(Note: While this section is specifically about homosexuality, it was written in the knowledge that we are ALL imperfect beings who struggle, in our own individual ways, with immoral desires, whatever their causes.)

Some of the most emotional and divisive issues in our society---specifically issues such as homosexual marriage, adoption by homosexuals, and other "gay rights" issues---revolve around two central and critical issues. Those issues are: is homosexual activity moral and "legalizeable" or immoral and "illegalizeable"?

If we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is moral and that it should be protected via legislation, then by logical extension we must also conclude that such things as homosexual marriage and adoption should likewise be legal.

Conversely, if we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is immoral and "illegalizeable," then by logical extension we must also conclude that homosexual marriage and adoption should be illegal.

Or, to frame it another way: We have laws against such things as consenting-adult polygamy, consenting-adult incest, consenting-adult prostitution, consenting-adult exhibitionism, etc. For around two hundred years we had laws against consenting-adult homosexual activity---and the country did just fine. Does the elimination of the laws against homosexual activity (and marriage and adoption) make any sense?

In an effort to bring clarity to these issues and to help unify us around truth, rather than keep us divided by untruth and confusion, what follows is a rigorously logical analysis of those aforementioned central homosexual issues.

To begin, a little history. For many many years in this country homosexual activity was deemed immoral and was not legal. It was only first decriminalized in Illinois in 1961. Other states eventually followed the precedent Illinois set. Also, for decades the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a disorder. The APA only removed homosexuality from its official list of psychological disorders in 1973. The APA's controversial decision to do so was nowhere near a unanimous decision by its then members because---just as a female mind in a male body and a male mind in a female body are sure signs that something went wrong somewhere, in either nature and/or nurture---a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body was widely considered to be a disorder. The associated fact that homosexuals were basically impotent with the opposite gender also was part of the equation.

Now, why was homosexual activity deemed immoral and why wasn't it legal? And why do so many people still deem homosexual activity immoral?

For centuries, the position of "traditional value" people re homosexual activity essentially boils down to this: homosexual activity is a negative deviation from the reasonable heterosexual norm; and if we condone homosexual deviations then we must fairly allow other aberrant people their own particular deviations.

Members of our group have debated many homosexuals and their supporters over the years and we are stunned at how many of them hold this hypocritical and contradictory position: It is okay to "discriminate" against sexual deviants like exhibitionists (e.g., people who masturbate or have sex in public) and incestuous couples, even if these deviants are consenting adults and even if they aren't hurting anybody; but it is NOT okay to "discriminate" against homosexual and bisexual deviants. They try to rationalize this absurd position by saying things like "Exhibitionists offend people." We point out that tens of millions of Americans and several billion people around the world are offended by homosexual activity, such as public homosexual kissing and hand-holding. We don't want to depress homosexuals and their supporters, but their position simply makes no sense. They ARE wrong. It is obvious to us and should be obvious to anyone NOT in denial about reality.

Legal homosexual acts are bad legal and moral precedents. Let us explain in more detail.

Can we justly discriminate in favor of some unreasonable deviations and against others? No. If we tolerate deviations from reasonable sexual standards, then we will fairly have to tolerate deviations from other reasonable standards because all of the different kinds of deviates will demand consistency from us and nondiscriminatory equal treatment.

For example, many towns have ordinances restricting what people can do with their homes and yards. These towns want to prevent slums from forming and ruining their environments. Now, what if someone wants to move into a picturesque section of such a town and wants to have a yard of mud with paper littered around it and wants to have a house which has the exterior's coating of paint badly chipped up? We should tolerate that if we tolerate homosexual acts.

To those "freedom-loving" liberals who disagree with that last sentence, we can just ask them if they would outlaw any action that lowered someone's property values. And if they would, we could point out that an openly homosexual person moving into a conservative area would likely lower property values in that area since many conservatives might decide to move out of that area, just like black people moving into certain predominantly white areas can unfortunately and wrongly cause "white flight" and lower property values. Does that mean liberals would agree to outlaw homosexual behavior in that geographic area? Or would they outlaw black people moving into certain white areas of the country? This gives the reader an idea of the kind of legal and moral swamp liberal extremists are wont to create. (Let us remember that trial lawyers, who are big contributors to liberal Democrat politicians, thrive when our laws are confusing and contradictory. Do liberal politicians intentionally create confusing laws which help keep trial lawyers busy as a payback for campaign contributions by those lawyers?)

