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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hahahahah I love this. Good one Lula!!

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOL. Good answer.

Cacto, as always, you are da man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I see what you are getting at now, that does make sense, up until the point when states or the government start putting a ban on same sex marriage.... yes they aren't necessarily banning homosexuality, but they are putting a limit on how far the relationship can go... at that point they should have reasons to do so. (same of allowing same sex marriage as well). I guess there could be a point where not giving a vote could be the same as banning though.

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

Heh, there are no reasons for there to be a state recognized marriage or similar union between a human and an animal... insurance, kids, taxes, inheritance, etc wouldn't apply. People like saying this is the next step, but it wont be the case.

No, they are defining the criteria for a government license in a situation where that criteria is in question.



Oh, come on. Do you really want me to go to Google and bring back instances where people left money to their cats? Where people sued one another over animals, fought over custody of animals or their offspring, etc? There's a very good reason why we don't need to worry about such things.

We HAVE defined the role which animals play in our culture. We omitted homosexuality because it was a "duh" situation where everyone agreed until suddenly we realized there were people who didn't, and who were actually now bold enough to admit it in public.

So, now we define it. I think those definitions should be in the hands of the states, because states issue the licenses. If it screws full faith and credit, well, then we have to deal with it. To pretend there is some natural law preventing us from legislating the criteria for a license, though, is a bit starry-eyed.

My point about the animals thing wasn't a 'slippery slope' one, anyway. It was why you think we need discussion on the validity of homosexuality in order to deal with gay marriage, when obviously we DON'T need to discuss bestiality to make a decision about animal marriage.

Why? Gay people can't procreate with one another either. A Man/Cat marriage could demand adoption rights, too. My insurance currently offers pet insurance, and spouse insurance, so... well, I'm not seeing the problem.

There are really no more physical obstacles preventing a man from having sex with a sheep than a man having sex with a man. Yet, one is a situation where you believe there is a natural right, and the other which obviously isn't on the table. Gratned, I'm allowed to slash the same sheep's throat and roast it, but marrying it is out of the question.

Isn't it just a matter of "moral" degrees? If so, who made up your morality? I don't believe people should marry/have sex with animals, nor am I a big fan of homosexuality. I don't believe the government really can do much about either, but it certainly CAN decide what it wants to license.

"No, they are defining the criteria for a government license in a situation where that criteria is in question."

What criteria? Gender? Love? Care of the kids? Ok, I think that is where the discussion of the validity of homosexuality comes in. They need reasons to support why the criteria matters if they are going to specify it. I dont see why you are pushing this, you need reasons to allow/ban something. If you ignore reasons and just do something because you are uninformed/ignorant, you end up with problems allowing/banning an acceptable/unacceptable activity... i.e. slavery. I am talking about the individual voter here, if they dont make an informed decision, then there might be problems with their view.

"Oh, come on. Do you really want me to go to Google and bring back instances where people left money to their cats? Where people sued one another over animals, fought over custody of animals or their offspring, etc? There's a very good reason why we don't need to worry about such things."

Eh, i was talking about it being the other way around. You cant inherit money from a cat, cant get your health converage from a cat's insurance plan, dont need to marry so the cat becomes a US citizen, you shouldnt get tax breaks or be able to adopt, etc (obviously the tax breaks and adoption could be easily abused).

"So, now we define it. I think those definitions should be in the hands of the states, because states issue the licenses. If it screws full faith and credit, well, then we have to deal with it. To pretend there is some natural law preventing us from legislating the criteria for a license, though, is a bit starry-eyed."

I wasn't trying to say that the government should mandate this, and although I think it is going to ultimately end up being that way, I dont really want to argue that here, although I could see how you could think I was trying to... it was not my intention. I merely mean the voter should be as informed as possible, understanding both sides, then deciding. Which is what I am doing.

"Isn't it just a matter of "moral" degrees? If so, who made up your morality? I don't believe people should marry/have sex with animals, nor am I a big fan of homosexuality. I don't believe the government really can do much about either, but it certainly CAN decide what it wants to license."

