I posted these questions on the CARM discussion boards and received various answers. I reproduced some of the better ones and ignored many of the completely off-topic and highly illogical statements. Some of the responses were difficult to follow because they were not clearly stated. So, instead of spending time trying to interpret what they might have meant, I ignored them and went for the clear responses. Even though such insufficient answers provide plenty of fodder for response, in order to keep this article to a smaller size, I have reproduced some of the better answers with counter-responses.

1. GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY:  If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior 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?
   1. Answer: Gay males did not fight and were protected by their families, so they would survive.
      1.  Counter Response: This begs the question. Without evidence, it assumes gay males did not fight and builds a case on an assumption. Furthermore, if females did not fight, then those not protected would have less of a chance of passing on their genetics. So, gay males who did not fight would have injured the survivability of others including those who were supposed to protect them.
   2. Answer: “Why? Other examples of intersex such as hermaphrodites, Swyers syndrome, and gender identity disorders haven’t died out, so why should your stupid suggestion be otherwise. Perhaps it’s time for you and your ignorant and intolerant ilk to just grow up and accept that the in-utero transformation from the default female physical-form and female gender-identity to the male physical-form and male gender-identity sometimes goes awry.”
      1. Counter Response:  Notice the condescending remark about the suggestion being stupid and the personal insult that I, the author of the questions, am “ignorant and intolerant.” Unfortunately, such insults are commonly received from the pro-homosexuals. Nevertheless, if there is a genetic predisposition (we are not admitting there is), then the following questions are relevant and that is why the first one is asked. If homosexuality is genetically based, then this has implications for other sexual behaviors based upon people simply being born that way.
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?
   1. Answer: “By that logic, we should be ok with psychopaths that beat people up, because believe it or not, we have the drives to beat people in order to compete for mates.”
      1. Counter Response: The person did not answer the question. And, he’s correct in affirming the problem with psychopaths based on the logic presented by the homosexual community stating that sexual orientation is a genetic predisposition.
3. GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY:  If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior does not, then doesn’t it make sense to say that homosexuality is a learned behavior since the implication is that pro-homosexual genes would have been wiped out generations ago?
4. GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY:  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?
5. GENETIC PEDOPHILIA:  If genetic predisposition is used as a support for stating that homosexual behavior is morally okay (because they are born that way), then shouldn’t pedophilia behavior also be considered morally okay since they claim they were born that way?
   1. Answer: “Just because people are programmed to kill, rape, doesn’t mean we should consider it morally ok.”
      1. Counter Response:  That is true, but the answer does not address the question properly. It is a dismissal without proper response.
   2. Answer: “Genetics has nothing to do with it.”
      1. Counter Response:  To say that someone is not genetically predisposed to pedophilia, but is toward homosexuality, is a double standard.
6. GENETIC PEDOPHILIA:  If pedophiles 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)?
   1. Answer: “Thing is, people under age dont have the brains to practice safe sex, can be taken advantage of etc.18 years is just about right as people are smart enough at that age.”
      1. Counter Response: So, this response would say that anyone under the age of 18 is not mature enough for proper sexual consent and that younger people are not smart enough to understand and practice a monogamous relationship should they marry (which can occur and does occur in the United States at ages less than 18).
7. CONSENT:  In light of being born with a sexual orientation (like homosexuality, frotteurism1, voyeurism2), if pedophiles 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?
   1. Answer: “This has nothing to do with homosexuality in fact.”
      1. Counter Response:  Yes, it does have something to do with homosexuality. The issue is about people who are born with certain sexual predispositions. Ignoring the question is not sufficient.
8. CONSENT: If what is sexually permissible is what is based on consent, then what do you do with adolescents who consent to having sex with much older people?  Is it okay?
   1. Answer:  “I dont see a problem with a 18-year-old guy having sex with a 40-year-old woman. But must be older than 18 so he knows what hes doing.”
      1. Counter Response:  The question is not about 18-year-olds. It is about adolescents (the implication being younger than 18-year-old).  The question has now been modified to include “younger-than-18.”
