sex in favor of talking about children is silly. The reason that the “animus” arguments have come up in court is because since the 90s, religious leaders made homosexuality, and not children, the issue. Only recently have those arguments have started to fall back, because they were seen as obnoxious and leading conservatives to lose the debate. And only even more recently, have conservatives started to pick up arguments about children.

    In the end, not having marriage doesn’t prevent gays from having sex any more than it would prevent straight couples from having sex if they weren’t married. Which can be seen by the high rates of adultery. Plus, being married doesn’t mean the couple in the marriage will be in fact having sex. A gay couple may just want to support each other, because they don’t want to marry off into heterosexual relationships. And in the end, most people see it as the couple’s own business.

  • bassbait

    This isn’t an argument against gay sex. This is an argument against all sex. Literally any argument you can use against homosexuality that isn’t based in your religion, can be used against heterosexuality as well.

    And arguments that are based in your religion are irrelevant because the constitution isn’t based in your religion, or any other.

    Also, an argument against unsafe gay sex that leads to STDs isn’t an argument against safe gay sex, it isn’t an argument against homosexual attractions, desires, or relationships that don’t involve sex.

    At most all you’ve told us is “wear a condom”

    • EB

      There is evidence that you’re incorrect. Sodomy causes a kind of damage that increases the transmission rate of AIDS and other STDs. You can look it up, I refuse to be graphic and say why. And because of failure rates and, I believe, the nature of the AIDS virus which means that in any case there’s a chance it could get through, there is evidence that condoms still leave one open to the transmission of the AIDS virus, so that would not solve the problem even if the use was moral.

  • EB

    I don’t disagree with your basic premise. However, may I respectfully suggest that it would be inappropriate to speak about gay sex from the pulpit (suggested in paragraph 2). First, the info is impure, and that is the sanctuary, and in our Catholic churches the Blessed Sacrament is present. Secondly, children are present. Third, it can be a temptation for some people. Lastly, I just can’t see where having one’s mind on that during Mass is a good thing. Maybe you just mean passing references to the fact that “male gay sex leads to more disease,” but still… during Mass I don’t want to hear anything about sex, thank you very much!

    Also, all childless women have higher rates of breast cancer than women with children do, and obviously lesbians are more likely to be childless. So, correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel pretty sure on that point Hellquist was just pointing out one of their health needs. To think that simply being a lesbian causes breast cancer would be, I think, some kind of superstition.

    • EB

      Or, excuse me, I should say “childless women in general have higher rate of breast cancer” not “all childless women” because there may be some childless women who are outside the norm – but it wouldn’t be simply because they are lesbians.

      • Julia Soler

        So nuns are more likely to have breast cancer?

    • MHB

      But is entirely appropriate to talk about clothing ourselves with Christ, and Christ was chaste, so talking about chastity in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament and children is possible and appropriate precisely because it is Christly.

  • MarkSRobertson

    Let’s see now. in the 60s there were two types of STD’s, there are now around 30. Yes, thankfully there is the beautiful Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality, there is natural law. They are of course great, but there is also common sense. Common sense says that the sexual revolution was a total catastrophe. This is “revolutionary,” but does anyone think that the body might be trying to tell society that many are on the wrong track. STD’s, including HIV AIDS are consequences of going against the laws of the body. Those often deadly consequences also plague the innocent. Many have paid the price other than those who went against the laws of the body. When sex leaves the realm of the unitive and procreative aspects in marriage between one man and one woman, then bad consequences happen. Pope Paul VI warned about all of the dire consequences in Humanae Vitae. Virtually every dire prediction he made has come true and then some. Artificial contraception has wrought so much chaos and destruction.

  • Blanka

    Everything about the sexual behaviour of the gays is harmful! Why should the general public pay for their treatment as it is self-inflicted?! We need to stop calling them “gay”, but sexually perverted!- to tell and live the Truth is liberating.

    • MHB

      Liberating to call people perverted? No, that’s not the way Jesus teaches. Tell the truth with love, Blanka.

      • GG

        Perverted is the truth. Why hate the truth?

        • MHB

          I don’t.

        • MHB

          I don’t hate the truth. But if you want to be heard then you need to find a way to say it without bashing people in the face with it.

  • EB

    This comment is directed towards the moderators of this comment area: I was just scrolling down below and saw not only a curse word but some graphic/coarse descriptions of things which, thankfully, I was able to look away from before I really took in but I can see what they may be – but may I please suggest these things be removed – it is not appropriate for a Catholic site – you know?