Yes, probably the real intention of the "marry a cat" phrase is really trying to say, if same sex marriage is moral, what next? However, that is on the assumption loving a person of the same sex is extremely immoral. Yes many people think of it that way, but should they? This leads back to reasons.... some people that though slavery was acceptable didn't really have reasons for why, they just felt that way from how they were raised, from society.... they never really thought, hey, this is wrong until people starting debating it. You NEED to have reasons past your initial thoughts.... although you and I are thinking of why homosexuality should be accepted or not, many people don't bother to examine whether they should or not and it could create problems with banning/approving. For example, think of some reasons why you don't think sex with animals is acceptable... consent, abuse, disease, are probably a couple you thought of, but until you do research for both sides and find out how accurate your reasons are, you will not be able to see beyond your limited view.

I think many people that think it is immoral are really judging the homosexual group as a whole on those that are homosexual but promiscuous, multiple partners, etc, which is not exactly a fair analysis. You cant look at the worst thing about a group and judge the entire group on that. It almost seems like there is a fine line here, but it just reeks of punishing those that aren't guilty (via marriage bans).

Why? You keep saying that, but I don't see you backing it up. We can pass any law we like, otherwise it isn't really a democracy, it is a democracy overseen by some esoteric list of ideals people make up off the top of their heads... like the one you are espousing. You can point to the Constitution, but you know very well we can amend that, too.

If you are going to tell people they can't make a law, shouldn't YOU have a reason? Please, establish why if a state wants to define marraige as only heterosexual they can't. You see, you don't see the end of it where you are telling other people what THEY can't do.



Again, why? We do, say, with Hamas. We do with drug legalization. We throw babies out with bath water every day.

It isn't just conservatives, either. Liberals judge conservative causes the same way. Gun control throws freedom out with the bathwater. Quasi-Liberals all over America want to police our language, our games, our movies, our economy, all in spite of all the stuff in the conservative stance's "pro" column.

Slavery is a GOLDEN example. We decided, in bloody fashion, what our stance on slavery would be. Was that because we "can't" have slaves by some natural law? Nope, people had owned slaves since the beginning of humanity.

We democratically decided to change things, and then enforced that change at the end of a bayonet. We didn't just arbitrarily pick something to make an esoteric ideal. It was important enough for us to actually DIE for the cause of telling people they can't choose for themselves. Telling people that SHOULD be monumental. Would you rate gay marriage even close to that?

I wouldn't. If gay people don't want to live among people who don't respect their marriage, they can move elsewhere. They aren't enslaved. They aren't prevented from marrying. They simply aren't at this point powerful enough to impose their standards on the government licensing of marriage. Perhaps if they pool their resources in a particular place, they could.

If I, today, decide that my state government doesn't suit me, and I am in the small minority, is it logical that I demand the democratically decided laws change to suit me? Or would it be more apt to choose somewhere to live where the people are like-minded? What is self-rule about? It isn't a religion.

I just got a notice that our state has a representative that is trying to ban all Clergy from performing marriages in the state leaving it only to the judges, lawyers and notaries. I think it's ridiculous but I would assume that it's because of this whole gay marriage issue. I know plenty of Pastors that will not perform a marriage or union involving two homosexuals based on biblical mandate. But then again, there are some that will. So why take the right away from them at all?

I think the rep isn't thinking clearly. All the Clergy have to do then, is become notaries.

"Why? You keep saying that, but I don't see you backing it up. We can pass any law we like, otherwise it isn't really a democracy, it is a democracy overseen by some esoteric list of ideals people make up off the top of their heads... like the one you are espousing. You can point to the Constitution, but you know very well we can amend that, too."

