To the arguments in favor of homosexuality and same-sex marriage we respond with arguments based on right reason, natural law and divine revelation in a polemical statement like this, it is possible that one or another formulation may be perceived as excessive or ironic. Unlike the previous argument which sees homosexuality as normal or natural, proponents of the current argument suggest that homosexuality is an abnormal or unnaturalcondition, or even an illness brought about by a number of factors beyond the control of the individual. The observation of homosexual behavior in animals can be seen as both an argument for and against the acceptance of homosexuality in humans, and has been used especially against the claim that it is a peccatum contra naturam ('sin against nature')[1. A “utilitarian” argument, in the strict sense, is one what alleges that we ought to do something because it will produce more total happiness than doing anything else would act utilitarianism (au) is the moral theory that holds that the morally right action, the act.
Logic & fallacies constructing a logical argument (1997) and b is offered as evidence, the statement a because b is an argument if we're trying to establish the truth of b, then a because b is not an argument, it's an explanation a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world--and then stating that the conclusion is. It is not natural and defies godalthough we are the most civilised race on earth we do not have the right to rule naturerather nature should rule ushomosexuality distorts the real definition of marriage-homosexuality is a disease caused by imbalance in hormoneshomosexuals are evil-they are making god angry and hurt. Protestant defenders of traditional marriage unwittingly concede too much in the gay “marriage” debate they correctly argue for marriage as a divine institution, and for the absolute rights of the family as prior to and superior to any recognition by the state.
An argument against homosexuality on the grounds that it is unnatural, then, is an argument based on natural law, not the great outdoors homosexuality is unnatural, not because it is absent from the natural world, but because it repudiates the natural purpose of our sexuality in favor of a self-made purpose. Also sodom and gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexuality, if you would look in ezekial 16 : 48-50 and jeremiah 23 : 13-14 it will tell you the real reasons to understand the bible you have to look at it from all aspects and not have tunnel vision to only what you have been told. In reality, identity has absolutely nothiong to do with homosexuality is natural another example of x is true and x posseses y, so z is not real or for clalrification, sex is natural and sex involves unnatural gender, so z is not natural. Examples such as one male mounting another have been used as evidence in the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore should be permitted in human beings gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected.
But rather than working against the teleological argument, that principle works against a common argument in favor of homosexuality, which is, if homosexual interests are natural to someone, they are therefore morally acceptable. Homosexuality is also a great thing when yo think about it you now have a lot more freedomsno one in the us is going to legally kill you because you're gay there are also a lot of other gays. Pro and con on homosexuality given a subscription to first things, i read it eagerly for its cogent and coherent views on all things public i read with dismay, however, the recent declaration of the ramsey colloquium in “the homosexual movement” (march), the ostensible purpose of which was to pass a moral judgment.
But this particular song provides an excellent outline of the standard arguments in favor of homosexuality by analyzing the lyrics of this song, we can see what society is being told about homosexuality, and contrast that with the truth. Homosexuality doesn't fit into that category, because homosexual partnership and homosexual intercourse is consensual - and when it isn't, then we are talking about rape and abuse, so that's a different discussion. Refuting anti-gay rights arguments there is no such thing as “natural marriage,” and there is nothing wrong with letting marriage evolve as society sheds its bigotries against minority groups religious people/organizations have the constitutional right to: label homosexuality a sin and condemn it in their churches.
If the argument is “that gay sex is unnatural because it is sexual activity that is divorced from its natural purpose,” and “if gay sex were condemned for this reason, a host of other sexual practices would also be condemned: masturbation, oral sex, and even sex by women after menopause. Many people argue that homosexual anand karaj should be accepted by sikhs because homosexuality is something humans evolved, that it is natural i can accept the naturalness of homosexuality, but i do not think something being natural means it should be accepted by sikhs. Is something right because god makes it right, or is something right and god tells us it is right difficulties that arise however socrates' question is answered if the standard of right is external to god, then an authority superior to god would exist.
From this some would like to deduce that because this has been done in the past that this somehow proves that in dealing with homosexuality today people are doing the same thing but the problem with arguing this way is that it is logically fallacious. No sexual preference is biologically determined government should protect gay people from discrimination because homosexuality is an unalterable aspect of their identity these two answers have.
Non religious arguments include social utility and natural law theory social utility states 1) a stable family needed to raise children, 2) sex enforces loving relationships b/w man and woman, 3) exclusivity of sex forces people to get married, 4) unavailability of extramarital sex keeps marriage strong. Homosexual couples that are not married will usually not have children, so if this is your argument, you should be in favor of gay marriage because it would make homosexual couples get married and have more children. The whole point is that you cannot use animal homosexuality as a premise that homosexuality is natural in humans, and therefore sinces humans are animals, homosexuality must be natural in humans.