I only wished to point out that we are animals as well as spirits, and our animal as well as our spiritual natures are fallen,

I think I know what you are getting at but I would suggest a precision. We have one human nature, not two (i.e. animal and spiritual). We do share many biological similarities with non-rational animals but our rational, immortal souls give a nature higher than the animals and unique in the world.

It is certainly true that the affectivities associated with the biological aspect of our constitution do lead to temptations. The temptations in fact, get more and more difficult to resist the more we capitulate to them.

I do not see any way for the anthropological theory as to why some animals engage in incest and some do not along with its extrapolation to human beings, to obtain any empirical evidence so as to become compelling. Regardless, the issue is that the SSA is a disorder that affects affective appetitites. While it does not vitiate free will, there is obviously still a risk to children here.

As a Catholic, I accept that homosexual love is “objectively disordered”. Heterosexual love, though not disordered in the same sense, is equally subject to temptation, and becomes more difficult to guide in the right direction if we ignore or are unrealistic about our animal natures.

It is one of the odd facts of post-modern life that those who are ostensible materialists have a weirdly disembodied and perversely spiritual view of human nature, as though nobody could ever be weak or tempted. Handsome young non-blood relative living with adoptive gay father? Of course the older man will never give in to temptation!Pretty young teenager living with her mother and mother’s second husband? Of course he wouldn’t think of putting a hand on her!

I am surprised that the tone of my previous post did not make this clear.

Of course, straight men have the traditional maturing option of marriage and family to temper their natures.

Social stability is indeed in dire straights due to collapse of sexual morality among heterosexual men. The resulting fatherhood crisis is a major factor in many social ills. This is an important topic on this blog as well. However, the social ills coming from this do not justify turning a blind eye to the social ills associated with the “gay” lifestyle.

There have been many opportunities for “gay” marriage in many European countries for years. The institution has been essentially ignored. That is not what they are after. A 1994 “gay” census happily reports that 52% of gays are in relationships and of these 29% are in them for 8 years or more. How they picked 8 years seems to do more with monkeying with the data than anything else, since 8 years is no where near a lifelong commitment. Further more, 29% of the little over half (52%) means that only 15% make it to 8 years or more. This is not stability and marriage is not going to change this situation as Europe has demonstrated.

The problem here is that there are no “gay” people. Rather, there are people, human beings, who are suffering from an affective disorder that puts them at odds with the way they were made. If they submit to the temptations then the disorder grows increasingly more severe until there is finally some sort of collapse.

There will always be some excuse, but there will never be healing until the disorder is recognized, accepted as such, and attempts are made to over come it.

The human person is distinct from animals in many way but one important way is free will. This comment seems to suggest the author favors biological determinism. The theory is incoherent for many reasons; for one, it is incoheret to try to argue for any theory if we are simply driven by our biological programming and environmental stimuli. In any case, the safety of children is too important to be risked to theoretical extrapolations arrived upon from a deficient theory.

I’ve been the target of libelous attacks by homosexual activists in my hometown of Brainerd, MN, for having had the temerity to point out that homosexual acts have negative health consequences. Yes, something, as utterly provable as the fact that the average homosexual life expectancy is decades shorter than the average heterosexual life expectancy will get you publicly denounced even in smalltown USA!

If you are using Cameron’s data then you should be called on it. Out of curiosity, were you speaking only of gay males or lesbians too? It’s usually a telling omission. Gay males are usually criticized as being promiscuous while lesbian are usually ignored. Did you take the same stand on heterosexual “swingers” as well? Were they as loudly condemned? Or are there no studies written by anti-swinger political groups that you could refer too?

Your not condemning behavior, you are condemning people.

If you want to examine the issue more honestly, then you might consider that most of the negative things you associate with gay people, promiscuity, etc., are fair criticism of all men, not just gay men. Yet you single out gay men. Why? Are they not behaving in many ways exactly like single straight men do? Of course, straight men have the traditional maturing option of marriage and family to temper their natures. But of course that option is denied to gay and lesbian couples.

Try pointing your finger at the mirror a little more often than at us. Welcome to the tin-foil hat crowd. You have earned it.

Sexual abuse is held in check, so it is said, by the incest taboo, which is usually strong enough, between biological relatives, to prevent inter-generational sex.

As for the issue of physical abuse, people are less likely to injure their own offspring because it is counter-productive from an evolutionary point of view.

Because at least one gay parent in any couple is unlikely to be the biological parent of his or her children, the built-in taboos against abuse are likely to be greatly affected by this flaw in human nature.

At first I wondered how so much rage could be generated by comments that are basically factual, so I started looking into the typical homosexual psychological profile. As it turns out, that’s not very easy to do, because homosexuals have taken over the leadership positions in the very organization that should be doing this sort of research. However, I did find some good information on the NARTH website, and also in a book by Gerard van der Aardweg, who has done reparative therapy for over thirty years. Homosexuality is a fascinating pathology that has many dimensions, but narcissm and feeling sorry for yourself are very important components of it. Obviously, if a person tends to wallow in self-pity, when someone criticizes something they do, it tends to evoke a rather violent response.

But in addition to the typical psychology of an active homosexual, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, the brilliant homosexual duo published a book back in 1989, called After the Ball, in which they explained that whenever anyone questioned the gloriousness of the homosexual lifestyle they should be attacked quickly and vigorously–a kind of operant conditioning, you might say. This is a very effective way of controlling the vast majority of people who aren’t willing to go to the mat over an issue like homosexuality. It allows a very vocal, but small minority, to control the actions of the majority. It can’t make most heterosexuals believe that homosexuality is “normal” but it certainly can make them reluctant to say such a thing publicly.