Dear Vanessa:

Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and a violation of Natural Law regardless if performed by an animal or a human. This is obvious on its face. Why even ask the question? The male and female body is designed to compliment each other for the purpose of pro-creation. Homosexual sex is nonsense. And equally obvious is that if homosexuality was predominate the race would have died out a long time ago.

God did not create sex solely for pleasure (which is the basis of all homosexual sex). Sex was invented by God to bond a husband and wife together in love for the purposes of procreation. There is no other legitimate purpose for sex other than to strengthen the marital bond and to have children if one is able to have children.

I think the best thing you can do is read the article, The Animal Homosexuality Myth, by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo at the website of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

Here are the open paragraphs:

In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:

1. Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
2. Homosexuality is irreversible;
3. Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.

Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises, the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.

 Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?

The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:

1. There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
2. It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
3. Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary