Incredibly, some people think that if you constantly resist a good idea or principle through personal feelings or bad arguments, somehow the principle is rendered obsolete. Bad arguments are a mainstay today in justifying all manner of nonsense and because many people severely lack the most basic skills of determining what makes sense, no one is any wiser as a result and we all suffer. The amount of time wasted on disagreements through bad arguing is so enormous that we never get on to living our lives according to better principles, and this has been going on for thousands of years.

*Note: The word "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" and other references to their practice is taken to mean the highest and best form of each respective practice.

"Homosexuality is right because some people hate homosexuals or because some people are homophobic." This is a major argument used to support homosexuality that makes absolutely no sense. Your way of life is not right because someone else disagrees with or is fearful of it. The rightness of your belief has to stand on its own merits.

If a homosexual person is assaulted because of his homosexuality, the assault does not make homosexual behavior right. Yet that is the premise for this very common argument, that a person's "lifestyle" can be justified by another person's disagreement with that "lifestyle" (often found in early schooling through college).

We all know that it is wrong to violently assault people, and we should know that it is wrong to hate people. Many people hated Hitler for what he did to the Jews and minorities, but does that make what he did to them right?

"Most people oppose same-sex marriages or most people oppose homosexuality, therefore homosexuality is wrong." This is a poorly formed argument because what a majority of people think does not make it right. For example, if a majority of people think it is right to murder or rape does that then make the practice right?

"People of the same sex may love each other and therefore homosexuality is good because love is good." Friends, sisters, or brothers may love each other but there is no sexual aspect within their love. The distinguishing mark of a homosexual relationship implies sexuality of one form or another as the defining characteristic of the relationship which isn't true love. True and proper love, good love, does not recognize mere sexuality, or lust, as its defining factor and does not stall out on lower self-serving needs.

Proponents of this argument define the meaning of "love" however they wish. This is a very common and immature belief system which changes meaning to match belief, in this case equating love with lust.

"Some homosexuals don't have actual sex and their relationship may be based in love, therefore homosexuality is right." Not exactly, the implications of sexuality persist as a predominant influence in a homosexual's thoughts, intentions, words, or other deeds. Homosexuality is precisely distinguished on a sexual level which has no higher purpose than itself.

Heterosexuality, on the other hand, is distinguished on a sexual level occurring within the higher context and principle of having children and community. If persons of the same sex were non-sexual in their relationship, they may be good friends. If you argue that friends can be sexual, then that is not the meaning of a good friendship. Same sex friends that realize the proper ordering of their sexuality would be guided towards the opposite sex where their sexual union points towards greater meaning.

"Homosexuality and sexual orientation is genetic and predetermined and because a homosexual is who a person really is, therefore homosexuality is right." This is a very pervasive argument today which justifies human behavior according to your unique genetic blueprint. One assumption, however, is that there is no higher ordering level of humanity than acting out genetic predispositions towards certain things. Therefore, if a person happens to have a sexual orientation towards an infant, pair of shoes, or a monkey, then these orientations should be justified and validated as well.

Even if these odd orientations could be traced genetically, your higher moral reasoning capabilities still guide you to understand how attractions to infants, monkeys, other oddities and sexually based relationships is wrong. If you argue that you are inherently "gay" or "straight" and attempts to change that go against who you really are, then that begs the question: what does being "gay" or "straight" mean and is that really who you are? As has been argued here, sexuality should be understood and practiced within the greater good of having children.

A supposedly "gay" person can understand past genetic instinct, or pure conditioning, and choose to develop towards the higher and greater goods of children and community. However, the short answer is that self-reflecting with reason and using higher moral guidelines acts as a formative authority for the otherwise predispositioned lower levels of genetic, instinctual, and behavioral patterns.

It is also certain, more so than sex, that we have a genetic requirement to eat food, but we can eat in different ways: like a pig at the trough, or slowly and appreciatively; we can choose to eat certain foods and not others as in vegetarianism; we can even choose to fast and not eat for a period of time as Ghandi of India had done.

"Some people who are heterosexual can't have kids, making their relationship the same or similar to a homosexual relationship—therefore homosexuality is right." Firstly, an exception does not ruin the greater rule or principle. Secondly, the problem with this argument is that you are trying to equate an infertile heterosexual couple with a fertile heterosexual couple, as if one is no better than the other.

The fertile couple is the natural intended way of human life and the infertile couple, though physically unable to have children, still look up to the greater principle of having children and participating in community. In other words, an infertile couple does not want to be infertile. They realize they are inherently gifted with creating life though accidentally prevented to fruition.