9. MORAL STANDARD:  From where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong?
10. 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?
11. MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY:  If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then which society has the right moral system if it contradicts another?
12. 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?
    1. Answer: “Generally no, though of course, some moral views held by the majority of a society does need to be enforced to keep that society from falling apart. Views on murder should probably be enforced, even at the state level, but homosexuality doesn’t seem to me to fall into the same level.”
       1. Counter Response: This is a reasonable answer.
13. 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 condemns homosexuality as morally wrong?
    1. Answer: “The term moral right makes no sense, as for practical purposes all rights are accepted or granted on a legal basis by states or groups. Moral rights refer to the concept of inalienable rights, but such have never been shown to exist in practice, even if famous people have believed such exist, and even if such are claimed to exist in important documents.”
       1. Counter Response:  “Moral right” would be a right to believe and/or act based on moral reasons. This is a bit tautologous but sufficient. The answer does not distinguish between moral and legal rights. The issue is morality, not legality.
14. 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?
15. 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?
16. 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?
    1. Answer: “They don’t have such a right and that would be impossible anyway. Values of a culture do change with time and provided freedom of expression and thought, every group would have a right to try and influence that change, however, no group would have a right to actually impose values on others, nor could they if they wanted to. Imposing restrictions or granting permissions however is something that can be done and in our country is done by our elected representatives in adherence with a document recognizing and protecting multiple rights of citizens.”
       1. Counter Response:  I agree that they do not have the right to impose their moral values. But, the homosexual community is imposing their values on the rest of society by trying to get laws passed in favor of protecting homosexual behavior. Anyone who would argue to the contrary is uninformed. So, the homosexual community is imposing its moral values on the rest of society by trying to get laws passed in its favor.
17. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL:  If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to try and change society to suit their own moral preferences?
18. MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL:  If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, and they also believe they have the right to try and change society to suit their own moral preferences, then how is that not arrogant?
    1. Answer: “It might be arrogant, but arrogance doesn’t make something wrong. To use an example: Several Christian groups have historically tried and some still do try to change society to meet their moral preferences. They’re not wrong to do so, so long as they don’t infringe on someone else’s rights.”
       1. Counter Response:  Good answer. However, Christians are not seeking to redefine morality but to protect it. Though the homosexual community will not accept this answer, the Christian’s morals are not derived from himself but from the Scriptures. The original question is dealing with personal morals, not corporate ones or those derived from the Word of God.
19. CIVIL RIGHTS:  If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals because of their sexual orientation (i.e., sexual behavior), then shouldn’t equal civil rights be granted to those of Alternate Sexual Orientations (ASO) such as pedophilia, incest, voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadism, fetishes, frotteurism, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation, etc.? If not, why not?
    1. Answer: “Because some of these alternative sexual orientations are wrong because they can hurt other people.”
       1. Counter Response: This response is not sufficient. There are those who prefer to be harmed in their sexual activity. Is that okay? Also, what about frotteurism (sexual pleasure through contact with a person who has not given consent for such contact)?  People accidentally brush up against each other all the time. How is the one who was accidentally rubbed up against, and is completely unaware of the situation, harmed? This could also apply to voyeurism, saying that someone is not harmed by being gazed upon in a lustful manner. If harm is the measure of morality, what you do when someone is not harmed?
20. CIVIL RIGHTS: If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behavior), then shouldn’t equal civil rights also be granted to heterosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behavior)?  If not, why not?
21. CIVIL RIGHTS:  If equal civil rights should not be granted to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (excluding homosexual behavior), then what is it about homosexuality that deserves special status protection where other sexual behaviors do not?
    1. Answer:  “With regards to your list? Informed consent. Most of the behaviors you list either require one partner who can’t provide informed consent or frequently include such. Where informed consent is absent, a sexual practice is not recognized as a right, particularly because it violates the rights of someone else. ”
       1. Counter Response:  The question is about the difference between homosexuality and all other sexual orientations. If informed consent is the criteria in sexual behavior and is the basis for civil rights, it follows that sexual consent of younger than 18-year-olds who are also mature enough to give consent, should also be given civil rights protection.
