Insofar as the topic of natural is concerned, I'd consider nature's law to be anything that is not found in nature; anything that is 'unnatural' would be outside of nature's law. Therefore, since homosexuality is found in nature, it is not against nature's law.
Further:
It has been suggested by several scientific studies that homosexuality is linked to androgen levels in the womb. As such, one would argue that homosexuality is therefore 'not a choice', but is rather an inherited trait, though it is not something that can be proven to be entirely 'genetic' in nature. There's also a corrolation between the number of older brothers a child has and their tendency toward homosexuality.
In addition, there is the fact that identical twins are more than twice as likely to be homosexual if their twin is, in comparison to fraternal twins (as would be expected if there were some genetic basis; but there is not a 100% similarity rate between identical twin sexuality, therefore it is not entirely genetic in basis).
Using this logic, I refer to several points of Marco's post.
| As you probably know, most of the homosexual "couples" would like to adopt a child(or more). But they are a real danger for a child, not to mention the trauma a child would suffer especially when they discern who their "parents" really are. |
|
If your aim is to prevent people from becoming homosexual, you might be inclined to take note of the aforementioned assertions. In your opinion, would it be better for a child to be born with a predisposition to homosexuality (as indicated by their fetal androgen levels), or to not be born at all? Should a woman be limited in the number of male children she can have, since that is also a contributing factor to homosexual inclinations?
| Also, some studies, revealed that a child with a homosexual parent is far more likely to become a homosexual than those with normal parents. That's a horrific thing. |
|
I'd assert that 'become a homosexual' in this context is more synonymous with 'be less averse to the idea of being homosexual'. It could also be contested that those who grow up in a Catholic household are far more likely to grow up Catholic. Parents outlooks' affect those of their children; but about the age of maturation, most children reach a point where they make their own decisions about life and religion. Of course those with homosexual parents are less likely to be intolerant of homosexuality -- they would be exposed to it in a positive light, and one involving love and so forth. Therefore, without such a strong taught 'aversion' to the behavior, they'd be less likely to be averse.
Tell me why you think that homosexuality is horrific, and why it should be stopped, and how you can mesh this belief with one that states that homosexuality is not a choice, but a pre-determined factor. Would you argue (if someone is born as a homosexual, or at least with a predisposition toward such behavior) that these people should be dissuaded from their ingrained behavior? Should they sacrifice their right to the pursuit of happiness in the interest of preventing homosexual behavior from becoming acceptable in today's society?
Can you concretely show that the children of homosexual unions are less happy or less psychologically well-off than those that in heterosexual unions, and further can you show that these differences are not simply due to differences in social pressures on the children by other children (i.e. bullying and teasing)?
I'd further argue that many of the results argued in the paper aren't conclusive but are instead opinions; for example, who is to say that legalizing marriage won't result in more permanent and stable relations among homosexuals? The evidence at this time, is simply not conclusive enough to draw such broad conclusions as the author of the link quoted in Marco's post seems to suggest.