  • CBorromeo

    My little brother is gay–at least he decided that he must be gay since he doesn’t like women. His extreme shyness as a teenager–I don’t think he ever had sex with a woman. He says his gay relationship doesn’t include much sex, yet they have been living together for 15 years. He’s baptized Catholic–we come from a totally Catholic family. He of course hates the Church because it is critical of his lifestyle. He knows that I went back to pre- conciliar Catholicism many years ago.

    He is my brother, the only living member besides me of our family and I will love him as a brother no matter what, but I know that if I were to say anything at all negative about his gayness he wouldn’t speak to me again, so when we meet we just ignore the elephant in the room.

    Am I wrong not to bring it up? I could not convert him and it would only estrange us. I feel that all I can do is pray for him and hope he chose to be gay out of an inability to approach women. He does not act gay and nobody would know without being told. Same with his partner. They could care less about gay politics. It’s almost as if he felt he had to define himself as being something. Our mother died when he was 14 and our father became overbearing and authoritarian toward us after. I already had a girlfriend and lived on my own, but my brother was stuck. All this happened around 1971, well before homosexuality had any “respect.” Only in the 1980s did he “come out” and it was 10 years more before he told our Dad, who then felt that he must have done something wrong as a parent.

    I fear for my brother’s soul but I am the last person he would listen to.

    • mitch64

      Your love and concern for your brother is real and admirable. All you can do is to nicely tell your brother what you believe..condemn the “sin,” not the sinner. Then it is up to him. You are right if you come off as a hard *** he will not listen to you and it will harm your relationship and will not stop him.

      As opposed to what others on here think, no one “chooses,” to be gay because they are socially ackward around women, (actually no one chooses to be gay period but…) and if they did, they would not be in relationship with a guy for 15 years. Your brothers gay, you have to deal with that and not try to make yourself feel better that he might not be “that gay, just confused.” You don’t have to like it but you can still love your brother. If your brother is not having that much sex..well, come on.. after 15 years in a relationship and being well in your middle age…does anyone??? If he is happy with his partner, maybe just maybe their relationship is real.

      Anyway, that is not for you to decide or to agree on, you can say what you think, (just don’t get up on a high horse and then beat that horse dead about it) and leave it at that and continue to love your brother, just as he loves you despite whatever “faults” you may have.

    • Kilo 4/11

      As a father of two boys, whose heart is warmed by their love for each other, I’m going to stop reading at “I will love him as a brother no matter what”, and tell you how good you are. No matter what else I find in your post, I’ll stand by that.

  • An Orthodox Christian

    Judging from the comments here, it is obvious why the so-called Culture Wars are lost.

    • Objectivetruth

      Not a war anymore, sin has won. Devout Catholics are only now in defensive mode for our very souls.

      • An Orthodox Christian

        Sin will never win. As long as Liturgies are done and Christ is proclaimed, sin will never win. It has always been a battle for “our very souls.” The struggle is within, and from that inner struggle, the actions of others play out in real time.
        Even if the US slips completely into paganism and there are only a handful of Christians left, it doesn’t matter. Christ is still victorious. This “City on the Hill” nonsense about America needs to be discarded….it is a nation-state, and the creation of men….and as a result is at the mercy of Man’s whims and flaws. “Put not your trust in Princes”….or the US Constitution, as it is of men and will turn to ash. Only the Gospel saves….only the Gospel is forever. If persecution comes, what of it? There has always been persecution, there is persecution now. In the Christian East, we have always had to live with persecution. The Muslims, the Communists….it’s all the same. The actors change, but it’s still the same movie.
        We live as we can….and trust in God. Even if everything we know crumbles around us. Our mistake was thinking we were somehow different.

  • Objectivetruth

    Pope Francis coming out and clearly attacking “gender theory” of the “gay” agenda:

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-blasts-gender-theory-again-rejecting-sexual-difference-is-a-st

  • Ohso

    The Gaystapo is an Alliance – of very different groups who do not like each other much and rarely hang out together, but who are united in their MISANDRY – The Hatred of Men & Boys, Masculinity & Normal Heterosexuality.