And if liberals would not outlaw actions that lower property values, then if they tolerate homosexual deviations they would fairly have to tolerate other deviations (as the aforementioned pig sties). In either case, whether "freedom-loving" liberals would choose to outlaw actions that lower property values or not outlaw, the consequences are very messy for them and their ideology. Once they've established the principle that negative deviations from reasonable norms are okay, to selectively apply that principle is discriminatory.

Incidentally, we should stress that we are NOT arguing that homosexual activity is a heinous crime, just as we would not say stealing a penny is a heinous crime. But just like legalizing the stealing of a penny is an absurd legal precedent (why not then legalize stealing two pennies? a nickel? a dollar? etc.), so legalizing homosexual deviations is an absurd legal precedent.

Homosexuals like to say, as part of their defense of homosexual acts, that they are not hurting anybody when they engage in such acts (though, because they do tend to be more promiscuous than "normal," they do spread more sexual diseases per capita than more sexually "normal" people). Well, people who live in an ugly pig sty like the one described above can say the same thing about that pig sty---it doesn't hurt anybody. That does not carry much weight. Many actions are wrong that do not "hurt" anybody.

If we tolerate such deviations we will wind up with an ugly, confused, and sick society. Let us learn from the decay and fall of the great Roman and Greek societies, which came to value debauchery. Once people depart from decent moral standards it is frequently all downhill after that because it is harder to be moral than immoral, generally speaking. This is because being moral requires some effort (self-restraint or self-denial), and people tend to take the "path of least resistance."

Indeed, over the last 40 years or so, as our society has become more accepting of immoral behavior, our divorce rate has soared, as has the out-of-wedlock birthrate and teen suicide rate, we have seen the rise of an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, etc., etc.

Thus, we should ever try to see to it that morality is the path of least resistance by creating inhibitions to immorality, by at least attaching serious social stigmas to immorality and preferably by illegalizing immoral behavior. (To those who say that we cannot legislate morality, we can reply that outlawing murder, rape, theft, racist behaviors, sexist behaviors, indecent exposure, disturbing the peace, etc., etc., is legislating morality and is obviously proper.)

Ultimately, all the rules or laws against homosexual activity, normal or deviant sex in public, indecent exposure, obscene literature and videos, the utterance of certain swearwords in public or using them in newspapers and magazines and on TV and radio---all the rules or laws against those things rest on the same basis as the laws or ordinances against the existence of such things as ugly, unkempt houses and yards. What is that basis? Nothing more than this: a large number of people find such things unpleasant or offensive or repugnant, etc., etc.

It is a matter of maintaining high standards at the least, and at the most of slowly raising those standards as we make society better. Allowing people to lower our standards, to take us down toward a more animalistic state of being, is to allow people to slowly ruin our advanced and advancing society.

Sure we can survive (after a fashion) if we allow (for examples) public heterosexual or homosexual sexual activity, but what kind of life would that be? Sure we can survive in a muddy, unkempt, littered, ugly neighborhood (as opposed to a grassy, flowered, neat neighborhood), but what kind of life is that?

The fact is, in a democracy, if enough people find a certain behavior (not orientation or belief) disagreeable they can pass laws against that behavior. And behavior is the key word. Generally speaking, we cannot discriminate on the basis of natural characteristics as race, gender, or age. Generally speaking, we cannot discriminate on the basis of belief or speech. We cannot violate fundamental rights like freedom of speech or religious belief or political belief. But behavior, unpleasant, repugnant, degraded behavior, can be rightly illegalized.

(We believe it is fairly clear that our Constitution does not even come close to granting a fundamental or inalienable right to aberrant sex like homosexual sex. And having mentioned "race" in the preceding paragraph---homosexuals love to compare their status with the status of racial minorities like black people. The comparison is absurd. Many blacks and other racial minority members are understandably offended when they are compared to people who voluntarily engage in sexually aberrant activity.)

Homosexuals try to "naturalize" their behavior by saying that such behavior can be found in nature. Even if that is true, homosexual behavior is the exception rather than the rule. Too, nature makes mistakes all the time. There are mutations, genetic defects, etc. There are genes which predispose people to cancer, heart disease, etc., etc. Just because something can be found in nature does not make it good or right. If every person was homosexual the human race would die out because there would be no reproduction. That is just one of the drawbacks to homosexual behavior. Others will be discussed later.

(There does exist quite a bit of seemingly homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. For examples, in cattle and dogs and monkeys, a male will occasionally "mount" another male as he would mount a female for sex; except there is no sex between the males, the act being an asexual communication of dominance and submission. Also, some sexually deprived animals, e.g., pet dogs, will try to mate with practically anything that moves, like human arms or legs or same-sex animals. But that does not indicate homosexual desire, just orgasm desire.)

