I make no secret of the fact that I dislike the act of homosexuality. I find it extremely repuslive.
Okay...two things, Firstly, homosexuality isn't an "act". It's a sexual orientation. That is, it's a way of describing - in fairly broad terms - who a person is likely to be physically and romantically attracted to. "Homosexuality" is a tendency to be physically and romantically attracted to people of the same gender as oneself.
I
suspect that what you mean by "the act of homosexuality" is actually "same-gender" sex. Calling it "the act of homosexuality" is a bit of a misnomer, because not all homosexuals are sexually active, not all homosexuals have
ever been sexually active, and not all who engage in same-gender sex are necessarily homosexual - I suspect that many are bisexual, and there are probably more than a few who are heterosexual and "experimenting".
So, secondly...if same-gender sex upsets you so much, then the solution is simple - don't think about it. I read a report of a survey recently which stated that in the UK, couples have sex on average 150 times a year. That's less than once every two days. Sure, some people are going to be on extremes of that - some might never have sex, whilst others might be highly active. But really, if same-gender sex bothers you that much, then just think about what same-gender couples are doing the rest of the time when they're not actually having sex - sleeping and working and eating and watching TV and reading books and listening to music and going to the theatre and the cinema and putting out the rubbish and going to church or mosque or synagogue or whatever and generally being part of the communities where they live, just like you and I.
However, its not my personal dislike that makes homosexuality unnatural...
Nobody knows for absolute certain why it is that some people are homosexual. There are, broadly speaking, three theories; one is that people are somehow born with their sexual orientation hardwired into them from birth, and that at puberty they find out for themselves that they're (most likely) heterosexual, or possibly homosexual or bisexual. Another theory is that it's to do with one's upbringing and cultural background, and again people find out their sexual orientation during puberty. A third theory is that people choose for themselves whether to be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.
Honestly, I think the third theory can be most easily ruled out. Most homosexuals I know (with a couple of exceptions) are quite adamant that they didn't
choose to be attracted to people of the same gender as themselves, rather they found out during puberty, although some have also said that they "felt different" during their early years. And to be honest, although homophobia is less prevalent now than it was, say, 20 - 30 years ago, I can't for one moment imagine that anyone would deliberately
choose to be homosexual; I certainly can't imagine anyone making that choice if they were growing up in a household with particularly homophobic parents. It doesn't really make sense. Surely it would be easier for people in such situations to simply go with the flow?
The same argument, I think, would go against the "background culture" argument - how on earth could someone growing up in a homophobic family, or in a culture which decides (as British culture did in the past) that homosexuality should be either illegal at worst, or a legitimate target of ridicule at best, end up becoming homosexual? That would go completely
against their cultural upbringing, and yet nevertheless many people growing up in such backgrounds have turned out to be gay.
The possibility we're left with, then, is that - despite your personal dislike of "the act of homosexuality" - some people are born gay. That homosexuality, as a sexual orientation at least, is in fact perfectly natural.
...its the fact that depending what you believe in (nature or God), life has been designed to come into the world via male sperm and a female egg (this is natural)
This is indeed perfectly natural. It's not, however, an argument against homosexuality being natural. The fact that most people are heterosexual, and pair off with people of the opposite gender to themselves, and that biologically if they are sexually active they can produce children, doesn't rule out that some people are homosexual, and that they may well pair off with people of the same gender as themselves. The fact that such a pairing will not naturally produce offspring doesn't invalidate the sexual orientation that has led to that pairing.
it then follows that its natural for the male who conceiverd the child and the female whose egg was conceived would then raise their own child, as its technically part of them - again completely natural.
Yes, completely natural, although again it doesn't represent an argument against homosexuality. If anything, it seems to be an argument against adoption (unnatural, as it involves a child being raised by people other than its natural parents) and step-parenting (a child being raised by one of its natural parents and one other person), and possibly against couples who choose to conceive a child through artificial means and are therefore bringing up a child who is not
naturally their child.
When homosexuals fight for gay marriage (and then illogically they also seem to fight for the right to adopt children), they are actually fighting against one of the pillars and foudnations of stable society across the earth - the family unit (as it is in nature, mother and father and children)
No, same-gender couples fighting for the right to get married is not a fight
against the family unit - it's a fight to be accepted
as a family unit. If same-gender couples were fighting to destroy the family unit or opposite-gender marriage, your position would make more sense, but it should be fairly obvious that that's not what they're trying to do.
David.
