I heard, today, that the Pentagon has declared homosexuality a mental disorder.  Well, I don't know how they are defining mental disorder, but it does not qualify by any definition that I have in mind.  But then, I don't really have a definition in mind.  I don't really think in those terms.

  In all likelihood, the "official" definition somehow revolves around the concept of "normal", which I think is a weak basis, since "normal" is whatever the majority does consistently.  Screw "normal".  The basis of my arguments and perspectives are facts and wisdom, and my chosen process is logic.  Sadly there is very little of that in most arguments.  Let's look at a few.

  An argument I heard, today, as well, was that God created homosexuals to love members of their own gender (re: Christian God).  Wow.  So many things wrong with that statement.  I'm not sure where to begin.  Since it's the Christian God being talked about, it's the Bible you have to reference.

  First of all, the Bible has only bad things to say about members of the same gender engaging in sexual activity.

  Second, if you're going to use the "God's intention" argument, then it means mass murders, rapists, molesters, etc... were created to do what they do, and they should be accepted and allowed to continue their activities.

  Third is something that really annoys me.  It's a position that "pro-gay" people seem to take up with great frequency.  It's the whole "love" thing.  Whether you're speaking Biblically or not, love and sex are two different things.  Side-step, for just a moment, and think about what it means, the mentality of a person who equates love and sex.  If you are taking a Biblical tone, then you're supposed to love everyone.  Does this mean you believe that you're supposed to have sex with everyone?  Who ever said members of the same gender could not love each other?

  Something that I see overlooked in 99% of all arguments, on either side, is that love and sex are not interchangeable terms.

  About a month or two or three ago, I heard characters in two different sitcoms say it was scientifically proven that homosexuality was genetic: that you're born gay.  Well, that sounds like pretty big news.  You'd think news that big would have been heard ANYWHERE other than just those two shows.  If I may borrow from Penn and Teller: BULLSHIT!

  Another argument is based on "homosexual" activity in animals.  I've had extensive discussions about this where people have sited numerous examples.  They all seem to be completely unaware that male animals sometimes express dominance through mock sexual actions.  I really have no idea if actual penetration of the anus occurs, but if it does, it's entirely beside the point, so I don't care as far as the argument is concerned.

  We had two dogs and during a phase, one of them kept trying to hump the other dog's ear and eye, as well as trying to mount him from behind.  I have never heard any animal example that could not EASILY be explained by expressions of dominance.

  The closest anyone could ever come, in my experience, and never has, are a particular species of monkey (and I use the term broadly, since I don't recall if they technically qualify as monkey) that appear to engage in sexual activity as a method of... let's say, dealing with stress.

  If anything "negative" happens, the monkeys go into a frenzy of sexual activity.  The only apparent combo restriction is, if I recall, mothers and sons.  Males have sex with females.  Females will basically rub their vaginas together.  And males together will engage in what is called penis fencing, there they with rub the sides of their erect penis's together.  The males do NOT engage in intercourse with each other.

  They'll do this at the drop of a hat, and numerous times throughout the course of a day.  It's a hell of a lot of sex, by human standards, but there was no indication that actual orgasms or ejaculations occur, so make what you will of that.

  The key thing about sexuality is sexual attraction.  You do not have to be sexually attracted to something in order to have sex with it.  Think about men in prisons.  This goes back to the dominance thing.  It can also be just a matter of the availability of a soft, tight hole.

  There's the question of, basically, why people are gay.  Since nothing is scientifically proven, there is only theory.  My point of view is one that I'm really surprised that I have not heard anywhere else, because it seems a whole fucking hell of a lot more probable than any other theory I've heard.

  It looks to me like it's simply an aesthetic preference.  You are born with an instinct to eventually engage in sex.  This is to serve procreation, which is also an instinct.  Through this, I believe that a person will instinctually be attracted to the gender which will enable that to occur.  The thing about humans is that we are very much able to defy our instincts.

  From possibly even before we are born, our life experiences are helping to shape our personalities.  We have experiences, which get mentally processed with other experiences, and we develop associations between things.  To suggest that sexuality is a genetic determination is to suggest that every aspect of our personality; everything we like and dislike, is predetermined by genetics.

  Do you think your genes determined what music you like the best?  What kind of movies you prefer to watch?  How about who your best friend would be?  How about how kinky you are in bed?

  I want to touch on this concept of sexual preference not being a choice.  I think the people who say it isn't have a very limited view of choice.  There is more to choice than an immediate conscious decision.  You can make choices that can eventually change a preference for something.  I will grant that sexual preference is something that would be generally very difficult to change.

  And perhaps it can sometimes be easy.  Do you believe that no woman on earth has ever given up on men, because of the kind of men they were with?

  I think part of one genetic argument I heard tried to site how so many gay people had trouble realizing or coming to terms with their sexuality.  How the hell is that an argument for a genetic cause?  Oh, but wait, humanimal, it was an argument against homosexuality being a choice.  What's the damn difference?

  Now, here's the part where I offer my yea or neigh.  As I said, I view this and other matters through logic using facts and wisdom as my sources.

  Humans are animals.  We have an instinct to procreate. Sex is the means through which that occurs.  Members of the same gender cannot procreate with each other.

  Humans are able to defy their instincts.  Sometimes we control an instinct, but sometimes we do not, and we let it combine with our negative qualities.

  Many religions basically consider physical desire a weakness.  Want for the flesh is a low thing.  Unenlightened.  Superficial.  A sign of a lack of self-control.  There are other ways of saying it, but I think you get the general idea.

  Generally, a concession is made for reproduction.  If you want to look at the Bible, even sex of non-reproductive intent was allowed, although St. Peter, whom Jesus called his rock, said it would be better to not "touch a woman".  I believe, given the context, that it was said regarding just the physical desire, and was not in opposition to procreation.

  Anyway, my belief stems from such concerns.  Non-reproductive sexuality a significant expression of human weakness, whether you're gay or not.

  Combine that with all the other problems that are a direct result of sexual activity, though mainly diseases.  My only problem with homosexuality specifically, is that it's pure physical desire with no possibility of reproduction.  It has no absolutely no redeeming qualities in the grand scheme.

  I want to speak for a moment about sex in general. Perhaps you have heard the saying, If sex didn't feel good, no one would do it.

  Sexual desire exists to keep stupid species from letting themselves die out.  When you let sexual desire control you, you are allowing yourself to revert to stupidty.  When you use your intelligence to try to prevent the purpose of sex while you're having sex, you're glorifying that stupidity.

  Let me offer some perspective.  I don't know a whole lot about lemmings, so I'm going to keep this hypothetical.  Let's say lemming commit mass suicide because that's nature's way of controling their population.

  Now, let's say that they develop enough intelligence and capacity for wisdom that they can not be slaves to their sexual desire and also reproduce in numbers that will negate the purpose of mass suicide.

  Instead of doing that, they use their intelligence to create and use imperfect contraceptives, sometimes don't use contraceptives, kill the babies they didn't intend to have, and create new and more technologically advanced ways of commiting suicide.

  WHOOOO!!  STUPIDITY RULES!!!