As to whether homosexual desire is natural or instinctual or genetic in some people: in people with some natural physical abnormality in their brains that may be true for them, but it is irrelevant. We all, being imperfect creations, occasionally have immoral desires (as, for examples, to cheat, steal, be violent, etc.). Immoral desires obviously should not be acted upon, whether they are natural or instinctual or in a way man-made. (To go to extremes to clearly illustrate a point---what if some poor guy felt a "natural/instinctual" desire to have sex with a consenting sheep---are we supposed to allow a human-animal sexual relationship? Preposterous, though not so preposterous to a liberal Princeton University philosopher named Peter Singer who rationalized human-animal sex. And what if there is a necrophilia-gene? Having sex with dead people doesn't "hurt" anyone. How ridiculous and bizarre are we supposed to allow the world to get?)

"There's a big difference between engaging in homosexual acts, and engaging in exhibitionist deviations or consenting-adult brother/sister or parent/offspring sexual deviations," we've heard multiple times from homosexuals, as if those differences are very relevant. There is a big difference between stealing five dollars and stealing a million dollars, yet they are both obviously wrong---stealing is stealing. Homosexual deviations are immoral; exhibitionist deviations are immoral; brother/sister and parent/offspring sexual deviations are immoral; all are wrong, differences or no differences.

Also, if homosexuals are going to place much emphasis on such differences, then they ought to start with the most significant of such differences---the differences between man and woman, between heterosexual and homosexual sex. They want to point out the differences that are most "convenient" to them and their rationalizations; but they want to ignore, conveniently, the differences between man and woman. Hypocritical.

"But it's love," homosexuals say. Irrelevant. If you love your parents or your sibling or your baby or your pet dog are you going to have sex with them? Different types of love-objects and different types of love warrant different behaviors. Love doesn't justify immoral sexual activity.

And in addition to homosexual partners being negative deviations from the norm and setting bad legal and moral precedents, homosexuals contract certain diseases fairly regularly (details on this point can be found in the section of our website called On The Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle). Some of the diseases are hepatitis B, genital herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, anal cancer, and AIDS. These diseases are nature's way of telling people that something is wrong with their behavior, that they are abusing or misusing their bodies. These diseases are other good reasons to not engage in homosexual acts.

Homosexuals point out that many unnatural (i.e., man-invented or artificial) things are valued by human beings---from things like cars and airplanes to complex entertaining actions like contortionist feats to things like purple hair. They rightly say that just because homosexual acts may be unnatural does not necessarily mean they are immoral.

The response to that is: allowing "unnatural" things like airplanes or physical acts like contortionist feats is fine because they are not bad legal precedents; they are either good legal precedents (e.g., despite occasional accidents airplanes can help a society run much more efficiently) or are essentially neutral legal precedents (e.g., while purple hair is not all that valuable to society, it does not have negative ramifications for society, generally speaking, and one can say the same for contortionist feats). On the other hand, homosexual acts are bad legal precedents because they can lead to social approval of other deviant sex acts. (As noted previously, a misguided Princeton University professor, one Peter Singer, has actually and explicitly defended consenting human-animal sex.) And let us not forget there is a group of homosexuals, the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), organized to push for the legalization of man-boy sex.

"Who are you to judge others?" we have actually been seriously asked by homosexuals. If we stop judging others we have to legalize murder, rape, theft, etc.---obviously ludicrous things to do. One can feel perfectly free and right to rationally judge others. And if homosexuals do not believe in judging others, then they should not hypocritically judge people like yours truly and tell us we are wrong and "homophobic" for being against homosexual activity.

Then there is the argument that homosexual acts are effective population-control measures and so are justified. That argument is so bad, so ridiculous it could even be used by pedophiles. Pedophiles can say that if adults were just having sex with 5-year-olds we wouldn't have a population problem! Hey, murder is an effective population-control measure. So what. Too, any sex act that a man can do with another man and not make anyone pregnant (like oral sex), that man can do with a woman and still not make anyone pregnant. We do not need to go to ridiculous lengths, like homosexual acts (or, to get a little bizarre to make a point, necrophilia or bestiality) to control our population numbers.

Then there is the "consenting adults" argument: that, generally speaking, anything that happens between consenting adults is fine, including homosexual acts. But first of all, it is obvious that nobody has the right to do wrong, even consenting adults (and homosexual acts are wrong). If two so-called consenting adults choose to rob a bank, we would not legalize bank-robbing.

