Quote:

---

Bisexual behavior is observed in other species and is not the same as homosexual behavior (the refusal to have sex with the opposite sex).

---

Quote:

---

You are misleading by saying that homosexual behavior (as understood by the general public) is commonly observed in other species. Bisexual behavior is observed in other species and is not the same as homosexual behavior (the refusal to have sex with the opposite sex).

---

Quote:

---

I also believe that homosexual feelings are desires rooted in some people's heads, but it is still a desire that must be controlled. After all, how could we be civilized if we accepted everyone's desires? We would be hypocritical if we said that loving someone of your own gender is OK but incest, pedophilia or bestiality is wrong. Society labels those as "wrong" and "disgusting" and expect them to curb their desires, but they can make the same points that homosexuals adore to use: "We can love whomever we want," "who are you to tell me that my love is wrong, it is love" and so on.

---

Quote:

---

The general purpose of ALL life, at least according to evolution and the field of biology, is for an organism to pass its genetics to the next generation. This is completely violated when viewing strict homosexuality, they simply cannot reproduce.

---

Quote:

---

To force the homosexual to reproduce so the tribe can be strengthened in numbers, thus increasing everyone's odds of evolutionary success.

---

Quote:

---

we can afford sexual "abberant", that is, non-reproducive behaviour.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

we can afford sexual "abberant", that is, non-reproducive behaviour.

---

Actually, this isn't even unnatural.  Humans are one of the rare species that have actually evolved to have sex for recreation.  It is no wonder we have a sizeable homosexual population.

---

Quote:

---

I think JJ had in mind mutual agreed sex activities so this exclude rape, pedophilia and such.

Anyway, my questions still remains: what would be the argument that    bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia as sexual orientations (not as accomplished acts where they surely are punishable), are considered disgusting  and clearly devilish deviations by both individuals and social laws, while male-male or female-female sexual orientations are considered "natural" and OK lately?

---

Quote:

---

Under your logic bestiality is natural, rape is natural, pedophilia is natural, kidnapping followed by torture and rape is natural, ect. There are lots of thing that bring pleasure to certain people that are not natural or moral.

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, my questions still remains: what would be the argument that    bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia as sexual orientations (not as accomplished acts where they surely are punishable), are considered disgusting  and clearly devilish deviations by both individuals and social laws, while male-male or female-female sexual orientations are considered "natural" and OK lately?

---

Quote:

---

3.4% of Americans Self-Identify as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgender according to Gallup. I'd not call that "a sizable homosexual population.

---

Quote:

---

elodin....the catholics have been covering that stuff up for years and it is a sickness covered up by a religion. It may be more to you than a legal contract depending on if your religous or not. Go to a court house and in ten minutes you have a legal document that proclaims your married. No church...no God...

---

Quote:

---

.....
Pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a
prepubescent child) among priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy. This figure, cited in the book Pedophiles and Priests by non-Catholic scholar, Philip Jenkins, is from the most comprehensive study to date, which found that only one out of 2,252 priests considered over a thirty-year period was afflicted with pedophilia. In the recent Boston scandal, only four of the more than eighty priests labeled by the media as "pedophiles" are actually guilty of molesting young children.

Pedophilia is a particular type of compulsive sexual disorder in which an adult (man or woman) abuses prepubescent children. The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia -- homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent -- comparable to the rate among married men (Jenkins, Pedophiles andPriests).
.....

....The seduction of teenage boys by homosexual men is a
well-documented phenomenon. This form of deviant behavior is the most common type of clerical abuse and is directly connected to homosexual behavior.

As Michael Rose shows in his book, Goodbye! Good Men, there´s an
active homosexual sub-culture within the Church. This is due to several factors. The Church´s confusion in the wake of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the tumult following the Second Vatican Council, and the greater approval of homosexual behavior in the culture at large created an environment in which active homosexual men were admitted to and tolerated in the priesthood. The Church also came to rely more on the psychiatric profession for screening candidates and for treating those priests identified as having problems. In 1973, the American Psychological Association changed its characterization of homosexuality as an objectively disordered orientation and removed it from the Diagnostic and Statistic
Manual IV (Nicolosi, J., 1991, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, 1991; Diamond, E., et. al., Homosexuality and Hope, unpublished CMA document). The treatment of deviant sexual behaviors followed suit.

