We distinguish between homosexual proclivities, i.
Persons cannot be held morally responsible for sentiments and thoughts that are independent of their will. It should therefore be clear that the homosexual proclivity cannot as such be the subject of moral condemnation.
Beautiful homosexuals indulge themselves with a good sodomy adult videos
Given that the fundamental purpose of sexuality is procreation, it is self-evident that sexual attraction should naturally be felt for persons of the other sex who are of reproductive age.
By contrast, a sexual urge that is directed at a person who is not of the other sex and of reproductive age, or the sexual intercourse with such a person, is, objectively speaking, misguided and contrary to nature.
This reasoning applies to homosexuality in the same way as it applies to paedophilia or to sex with animals. The question then is: Obviously, this type of argument stands in radical contradiction to the very concept of human dignity: But in the same way one could legitimize polygamy, sexual promiscuity, or even cannibalism, all of which occur in some animal species.
It is stunning that some academics seriously bring forward such arguments. But would that prevent us from considering caries, diabetes, etc. Does the anomaly of homosexuality mean that homosexual tendencies or proclivities are in themselves immoral?
Thus, it is only the homosexual act that is, in and by itself, immoral. The immorality lies in the implication that a sexual act can have the sole purpose of procuring physical pleasure, i.
Homosexuals are thus in a situation that is not so different from that of heterosexuals: There is every reason to doubt it. Sodomy is a misuse of the human body and thus a negation of human dignity; this is what makes it objectively immoral.
But it also is a behaviour associated with serious health risks. Exposing oneself and other persons to such health risks is in and by itself gravely immoral.
Many of these diseases also have the side-effect of causing permanent infertility.
It is estimated that engaging in a permanent lifestyle involving homosexual activity reduces the life expectancy of a person by up to 20 years; this means that the statistical health risks associated with homosexuality by far exceed those associated with smoking or alcohol abuse.
At the same time, it appears not only understandable, but perfectly reasonable, that parents do not want to see their children exposed to any influence that might draw them into a homosexual lifestyle. We live in a time where the right to free expression is increasingly put in question.
The term is pseudo-scientific and serves a political purpose: Every human person has human dignity, because it has the potential of living a morally good life. Far be it from us to hate, or to judge, anyone.
At the same time, however, it is not only possible, but also a necessity, to distinguish good actions from evil ones.
That distinction must be based on reason.
Obviously not, because homosexuality is, at best, an accidental and perhaps transient condition, not an essential characteristic. So, who is to be considered homosexual?
Only people who consistently or regularly have sexual relations with persons of the same sex, or also those who only very occasionally do so? Or does the term also include persons who, maybe only once in their lifetime, have felt some pleasurable excitement when they considered that possibility?
It is directed against the act called sodomy. Disapproval of sodomy is not irrational fear or aversion, but it is a sound moral judgment based on compelling rational reasons. These views are nothing we ought to feel ashamed for.
On the contrary, we affirm them with great serenity and confidence.