Secondly, society has better things to do with its people and resources than treat diseases that homosexuals bring on themselves by consentingly or voluntarily engaging in unsafe and/or physiologically unnatural sex acts. (Resources would be better spent finding cures for diseases people do not bring on themselves, do not "ask" for, as diseases associated with the involuntary aging process. We also could spend that money feeding the starving children of the world. In a very real sense, children are starving because some people, including some heterosexuals, think they have the right to engage in unsafe sex and spread disease. If that doesn't outrage you you may have lost your humanity. Homosexuals should apologize for all the STDs they've spread, and all the money those STDs have cost, and especially for setting bad moral examples for our children.)

And third, two people engaging in immoral sex acts in absolute privacy is one thing; coming out of the closet with one's vices and demanding equal rights is quite another and should be frowned upon to say the least. When someone's behavior becomes public knowledge, when it thereby affects the public, it becomes the public's business, and the public acquires the right to legislate against that behavior should the public decide logically that it would be advisable to do so.

Homosexuals like to especially point out that people of the same sex can understand each other better than they can understand the opposite sex, because people of the same sex are naturally more similar to each other.

There is some truth to that, but when homosexuals conclude from it that homosexual relationships are therefore better and/or more moral than heterosexual ones they go too far. While men and women have their differences, they have many things in common. Let's build on the things we have in common. Let's unify the populace, not sexually segregate and disunify it as homosexuals apparently would prefer. Besides, people of the opposite sex can be much more attractive and exciting, naturally.

By the way, the more lesbians there are in the population, the fewer potential mates for straight men. No red-blooded heterosexual male should want that. And the more male homosexuals there are in the population, the fewer potential mates for straight women. No red-blooded heterosexual female should want that. Plus, from an evolutionary standpoint regarding reproduction, the more homosexuals there are the narrower the available gene pool (due to fewer potential mates), which isn't good.

Some critics point out that, in the wide circle of people we at H.O.M.E. know and love and like, there are probably some closet homosexuals. They argue that since we already like them, what difference should their homosexuality make? The fact that this type of "argument" is even being used, like some of the other seriously flawed arguments discussed above, shows how badly our educational system is failing. In the wide circle of people you know and love and like, odds are there are one or two closet racists or sexists or "homophobes" or thieves or pedophiles (etc.). That isn't much of an argument for anything.

It should be stressed that numerous homosexuals and bisexuals have a large number of sexual partners, many of whom are essentially perfect strangers. These people just use others for sex and have a difficult time loving. They are contributing to making the world a colder and more exploitative place. (Incidentally, promiscuity says basically this: I do not think you are worth marrying but I'll use you for sex. Promiscuous sex is actually somewhat of an insult to thinking people. It's just sexual exploitation.)

Homosexuals have told straight people that straights must have sexual hang-ups and inhibitions because they do not sexually desire people of their own gender. Well, it is evident that anyone (like a homosexual) who cannot or will not desire/love/marry/enjoy the opposite sex must also have some big hang-ups and inhibitions. Too, since many bisexuals tend to prefer their own sex when it comes to sexual partners, those bisexuals must have the same hang-ups and inhibitions afflicting homosexuals, though to a lesser degree. (If bisexuals fully enjoyed the opposite gender sexually, they wouldn't waste their time on same-sex partners. Something, some sexual inhibitions and hang-ups, must be interfering with bisexuals' enjoyment of the opposite sex.)

Also, as a review of the numerous studies done through the years on homosexuals bears out, it is a fact that many many homosexuals were sexually abused when young (for more info on this fact see the section of our website called Sexual Abuse: A Major Cause Of Homosexuality?). That abuse is what has so disoriented the sexual desires of many homosexuals. In other words, many homosexuals were not born homosexual and so can choose to be what they were born to be---heterosexual. Such a choice may not be easy and may require therapy, but for many disoriented people it is a viable option. And for these people to choose to remain homosexual just lets the degenerates who abused them have too much power over them---the power to determine their sexual orientations.

Modern psychology knows that people can be conditioned to be practically anything. The environments we grow up in can make us tyrannical or meek, generous or selfish, loving or hateful, etc., etc. Human beings seem to be almost infinitely malleable---capable of becoming pedophiles, necrophiliacs, torturers, whatever. Identical twins can grow up to be very different people, with one even being heterosexual and the other homosexual. Homosexuals are not trapped in their homosexuality any more than identical twins are trapped in their sexuality by their genes. Homosexuals should be able to become enjoyably heterosexual if they concentrate and "train" themselves to. They cannot justify not doing so. Let's go forward, not back thousands of years to the ancient Greek and Roman debauched societies. Let's progress not regress. Homosexuals should not be afraid of change, should not be afraid of becoming heterosexual.