Same sex sexual movements have an inherent impossibility of anything greater than the physical movements themselves.

Heterosexual couples prevented from having children can still make love to one another as a commitment to that greater child creating principle, and as a natural joining that is very beneficial on many levels. If they choose to adopt a child then these higher values would be passed along to someone who likely will have children to be taught these same principles, and so on. They can also remember that faith in the most impossible circumstances can yield the most impossible of things hoped for.

"Some heterosexuals don't want to have kids and some homosexuals don't want to have kids, therefore homosexuality is right." What matters most in this case is the reasoning behind why a married couple would not want to have children. Insufficient income, inability to parent properly, and distrust in the marriage: these all are valid reasons to not have children and especially to not have been married in the first place, but the light of reason demands them to correct these difficulties.

The union of a man and woman is fundamentally based in loving commitment towards one another and in the creation of life through that union. Sexuality, then, has a greater and higher purpose.

Additionally, comparing fact B of a set of facts to fact A of a set of facts does not justify the equating of fact B and its set of facts to fact A and its set of facts.

"Guys and girls are hopping into different beds together with alarming speed and regularity, and men and women are getting divorced, bickering, and abusing their children, therefore relationships such as homosexuality are right if the previous kind of negative qualities are not found." The perverters of what is good and reasonable to hold dear in our hearts do not ruin the greater rule that man and woman respectfully together with child is the correction to our rebellious natures. The problem with this argument is that it attempts to equate the behavior of promiscuous and immature "guys and girls" with the behavior of a man and woman together in committed respect. The two are completely different. The factual circumstances of what a man and woman do together does not take away the greater principles they are held accountable to.

This argument and many like it are basically saying that because people can violate a principle that the principle is somehow diminished as a result. People can choose to violate good principles but they are still accountable to those same good principles and their irreducibility.

"The Bible says homosexuality is wrong or sinful, therefore homosexuality is wrong." This argument still begs the question: Why is homosexuality wrong? Just because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong does not make it wrong. To realize a behavior is wrong or right, you have to understand the reasons why it is wrong or right. Before the time of the Bible a person would still be able to reason the arguments against homosexuality and reasons in favor of only a man and woman being sexually together.

"Homosexuality is not natural, therefore homosexuality is wrong." This would be shown to be true if the argument was expanded on. Many things in human life are not natural, like nylon toothbrushes and automobiles, so the argument cannot go anywhere in that vein of thinking.

You can say that a man and woman are naturally made for each other. This is an extremely important and valid argument because it shows a fundamental connection between our biological, psychological, and moral levels. On a biological level, you can affirm that a man's penis fits into a woman's vagina for the purpose of fertilization and through this an offspring will be produced.

But because we are subject to higher moral levels we do not impregnate just anyone and everybody. We should firmly commit ourselves to one person, with whom our sexuality has a higher context, otherwise we are being disingenuous. Human beings operating on a higher moral level take into account biological and psychological conditions such that the higher levels of humanity are dependent on but not reduceable to the lower.

In other words, a man and woman fit naturally together biologically and on other levels, and higher moral reflection clarifies and justifies their relationship.

"Monkeys or other animals exhibit homosexual behavior, therefore homosexuality is right." But monkeys are not human beings and do not have the reasoning and moral decision making higher levels of humans. Justifying human behavior based on animal behaviors exhibited in the animal world must first establish no significant differences between humans and animals.

Animals, however, operate according to pure psychological conditioning, which is apparently their highest level. Human beings have the ability to self-reflect, to reason, and mold their lower psychological and behavioral levels according to a higher moral framework.

"Gay parents will raise gay children, therefore homosexuality is wrong" You are still begging the question of why homosexuality is wrong. If gay children are wrong because their parents are gay, why is it wrong for the parents to be gay?

"Homosexuality is a harmful practice, therefore homosexuality is wrong." On a biological level it may be that homosexuality is more risky then heterosexuality in terms of contracting diseases, but many activities have risks associated with them. What shows heterosexual activity as less risky perhaps is that on a biological level the vagina is designed more sturdily for sexual intercourse than the anus, but lesbian sexual activity is different from male homosexual activity, etc.

The true harm done is not only on a sexual biological level, but involves the intention and meaning behind sexual involvement with another person. Again, we do not exist only on a sexual or biological level. Grave psychological and moral damage is surely caused by the practice of homosexuality and its acceptance. Homosexuality, by its definition, is sociopathic or at least some sort of mental disease.

Without recognizing a higher good past mere sexuality, human beings cease to be fully human. The proper ordering of our sexuality only occurs within a higher moral context.