Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I understand your position, and you make a good point. I have a hard time with labeling anything arbitrary, because its from our perspective. God's perspective is obviously much different (and greater, ofc) than ours. If you were to look at all of the different commandments of God , you might find many that might seem arbitrary.

Honestly, I look at it like this. And please don't argue this statement with me because its only my uninformed opinion so I have nothing to substantiate with.

Some say 'Why would God do that?" in reference to people being born gay. I look at it as a blessing in disguise, for God to give someone the opportunity to show just how much devotion to Him they really have. Look at how Paul suffered, he seemed to have a good life before his conversion and then afterwards he went through an extreme amount of suffering. Why would God allow that to happen to one of His most influental apostles?

I tend to compare the plight of homosexuals to that of the genesis account of angels taking human wives, as they chose that over their service to Him.

So, it could be seen as a curse to the flesh while being a blessing to the soul. In that line of thought I believe that with God giving such an opportunity also leads me to believe that He has great faith in those He appoints to the task.


This of course is my opinion only, and it is reflective of my belief that homosexual actions are sinful. I apologize in advance if anyone takes offense, as it is not meant in that way.

 

[OllieFranz]

The reason why the lack of orientation argument doesn't sit well with me is that if people now are in same sex relationships, why weren't they then. I can understand that they wouldn't come out in public if it were against the law in some way, but what about in societies where same-sex sex was in the norm? ancient greece pops into mind but i'm by no means a history scholar so dont quote me on that

Ancient Greece had very strict rules about sex. Sexual expression that did not follow these rules was not illegal but was severely censured socially. Sex was considered one body using another body, and it was "meant" to be done only for certain proscribed purposes. Taking pleasure in sex was considered a weakness of character. Plato in his dialogue "Laws" has the Athenian say:

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.
(emphasis mine)

He makes it clear that it is "sexual addiction" that he is condemning by comparing it to drunkenness, and by the concluding phrase, which I boldened. He chose an example of indiscriminate homosexual mating mainly because it would be harder to claim that the sex fit into one of the proscibed purposes, and also to "tweak" one of the other characters who is a Cretan. (On Crete they worshipped Ganymede (Zeus' eromenos) under the name Catamitos -- which is where the term catamite comes from).

When Paul quotes this passage in Romans 1:26-27, he also emphasizes the addiction: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections.....and they received in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

In Rome, they were looser about same-sex "relationships" -- both Julius Caesar and Marc Antony were known to have "slept their way to the top" in the army. The main rule in Rome was that someone born in the two higher classes must not become "hustlers" nor should they "bottom" for someone lower in rank.

In the late Republic period, and the early Imperial period, as women (especially in the upper two classes) gained more rights, marriage became more a contract between equals rather than a chattel rights arrangement. More and more during this period, there were same-sex marriages, as men wanted to share their lives and their property legally. Paul cannot have been unaware of this relatively new development, but he does not mention it, to condemn or condone. During the marriage ceremony, the socially inferior partner was the bride, and so would be considered the wife. So even same-sex marriages had a husband and a wife. (This is stated for the benefit of those who claim that Paul did not mean to include same-sex marriage because all of Pauls marital advice is separately offerred to "husbands" and "wives." )

 

[Jerrell]

It is also an incorrect translation.

Ancient Greek had several works that specifically meant homosexual. Paul didn’t use any of those words. Instead he used arsenokoties, which in literal terms means a man who employs prostitutes.

At what point in time did this new definition show up? Was it a few days ago when you though it up in your head? That is not the definition, and no greek lexion i posses has anything close to that definition- however if you do, please let me know what it is.

 

[MrPirate]

At what point in time did this new definition show up? Was it a few days ago when you though it up in your head? That is not the definition, and no greek lexion i posses has anything close to that definition- however if you do, please let me know what it is.

About 2000 years ago…so its not new at all. words are defined by the society and the time they are used. 2000 years ago the word did not mean homosexual as demonstrated by writers contemporary to Paul. Or are you going to suggest that writers of that era didn’t know what they were writing

What is new is the modern translation of arsenokoties to mean homosexual.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

. So even same-sex marriages had a husband and a wife.

Sure, but the problem is that the 'wife' is not a wife at all. I could understand if the defense was that paul mentioned a husband and his bride, because at least in that instance it can be seen metaphorically. But the word wife in itself is pretty clear about it's meaning. I don't think his failure to mention same-sex relationships in any way proves that he included them in his doctrine.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sure, but the problem is that the 'wife' is not a wife at all. I could understand if the defense was that paul mentioned a husband and his bride, because at least in that instance it can be seen metaphorically. But the word wife in itself is pretty clear about it's meaning. I don't think his failure to mention same-sex relationships in any way proves that he included them in his doctrine.

And neither is it proof that he was excluding them. They simply weren't mentioned. The norm is heterosexuality, so it is unsurprising he spent most, if not all, of his time dealing with heterosexuality.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Wiccan_Child,
Wiccans like yourself ar divided on the issue of whether homosexual unions are moral or not. This is due to opposites reflect the dualism that is so common throughout Wiccan philosophy.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Dear Wiccan_Child,
Wiccans like yourself ar divided on the issue of whether homosexual unions are moral or not. This is due to opposites reflect the dualism that is so common throughout Wiccan philosophy.

Wiccans like myself? No, I am perfectly comfortable with homosexual relationships. The Wiccans you speak of are akin to the Biblical Literalists of Christianity: they perform ritual magicks and pay strict adherance to their rites. In Gardenarian witchcraft, initiation is woman to man, or man to woman (except for families, in which case it is mother to daughter, father to son).
This only holds in Gardenarian traditions, though. Indeed, as a solitary witch, I don't consider a person's genetalia to a direct influence.

In any case, did you have an actual point? As much as I like discussing Wicca, it is a rule violation to derail threads.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Wiccan_Child,

Wiccans like myself? No, I am perfectly comfortable with homosexual relationships.

My applogies, I phrased that badly, I mean you are a Wiccan. Sorry

The Wiccans you speak of are akin to the Biblical Literalists of Christianity: they perform ritual magicks and pay strict adherance to their rites.

Then they are much like liberal Christians who usually love ritual and rites and look at the Bible legalistucally

This only holds in Gardenarian traditions,

Yes I agree but the thats a bit like liberal Christians who have abandoned the historic and traditonal views to please themsleves.

In any case, did you have an actual point? As much as I like discussing Wicca, it is a rule violation to derail threads.

Nope, I am a Christian and you are discussing Christian values, I was merely discussing Wiccan ones.

 

[tulc]

Then they are much like liberal Christians who usually love ritual and rites and look at the Bible legalistucally

I'm a little confused. I've seen liberals called almost everything except legalistic can you explain why you say that?
tulc(just curious)

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear tulc,
Yes I thought twice about posting that because it doesnt really help the debate, just like the comment about Biblical literalists of Christianity.
However, I find that particulalry in discussions about same-sex sex, liberals frequently refer to the OT law and ask why those who quote the sexual prohibitions in Lev 18 and 20, don't adhere to the dietry proibitions. Now we can see that as legalism because Jesus has fulfilled the OT law and prophets, and we may now eat what we want (Mark 7, Romans 14) but we may not have sex outside marriage (Matt 19, Mark 10 etc)
So we see that we are no longer subject to judgement against the law but we live free not to sin through Jesus fulfillment of the law. We find it incredibly leagalistic therefore to be asked why we don't keep all the law when we quote some of it.
What frustrates me is that those who ask us whether we keep all the law or none of it in this legalism, cant tell me whether they would. ie
Lev 19:6 love your neighbour as yourself
Lev 18:20 do not lie with a man as with a woman.

 

[tulc]

Ahhh! I think I get it. And yet...you do quote the Old Testament as justification for your beliefs, how then is it wrong to ask the obvious question "Well if that justifies condeming being gay, why do you only obey one part of the Law not all of it?" See my point?
tulc(how's your day going?)

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear tulc,

Ahhh! I think I get it. And yet...you do quote the Old Testament as justification for your beliefs, how then is it wrong to ask the obvious question "Well if that justifies condeming being gay, why do you only obey one part of the Law not all of it?" See my point?

No. Firstly the Bible doesn’t condemn people for ‘being gay’ it condemns same-sex sex. What can you cite to back up your statement that it justifies condemning being gay?
Secondly I quote from the OT because Jesus does, and Jesus doesn’t abolish any of the OT law and prophets but as I say He fulfils it.
The question therefore isn’t obvious and indeed we can show that we obey Jesus fulfilment of the law.

But my point was why cant the people who ask this question, who must consequently be assuming its an either or condition, answer the question themselves?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Dear Wiccan_Child,

My applogies, I phrased that badly, I mean you are a Wiccan. Sorry

No problem.

Then they are much like liberal Christians who usually love ritual and rites and look at the Bible legalistucally

Liberal Christians? In my experiance, they shun stuffy dogma and archaic traditions. Those who are literalists are most often those who are stuck to bygone traditions, rites and all.

Yes I agree but the thats a bit like liberal Christians who have abandoned the historic and traditonal views to please themsleves.

I think you are contradicting yourself: it is liberal Christians who shun dogmatic interpretations and rituals. It is traditionalist Christians who, like traditionalist Wiccans, stick to the sacred texts letter for letter.