While the Church´s approach to those who struggle with homosexual
attractions has been compassionate, she has been consistent in maintaining the view that homosexuality is objectively disordered and that marriage between a man and woman is the proper context for sexual activity.
.....

While we can all agree that the hierarchy hasn´t done enough, .... When the Church´s Code of Canon Law was revised in 1983, an important passage was added: "The cleric who commits any other offense against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, if the offense was committed
with violence or threats, or publicly or with a minor who is under 16 years [now extended to 18 years], must be punished with just punishments, not excluding expulsion from the clerical state" (CIC 1395:2).

But that certainly isn´t the only thing the Church has done. The bishops, beginning with Pope Paul VI in 1967, issued a warning to the Catholic faithful concerning the negative consequences of the sexual revolution. The pope´s encyclical letter, "On the Celibacy of the Priests," addressed the question of a celibate priesthood in the face of a culture crying out for greater sexual "freedom." The pope affirmed celibacy even as he called on bishops to take responsibility for "fellow priests troubled by difficulties which greatly endanger the divine gift they have." He advised the bishops to seek appropriate help for these priests, or, in grave cases, to seek a
dispensation for priests who could not be helped. In addition, he urged them to be more prudent in judging the fitness of candidates for the priesthood.

In 1975, the Church issued another document called "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" (written by Joseph Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) that explicitly addressed, among other issues, the problem of homosexuality among priests. Both the 1967 and 1975 documents addressed kinds of sexual deviancy, including pedophilia and ephebophilia, that are is especially prevalent among homosexuals.

In 1994, the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse issued guidelines to the
nation´s then 191 dioceses to help them develop policies to deal with the problem of sexual abuse of minors. Almost all dioceses responded and developed their own policies (USCCB document: Guidelines for dealing with Child Sexual Abuse, 1993-1994). By this time, pedophilia was recognized as a disorder that could not be cured, and a problem that was becoming more prevalent due to the increase of pornography. Before 1994, bishops took their cue from experts in the psychiatric profession who believed pedophilia could be successfully treated. Priests guilty of sexual abuse were sent to one of several treatment facilities across the United States. Bishops often relied upon the judgments of experts in determining whether priests were fit for ministry. This doesn´t mitigate the negligence on the part of some in
the hierarchy, but it does offer some insight.

In response to the recent scandals, some dioceses are setting up special commissions on child abuse, as well as victims´ advocacy groups; and they are officially acknowledging that any legitimate allegation of abuse must be dealt with immediately.
....

The Church´s teaching on sexual morality is rooted in the dignity of the
human person and the goodness of human sexuality. This teaching condemns the
sexual abuse of children in all its forms, just as it condemns other
reprehensible sexual crimes such as rape, incest, child pornography, and
child prostitution. In other words, if this teaching were lived out, there´d
be no pedophilia problem at all.

The notion that this teaching somehow leads to pedophilia is based on a misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of Catholic sexual
morality. The Church recognizes that sexual activity without the love and commitment found uniquely in marriage undermines the dignity of the human person and is ultimately destructive. As far as celibacy is concerned, centuries of experience have proven that men and women can abstain from sexual activity while living fulfilling, healthy, and meaningful lives.

---

Quote:

---

@Salamandre. Either you don't know what sexual orientation is or you want to redefine it. In either case it is worthless to respond to that.

---

Quote:

---

@Minion (did you know that minion = sweet in french?):

Is simple: sexual orientation is what arouses you. Let's put it like that: the majority of humans are aroused by contacts with the other gender, I think we agree on that. Now, a minority (less or more, doesn't matter) is aroused by different patterns: some like kids (oh, is bad, what a sickness)!), some like dead people (oh, is monstrous, go and heal) and finally some like the same gender (this is ok and natural, from what we read around). All of them present the same characteristic, they are outsiders from what we call "normality" -in a large sense.

Now, why the last is ok and natural and the others considered a terrible sickness, please tell me (please have in mind that homosexuality WAS considered a sickness until a few decades ago). I am not speaking about the act in itself which may be reprehensible when there is a victim but about the simple chemical arousal effect all these people have in common.

---