22. CIVIL RIGHTS:  If homosexuals are granted privileges due to civil unions and domestic partnerships, shouldn’t the same be offered to heterosexuals?
23. FAIRNESS:  Shouldn’t an equal amount of sexual-orientation-promotion be offered to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (i.e., pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation) such that they are also promoted in parades, schools, movies, sitcoms, magazines, schools, etc.? If not, why not?
    1. Answer:  “Not all your ASO are equal. If you think that incest is just as bad as fetish then your wrong. Fetish is promoted in magazines, parades etc but I dont think they go in schools and teach children about extra large dildos or stuff like that. Are you saying that kids are taught and encouraged in schools to become homosexuals? or taught about homosexuals and what they do. You need to define what ur saying.”
       1. Counter Response:  The context is following the questions about civil rights for homosexuals. The response does not answer the question.
    2. Answer: “Again, a sexual act is not the same as sexual orientation. And if any of those groups want to promote their views, they have the right to do so. As for schools, they don’t actually promote homosexuality or homosexual intercourse, but rather inform students that such exists and promote acceptance of that fact. There is a major difference there.”
       1. Counter Response:  We grant that an act is not the same as an orientation. But acts proceed from orientations, and to defend the act is to defend the orientation. Also, schools are promoting homosexuality.
          1. “School officials are being increasingly pressured by pro-homosexual organizations to integrate homosexual education into school curricula. These organizations recommend promoting homosexuality as a normal, immutable trait that should be validated during childhood, as early as kindergarten.”  http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/on-the-promotion-of-homosexuality-in-the-schools.
          2. “California Mandates Promotion of Homosexuality in Public Schools…At issue: a bill that writes into the education code and mandates all schools — kindergarten through 12th grade — to positively portray homosexuality and transgenderism. Other mandates and/or restrictions include: •(Sec. 2, 51500) A teacher shall not give instruction and a school district shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of … sexual orientation … •(Sec. 3, 51501) The state board and any governing board shall not adopt any textbooks or other instructional materials for use in the public schools that contain any matter reflecting adversely on persons on the basis of … sexual orientation…”   http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/07/07/32025/
24. 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?
25. 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?
    1. Answer: “Who says it’s wrong. Acting on that intolerance in a way that violates someone’s rights would be wrong for either side, but simply being intolerant isn’t wrong. Someone could hate black people, so long as they still treat black people equally and violate no rights, they have every right to their hate. The same applies for homosexuals and those who hate, disapprove, or otherwise are critical of them.”
       1. Counter Response:  This is an admission of a double standard. It is quite apparent that if anyone were to disagree with homosexuality, they are quickly ridiculed. However, homosexuals routinely demonstrate their intolerance of those who oppose their lifestyle. The answer isn’t an answer.
26. FAIRNESS: Isn’t it hypocritical to say that homosexuals want tolerance for everyone, but at the same time they practice intolerance of those who disagree with their behavior?
27. FAIRNESS: If homosexuals want tolerance, then when they try and change the rest of society’s views about homosexuality, aren’t they demonstrating their intolerance of the majority position?
28. 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 and change the moral view of the homosexuals and have them conform to the majority?
    1. Answer: “Well, it’s not intolerance, regardless of how many times you claim it. And yes, it’s okay for you to try and change the moral view of homosexuals, so long as you don’t violate any of their rights. Good luck with that one, since every attempt I’m aware of in that regard has in fact violated the rights of homosexuals in one way or another.”
       1. Counter Response:  How is the homosexual community’s condemnation of those who oppose homosexuality demonstrating their tolerance? The exact opposite is the case. The insert ignores the fact.

• 1. Frotterusim is the act of deriving sexual pleasure from intentionally rubbing against and/or touching a non-consenting person.
• 2. Voyeurism is act of deriving sexual pleasure from watching another person undress and/or participate in sexual activity.