Nope, I am a Christian and you are discussing Christian values, I was merely discussing Wiccan ones.

Fair enough

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Wiccan_Child,

No problem.

thanks J

Liberal Christians? In my experiance, they shun stuffy dogma and archaic traditions. Those who are literalists are most often those who are stuck to bygone traditions, rites and all.

Maybe but legalism in my experience is the mechanism they use to shun dogma, doctrine etc which is part of the profession of faith.

Fair enough

Again thanks J

 

[OllieFranz]

Sure, but the problem is that the 'wife' is not a wife at all. I could understand if the defense was that paul mentioned a husband and his bride, because at least in that instance it can be seen metaphorically. But the word wife in itself is pretty clear about it's meaning. I don't think his failure to mention same-sex relationships in any way proves that he included them in his doctrine.

I do not claim he "included" them. I merely state that those who claim that he specifically excluded them have no evidence for their claim. There was good reason for him to refer to the "travesty" of of same-sex marriage if he wanted to specifically condemn it, but he did not mention it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Maybe but legalism in my experience is the mechanism they use to shun dogma, doctrine etc which is part of the profession of faith.

I think they use the legalistic approach to counter accusations by non-liberal Christians, but left to their own devices they are decidedly less ritualistic.

 

[djbcrawford]

My point was that sex has functions other than procreation, not just for procreating heterosexuals.

And my point is that is all the functions are part of the same process, not something totally separate from it. Sex bonds the individuals together into a stable family bond so that the same sex can produce a child within that stable family bond. Works logically, biologically and evolutionally.

You asked if there was a difference, and I said there was. How did you get from that to this?

It was a side-issue about the difference between using superior physical strength to force someone into doing something they don't want to do against using superior charm/intelligence.

The mugging vs conning was another example of the same thing. I think I should have worded it differently though, i.e. "what is the difference" as opposed to "so it's okay"? In my defense it was probably very late at night.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And my point is that is all the functions are part of the same process, not something totally separate from it. Sex bonds the individuals together into a stable family bond so that the same sex can produce a child within that stable family bond. Works logically, biologically and evolutionally.

I agree that sex bonds two parents together, but this fact does not exclude other uses of sex (i.e., uses beyond heterosexual procreators).

It was a side-issue about the difference between using superior physical strength to force someone into doing something they don't want to do against using superior charm/intelligence.

The mugging vs conning was another example of the same thing. I think I should have worded it differently though, i.e. "what is the difference" as opposed to "so it's okay"? In my defense it was probably very late at night.

Both are morally wrong because the coopt free will. They differ, however, in the methodology: one uses brute force, the other 'grooms' the target.
This kind of issue is why we make the distinction between informed consent, and simply consent. Paedophiles who groom children to meet with them under their own violation are coopting the child's free will, and hence the child cannot give informed consent.

 

[djbcrawford]

They won't, but their relatives (who effectively do share their genes, especially immunities and the like) will. The two families will be drawn together, allowing the members in one family to mate with members of the other

Have a look at the evolution of altruism, the principle is the same.

A few things that make it different. Dying to save a family member is a choice. Some would make it, some wouldn't. Also, we're not insects. We do not live in a society with one dominate female who produces all our babies and has no need for other reproducing females all of whom are born sterile and so do the same work as males

I hate the murderer because he has murdered. My hate is an irrational response evolved to reject such destructive members of society. The response is quite relevant today.
I have my own moral code when it comes to labeling actions as right, wrong, or neutral, so I do think that people can do wrong.
If a man saves a child from a burning building, I love him. If a man lets that child die, I hate him.

Our emotional responses help society to garner the desired actions (murder, etc) and suppress the undesired actions (murder, paedophilia, etc).

And yet sometimes society needs people who are prepared to kill and murder, and paedophilia just depends on what country you live in..

This is what makes Christianity different from all other religions in my opinion. You have a scale of love and hatred. The further someone acts from your moral mid-line into the bad side, the more you hate them. The further they act within the good side the more you love them. But what about the man who murders and then saves a child? Do they cancel out or do you love and hate him at the same time. What if someone else's moral mid-line is above or below yours?

Christianity is the ultimate in equality. All have sinned and none are righteous. It recognises that in spite of our proud boasts, many of the bad things we haven't done aren't because we are "better" than someone else, but merely because we haven't wanted to do them nor had the opportunity. If we had wanted to do them as much as the other bad things we have done (and justified to ourselves that they weren't really that bad) can we honestly say we wouldn't have done them as well?

Unless I have felt the urge to murder and then stopped myself because I believed it was wrong, what credit is it to me that I haven't murdered anyone? I can debate what a terrible crime it was and the effects it has had on those around it, but have I the right to judge someone who has committed it.