Perhaps you didn't read the whole paragraph, blindly passing any law you like, because it is in the majority, wont make it correct or uninfringing. Sure, you have a right to vote without even caring or knowing what the topic is about, but that doesn't make the law or criteria of the law acceptable. It does technically make it acceptable to the majority, but just that fact doesn't make the law right in the end. To prevent passing a law that is incorrect, people need to be informed... especially since you are right that states can pass whatever they want that doesn't conflict with the Constitution.

"Slavery is a GOLDEN example. We decided, in bloody fashion, what our stance on slavery would be. Was that because we "can't" have slaves by some natural law? Nope, people had owned slaves since the beginning of humanity."

I find it odd that having slaves is a natural law, but loving someone from the same sex isn't. I guess that is another reason whether homosexuality is a natural law or not doesn't matter.

"We didn't just arbitrarily pick something to make an esoteric ideal. It was important enough for us to actually DIE for the cause of telling people they can't choose for themselves. Telling people that SHOULD be monumental. Would you rate gay marriage even close to that?"

Yea, we should have to be willing to die for something before it becomes law..... it doesn't matter how many things are wrong with the law, so long the majority, even if uninformed, agree with it and those against it aren't willing to die.

"If I, today, decide that my state government doesn't suit me, and I am in the small minority, is it logical that I demand the democratically decided laws change to suit me? Or would it be more apt to choose somewhere to live where the people are like-minded? What is self-rule about? It isn't a religion."

I already said I didn't want to argue about state vs government licensing. All this talk about law passing doesn't seem to add much to the homosexuality debate anyways. I was simply trying to say, you should make informed decision when you vote.

KFC - "I just got a notice that our state has a representative that is trying to ban all Clergy from performing marriages in the state leaving it only to the judges, lawyers and notaries. I think it's ridiculous but I would assume that it's because of this whole gay marriage issue. I know plenty of Pastors that will not perform a marriage or union involving two homosexuals based on biblical mandate. But then again, there are some that will. So why take the right away from them at all?"

If you state doesn't allow same sex marriage (by a law, or lack of law), it doesn't matter if the Pastor approves or not, the state doesn't recognize it, so a ban seems pointless. If they just wanted a marriage through god, I dont see how they could prevent a Pastor from doing that either. If your state does allow same sex marriage through law, it still seems pointless since if you can't get a pastor to do it, you could get a lawyer/notary right? No point in forcing religious people to get married through a lawyer...

Lol, I meant to hit reply but hit delete, then hit cancel and it still deleted your post..... I tried to go back into my browser's history and recover it but it was gone. Go ahead and repost if you want to/can.... i will reply to what I remember.

So to try and clear some things up by "Right" and "Uninfringing" I was referring to the equal protection clause.

Informed may not have been the best word for it... but if the person doesn't try to understand both sides of the issue then they aren't caring to try an understand why people feel differently, which is not a good way to make a law.

You are right, I and many other people dont know much about legislature that is going on in the state, however, those that ARE involved in the issue and voting, I would hope they make an attempt to understand both sides of the issue.

The part I wrote about natural law wasn't saying I believe they existed, just that if someone thinks slavery is a natural law, but not homosexuality, then natural laws aren't worth looking at.

You assume that the equal protection clause even applies, frankly. Who decides that? We do. We might tag sexual orientation onto that in terms of state licenses. We might tag favorite colors and the great social divide between people who like chocolate and the minority that doesn't. Who knows?

The fact is if you start applying that universally, then there's no end to it. Given that no one really even knows whence commeth sexual orientation, there's no way to define it. Is it a disability? A trait? A choice? What do you do about people who are gay today, not tomorrow, and back to being gay next week when it suits them legally?

There's no issue to understand. Homosexuality isn't a fact-based state. People believe they are homosexual. Others believe no one really is, they just choose to engage in homosexuality. Others believe there is a genitic predisposition, which makes some people wonder if it can be cured.

You dig a bottomless pit with this stuff, when in reality it is painfully simple. Let the voters decide, and if you have something that will inform them to make the decision, point it out. Saying that homosexual relationships are equal just because you believe it, though, without anything really to prove it, isn't informing people.