Males are attracted to females by chemical substances (pheromones), just like dogs in heat, and are attracted by flirtatious behavior and perhaps by physical traits like breasts. This is how nature works. Even lower animals flirt. This natural "programming" is why normal men are attracted to women and vice versa.

Being what we are, i.e., fulfilling our natures, within reason, makes us happiest. Being heterosexual is within reason, engaging in homosexual activity is not within reason. That is just the way it is. Just like we should not eat poison ivy or bask in the sun to excess (getting sunstroke and/or severe sunburn) or lay naked in the snow too long (getting hypothermia). That is just the way it is. Our natures entail limits.

It would be wrong for society to allow homosexuals to impose their "morality," their be-tolerant-of-aberrant-sexualities "morality," on us. It would be wrong for us to allow homosexuals to dictate to us what we will and will not tolerate. It would be wrong for us to yield to their unreasonable demands for toleration and legalization of homosexual acts. Like it or not, that is reality. That is just the way it is. Most people can easily accept that. If homosexuals do not want to appear irrational or prejudiced they also ought to accept that.

Indeed, any honest and logical homosexual has to admit that the decisive argument against homosexual acts, the argument that legal homosexual activity is a bad legal and moral precedent, is a perfectly valid argument. This is because homosexuals and their liberal supporters use the same type of argument to try to defend their values. Liberals like to ask those who want to censor some book or some smutty rock and roll lyrics: "Where will the censorship stop? What's next on your list?"

If homosexuals and their supporters recognize the validity of the bad-legal-precedent argument, the "slippery slope" argument, and they do, then they have to admit that such an argument helps demonstrate that homosexual acts are immoral and illegalizeable.

Also, as noted previously, for decades the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a disorder (until it was taken over by pro-homosexual ideologues who are now letting sexual politics trump science, logic, and natural law). In the section of our website titled "Is Homosexuality A Disorder?" we make the case that it is, though we view it as a comparatively minor one. (And, again, we are all born imperfect.) Still, it makes no sense to treat a disorder as if it were not a disorder. Indeed, treating disorders as if they are not disorders is malpractice, and is immoral.

On another matter, those adults who mislead young sexually confused people into thinking homosexual activity is okay are just instilling a false hope. They are taking advantage of the young and confused. They are doing a disservice to everyone, and they are heartlessly setting young homosexuals up for a big fall. When young homosexuals debate conservative intellectuals and find out they cannot justify homosexual activity, when young homosexuals find out all their arguments are flawed, they can become seriously depressed. And some depressed people hurt themselves, even try to take their own lives. We should not be instilling the false hope---we should not be fooling young people into believing---that homosexual activity is okay when thinking people have known for centuries it is not.

The biggest reason that the so-called "gay rights" (sad wrongs) movement has gotten as far as it has is that the major media, which for decades have been dominated by pro-homosexual liberals, have conducted a massive, sophisticated propaganda campaign in favor of homosexuality. They have willfully disseminated exaggerations and falsehoods, plus have engaged in widespread censorship of inconvenient facts concerning homosexuality.

We wish more Americans knew just how much their values and emotions have been insidiously manipulated by media "malpractitioners." Someday in the future people are going to look back at this era and wonder how so many pro-homosexual people let themselves be taken in by fallacious propaganda.

(For those who want to know more about media manipulation---and about all the in-depth psychological research done on people with the goal of learning how to push our buttons, how to get us to respond in certain ways to various stimuli---a good and important read is the classic book Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard.

(And to those who think the LGBT community is NOT trying to indoctrinate little kids with their propaganda, a homosexual activist named Daniel Villarreal wrote an article in 2011 titled "Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?" He admits: "I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT." That's the kind of perverse, backward people decent moral people have to deal with everyday. Unreal.)

Before we close this section, some words on the mean-spirited use of the term "homophobic" by those who love to call people like this writer pejorative and inflammatory names. Homophobia doesn't really exist. Are people who are morally opposed to theft or rape or whatever, theftphobes, or rapephobes, or whateverphobes? Obviously not. Principled opposition to homosexual activity is clearly not a phobia, is clearly not a pathological fear. People who label others "homophobic" are just revealing their ignorance and naivety.

To conclude: penalizing people for engaging in homosexual behavior is clearly not discrimination, just like penalizing people for exhibitionism or incest is not discrimination. Penalizing people for immoral or illegal behavior is simply the right thing to do. That is a truth homosexuals (and bisexuals) should be able to understand. And with all the genuinely serious problems in the world that need our attention, don't homosexuals and their supporters have anything better to do with their time than struggle to legalize immoral sexual activity? These extremists should get a life.