    Homo-Anal Coprophile Behaviors have been the prime mover for vectoring of ever newer Treatment Resistant Strains of STDs from my old home town of Frisco (better known as Sodom by the Sea now) for Decades, and nowhere has the expensive tax subsidized ‘education’ program been greater – with the same dismal results.

    However – the focus on ‘Big Happy’ (Gilberts or Ligberts or whatever…) usually falls on Homo-Anal Male Behaviors, and rarely discusses the Separatist / Neo-Exterminationist Hatred of Men and Boys that pervades and motivates their Twysted Systers.

    For example, I have years of video of the annual tax subsidized Anti-Male Hate Riot / SF Dyke March – which refuses to apply for any permits or pay any fees, and bans Males from the public streets while gridlocking the city without warning. The Media once actually published stories / pictures of the Dyke March (see below) but it has been completely Censored Since, and even the public are not warned they will be stuck in gridlock along the march route – which also shuts off the Mission District Police HQ.

    You cannot fight such Evil unless you understand its diverse nature – and many are willing to turn a blind eye to Separatist / Exterminationist DYKE MISANDRY openly displayed “in Your Face” – and instead pretend the subject is simply about pandering to ‘Sodomy’.

    The Gaystapo is an Alliance of Hate – and Dykes are at the core of the Extermination Pogrom, and make allies with Homo-Anal Coprophiles because anything that degrades Men, delights them.

    SEE
    Men told not to rain on parade Unity key to Dyke March / 50,000 expected at S.F. Dyke March 50,000 expected — MEN NOT ADVISED.

    http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Men-told-not-to-rain-on-parade-Unity-key-to-Dyke-2746314.php

    &
    Women rule the world, if only for a little while – SFGate
    For a few hours Saturday night, Vicki Noblegot a fleeting glimpse of a World Devoid of Men –

    – and she came away excited and deeply moved.
    “This is what the world would look like if women ruled the world, which we intend to do,”

  • mollysdad

    If America’s orthodox religious, political, and cultural leaders want to defend marriage from homosexual redefinition, they must focus on the unjust nature of laws which regulate and privilege gender-neutral marriage in what concerns the enjoyment of civil rights.

    The public policy of the law no longer recognizes children as a factor which determines marriage as being in the public interest. In that case, there is no justification for marriage to be recognized in law at all.

  • Malka

    Hellquist is quoted: “I’m tired of watching my community die.” But this speaks to an even deeper reality of homosexual behavior. Without the means to bring forth new life, it is already dying. Is it any wonder gays have to constantly recruit new members?

  • Kim58

    Focusing on the health issue isn’t a strong argument because if medical science can create some kind of vaccination or treatment or something that prevents the ill health effects of gay sex then the whole argument falls apart. The only argument that can be made against gay sex is one which focuses on the inherently selfish nature of any sexual act that treats another human being as an object to be used for one’s personal pleasure (which is always wrong, even if the other party “consents” to being used). But Catholics continue to avoid that argument because it indicts the many many Catholics (and Bishops and Priests and Deacons) who think contraception is perfectly moral. The Church has no credibility on sexual issues due to her being silent for many decades on why contraception is wrong (and it is wrong not because of ill health effects but rather because it is selfish). Be consistent and make solid arguments against sexual morality and then you will be able to start changing hearts.

  • santiago

    I love to swim in big waves, and do body surfing, i know that one mistake might cost my life. I’ve had some very close calls, one time this set of 21 footers came and I was unprepared they broke about 30 feet from my position and I could not swim fast enough to meet them, by the 5th wave I thought I was a gone. The next day I was swimming in the same place and with the same swell. I hope no body tries to take this away from me because it is a dangerous life style and I know many kids might want to follow my example but there is on reason to outlaw my practice it is my freedom and if I want to live an unhealthy or risky life that is my business. When people ask me I tell them that it is awesome, and if they take that as inspirational and drown, it is their business not mine.

    I am Catholic and what someone does in their own home or in adult scenes where there is other behaviour such as sexual in nature and there is same sex relations going on, it is their business. I might say hey, you are more prone to getting and STD or HIV, so be careful but that is about it. Not everyone is Christian much less Catholic. The majority does not hold neither my values nor my views, and that is their right, I hope they never try to take my right away and make me have same sex copulation, the same way I will never tell them that they are evil or bad for it, especially if they are not Catholic.

    And i do try to love homosexuals, like every Catholic should, like Christ definitely does. God loves all his creatures including the devil.

MENU