Questions for homosexuals--and those who approve of it
by Matt Slick

1. GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If heterosexual behaviour produces offspring and homosexual behaviour does not, then how can it be said that homosexuals are born that way since their genetic tendencies would have died out long ago through natural selection? If this is not the case, can you please explain the mechanism by which "homosexual genes" aid in survivability and are then passed on to descendants?

2. GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If sexual orientation is a genetic predisposition and the homosexual community wants cultural and social support since, as they say, "they are born that way," then shouldn't they also support "homophobia" since it could be legitimately argued that homophobes are born with heterosexual orientation and possess a natural aversion to homosexuality?

3. GENETIC PAEDOPHILIA: If genetic predisposition is used as a support for stating that homosexual behaviour is morally okay (because they are born that way), then shouldn't paedophilia behaviour also be considered morally okay since they claim they were born that way?

4. GENETIC PAEDOPHILIA: If paedophiles are morally wrong because they violate the wishes and will of the younger individuals, then at what age is a person too young to engage in sexual activity in accordance with his or her natural predisposition (i.e., being born that way)?

5. CONSENT: In light of being born with a sexual orientation (like homosexuality, frotteurism1, voyeurism2), if paedophiles are morally wrong because they are acting out their sexual orientation upon minors who are not mature enough to consent, then what do you do when minors become mature enough to consent and also claim they are born wanting a sexual relationship with an older person?

6. CONSENT: If what is sexually permissible is what is based on consent, then what do you do with with younger-than-18 adolescents who consent to having sex with much older people? Is it okay?

7. MORAL STANDARD: From where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong?

8. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then what justifies the idea that society is the proper place to obtain a standard of morality?

9. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then which society has the right moral system if it contradicts another?

10. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society?

11. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then what gives them the moral right to change society's morals when the majority condemn homosexuality as morally wrong?

12. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to judge the morals of anyone else, including those who disagree with them?

13. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to condemn those whom they label "homophobes" when they are just expressing their personal moral preference?

14. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals say that "homophobes" are wrong because they want to restrict homosexuals' rights and impose their values on them, then what gives the homosexuals the right to impose their sexual values on others?

15. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to try to change society to suit their own moral preferences?

16. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves and they also believe they have the right to try to change society to suit their own moral preferences, then how is that not arrogant?

17. CIVIL RIGHTS: If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals because of their sexual orientation (i.e., sexual behaviour), then shouldn't equal civil rights be granted to those of Alternate Sexual Orientations (ASO) such as paedophilia, incest, voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadism, fetishes, frotteurism, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation, etc.? If not, why not?

18. CIVIL RIGHTS: If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behaviour), then shouldn't equal civil rights also be granted to heterosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behaviour)? If not, why not?

19. CIVIL RIGHTS: If equal civil rights should not be granted to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (excluding homosexual behaviour), then what is it about homosexuality that deserves special status protection where other sexual behaviours do not?

20. CIVIL RIGHTS: If homosexuals are granted privileges due to civil unions and domestic partnerships, shouldn't the same be offered to heterosexuals?

21. FAIRNESS: Shouldn't an equal amount of sexual-orientation promotion be offered to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (i.e., paedophilia, incest, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation) such that they are also promoted in parades, schools, movies, sitcoms, magazines, schools, etc.? If not, why not?

22. FAIRNESS: Would you, if you are pro-homosexual in practice and/or ideology, promote and support heterosexual parades, heterosexual oriented TV, and overt heterosexual appreciation and promotions in school classrooms--the same as is occurring with homosexuality? If not, why not?

23. FAIRNESS: If being intolerant of homosexuality is somehow wrong, then why are the homosexuals not wrong when they express their intolerance of those who disapprove of homosexuality?

24. FAIRNESS: Isn't it hypocritical to say that homosexuals want tolerance for everyone, but at the same time they practice intolerance of the those who disagree with their behaviour?

25. FAIRNESS: If homosexuals want tolerance, then when they try to change the rest of society's views about homosexuality, aren't they demonstrating their intolerance of the majority position?

26. FAIRNESS: If you affirm that it is okay for homosexuals to show their intolerance for the majority view against homosexuality by trying to change the rest of society's view to conform to their own, then shouldn't it be okay for the majority to try to change the moral view of the homosexuals and have them conform to the majority?

https://carm.org/questions-homosexuals

nobilis:
OP, I won't really bother answering your question one after the other because most of it doesn't make sense. But I will just say these:
1. The sole aim of nature isn't to produce offsprings.
There are natural creatures which are naturally sterile. There are many men and women who are born naturally sterile. So do not tell me that natural selection kills off everything that cannot reproduce.
Every once in a while, nature throws these varieties into the mix.

2. Homophobia is not a true test of heterosexuality.
A heterosexual doesn't really care whether another person is homosexual or not. A true straight man has no problems with gay men as long as the gay men do not try to force themselves on him. A true straight man has this "live and let live" mentality.

History has always proven, time and again, that homophobia is just a mask for internalized homophobia. All outspoken homophobes, in political and religious circles have all been shown at later times to be involved in one gay scandal or another.

3. Sexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia, voyeurism, frotteurism and all that. U cannot lump pedophiles and homosexuals in the same category. Sexual attraction for children is a perversion and is seen in both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Moreover, there is no gender called: "child". What we have as genders are: male and female.
So do not say that because someone is a homosexual, he is also most likely to be a pedophile.

There is no such thing as genetic pedophilia.

4. Homosexuality is more about attraction to someone of d same sex than about sex. A person doesn't have to have sex with the same sex to be a homosexual. Even among homosexuals, there are virgins.
Conversely, that a person is gay doesn't mean he cannot have sex with people of the opposite sex. So sexual orientation has more to do with the gender you're attracted to than with the gender you have sex with.

Forcing a gay man to have sex with a woman will not make him straight.
In the same way, forcing a straight man to have sex with a man will not make him gay.

5. Sexual orientation is a continuum.
There are people who are totally asexual.
There are people who are strictly attracted to the opposite sex. There are people who are attracted to the opposite sex but with a slight attraction for same sex. There are people who are equally attracted to both sexes. There are others who are attracted to the same sex but with a slight attraction for the opposite sex. There are some others who are strictly attracted to the same sex.

6. In the animal kingdom, there are many examples of homosexual animals. If you are a student of nature, you will discover that there are even many homosexual animals that pair for life.

7. Homosexuality was originally part of African culture.
It was our colonial masters that came here, saw people practising it and decided to set up anti-sodomy laws to forestall its practice.
Logically, if there were no homosexual practices in Africa, then there wouldn't have been a need for the anti-sodomy laws in the first place.

8. Ask the mother of any gay or lesbian, they will tell you that somehow, they always knew their child was different. Mothers almost always see the "different-ness" in their children even from a tender age.

9. Like I've always said, forcing gay people to get married to people they might not want to is just making qay for a world that will be more accepting of gays. The more gay people u have raising families, the more the next generations stop seeing things wrong with homosexuality.

10. In any population, about 5-10% of individuals in it are homosexual. It has always been like that. The world is not becoming more gay. Rather, gay people are becoming more outspoken than they used to be earlier than now.

That's all I have to say.
I encourage you to study this issue more deeply, sir.