It is common to argue against sodomites of all kind by pointing out the mountain of statistical facts and events surrounding them. However, to battle degeneracy properly you will need to also shred to pieces the theories by which it is defended. the purpose of this article is to show the answer to what I have identified as the most frequently used arguments to support degeneracy. Next you will find the arguments, stated as eloquently as possible, and then their refutation.
We will show how homosexuality is perverse, that is, evil, undesirable by nature, and detrimental, as opposed to neutral or even good.
The argument from equality in essence
There is nothing wrong with homosexuality just like there is nothing wrong with heterosexuality. It is just an inverted version of heterosexuality in which "women" are replaced with "men" or the opposite. The object of the love changes, but the love itself is the same, with the same principles and motivations. It is similar to how some people just like different colors, or different food. Some people just like different people to have sex with, so how could it be judged as wrong when it is the same thing?
This argument crumbles the moment one realises that the purpose of sex is to beget children in the context of a family (marriage). The moment that is removed, sex becomes perverted, and turned into an act of hedonism with completely different principles and motivations. Overall, homosexuality replaces the desire for children with the desire to sodomize someone or similar filth. Consequently there is no "symmetry", no equivalence, and sodomy is not defensible on this basis.
Following this argument to defend homosexuality, one could say that there is nothing wrong with zoophilia since it is just a replacement of "human" with "animal", or necrophilia since it is just a replacement of "living" with "dead", or with pedophilia following the same line. Just like these examples have fundamental implications, so does replacing "woman" with "man" etc.
The argument from "nature"
Homosexuality has been observed in animals, that is, in nature. What better proof could there be that it is perfectly normal and natural? Just like animals then do not act out of cruelty or evil intentions, neither do humans who indulge in homosexuality.
When it comes to morality, "natural" does not mean "observed in nature or animals". If that was the case, literally anything we do would be natural, since it is something we, animals, do. "Natural" means that something follows its natural order, its purpose, acting according to its essence. So, heterosexuality is natural as long as it is oriented towards begetting children, but you can guess how unnatural it is to sodomize someone, or similar acts.
That something is observed in animals is not proof of lack of evil. Animals will kill their rivals' offspring or eat their own children. More related to this context, they will at times try to have sex with humans or inanimate objects, so, following the argument, one should (again) defend zoophilia. Animals act this way because they do not have an intellect but act on instincts where some sensation can trigger a sexual response, even if it is nonsensical. This is the "excuse" of animals, which of course does not apply to us, and our morality is not determined by the behaviour of beasts.
The argument from consent
Even if homosexuality wasn't natural, there is no physical harm in what consenting adults do, therefore there is no reason to worry about it or consider it evil or harmful in any way, just like people with unusual tastes or who even have their own oddities are not labelled as doing anything undesirable.
This is probably the most popular, offensive, and disgustingly weak argument used to support sodomy. Neither consent nor physical damage have anything to do with the morality of something. Is something not evil as long as there is consent? Then incest, zoophilia with trained animals or necrophilia are all perfectly fine. Is something moral as long as there is no physical harm? Then why oppose pedophilia as long as a couple of safety measures are taken to avoid damage?
One good example is enough to shatter this argument: imagine someone lives in a hut, in the middle of the forest. Nobody even knows he exists, and he has no effect on absolutely anything in the external world. This man spends his days masturbating to child pornography that somehow reached him without anyone knowing. There is no interaction with anyone in any way so there is no need to worry about consent or harm, so it should be perfectly fine according to those who use this argument. We can make the example even more obvious: the child pornography could be computer generated and not involve any actual person; if we also want to show the "wonders" of democracy, instead of a single man it could be an entire city, or even be the last living person.
These, and many other examples show the consequences of saying "it is fine because nobody is harmed" or "it is fine because it is consensual". The people who make this argument usually just have no limits when it comes to promiscuity and perversion.
As it can be seen, the general idea is that all the arguments used to defend homosexuality, when taken to their logical conclusions, end up defending pedophilia, zoophilia, incest, etc. It is no surprise, of course, that societies that glorify homosexuality are usually ridden with school programs that teach children how to masturbate, they have child pornography masquerading as Netflix movies, they try to prevent any form of normal family from existing (normalising divorce and remarriage and contraception, recommending teenage girls to get IUDs, telling kindergarten and primary school children that they mustn't talk to their parents about sexuality but that it is their decision), and they allow things like the "gay and mardi gras parades" with all their public sex acts (homosexuals simulating or practicing anal and oral sex, furries preening themselves like animals, scantily clad men and women mocking and insulting the Lord God through grotesque perversions of His Son's Sacrifice and the Blessed Mother, to name a few examples of their depravity.) It is through these, and many more atrocities, that we can see the real fruits of homosexuality. If it is by their fruits that we know them, then the fruits of those who practice and encourage homosexuality are discord, mockery, blasphemy, depravity, hatred, and corruption.