The Bible calls homosexual activity wrong, but . . .

[Washington]

does this really make any sense? Exactly what is harmful about two people having mutually agreed upon physical contact? The Bible gives no good reason, but simply says in effect: it's not right.




Leviticus 18:22

“ Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination."​

and Leviticus 20:13

“ If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."​

Pretty harsh punishment for acts that may otherwise be encouraged and celebrated. And harsh punishment for no reason other than one particular individual doesn't like them. I'm not saying that a person shouldn't have the right to follow the dictates of whomever they wish, but seeing as how we have all been given a brain with which to reason, shouldn't all condemnations have at least a scintilla of reasonableness to them? As a small child, if your father or mother told you to never, ever do such-and-such, you pretty much took it for granted that doing such-and-such would be bad for someone or something in some way, and that their warning was not a mere whim.


From what I can gather, god's condemnation of homosexual acts is no more than that: a mere whim. No dire consequence result from homosexual physical expressions: it's just that god doesn't happen to like them.



Looking at it from another angle:






The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) publishes a pamphlet called Critical Issues: Homosexuality. Among other things it states that:

"Although homosexual activity is a sin, it is not the unpardonable sin, or the most terrible of sins.​

Homosexuals can only lead moral lives by remaining celibate. ​

Discrimination against gays and lesbians is proper, in the areas of: employment.​

to protect the (presumably heterosexual) "family."​

to protect other social institutions.​

(emphasis mine)​

Evidently, as far as the SBC is concerned it is alright to be homosexually orientated (be attracted to people of the same sex) but not alright to engage in any physical expression of those feelings. Apparently, about as close to intimacy one homosexual may get to another is to say, "I love you."

So, my question is: What is it about physical contact---the touching of another's skin because it is pleasurable---that is inherently bad? How can mutual tactile pleasure be hailed in some circumstances (heterosexual) and reviled in others (homosexual)? As purely physical acts both are indistinguishable (anal sex among heterosexuals is seldom considered sinful). And from a purely emotional consideration both are also indistinguishable.

There must be something evil that comes alive in human physical contact when it is between someone of the same sex, but remains dormant when between someone of the opposite sex. Why is it that human physical contact has such a strange bifurcated nature: good in this circumstance but not that circumstance? It certainly can't be a matter of mental state, because most Christians readily concede that homosexual feelings are not sinful. Love someone of the same sex all you want, just don't express that love physically.

How very odd that a form of physical expression can be so schizophrenic. One that even forbids homosexuals from kissing. source

 

[Verv]

Well, Washington, first we can even point out the fact that in many instances in the Bible when they say such other simple rules as 'thou shalt not murder,' 'thou shalt not steal' they do not go on to explain it further. The explanation is inherent in the rest of the context of the Bible.

As God created them man and woman so we were intended to be together, and as the traditional Christian view goes: when you sleep with someone you become of one flesh so to speak, and thus it should exist only between a man and a woman as sanctioned by God.

Men and men or women and women does not jive with the creation and thus is an unnatural desire (perhaps "natural" in the context of the individual but by and larger unnatural in the eyes of the majority and in the eyes of God). More than that, it does not even serve to create a loving family. Of course, infertile couples definitely are entitled to their sex lives as 1 Corinthians 7 also says that we should lead fulfilling sex lives with our partners so as to avoid other forms of sin.

Homosexuality is a sin in the same sense that sleeping with an animal is a sin: it is not a proper sexual desire for mankind.

It is also like being intoxicated or gambling or lying: not all of the time does it hurt anyone at all, and sometimes it even seems fun or enjoyable, but in the long run it is damaging to the person who does it and damaging and dishonorable to those around them.

 

[munchycrunchy]

Well, Washington, first we can even point out the fact that in many instances in the Bible when they say such other simple rules as 'thou shalt not murder,' 'thou shalt not steal' they do not go on to explain it further. The explanation is inherent in the rest of the context of the Bible.

As God created them man and woman so we were intended to be together, and as the traditional Christian view goes: when you sleep with someone you become of one flesh so to speak, and thus it should exist only between a man and a woman as sanctioned by God.

Men and men or women and women does not jive with the creation and thus is an unnatural desire (perhaps "natural" in the context of the individual but by and larger unnatural in the eyes of the majority and in the eyes of God). More than that, it does not even serve to create a loving family. Of course, infertile couples definitely are entitled to their sex lives as 1 Corinthians 7 also says that we should lead fulfilling sex lives with our partners so as to avoid other forms of sin.

Homosexuality is a sin in the same sense that sleeping with an animal is a sin: it is not a proper sexual desire for mankind.

It is also like being intoxicated or gambling or lying: not all of the time does it hurt anyone at all, and sometimes it even seems fun or enjoyable, but in the long run it is damaging to the person who does it and damaging and dishonorable to those around them.

Unnatural...That's interesting because sexual encounters with the same sex occur all the time. Dolphins for instance. Some male dolphins have a lifetime relationship with other male dolphins and have sexual encounters with females simply to procreate. Oh yes...homosexuality is so awful. Homosexuals are an interesting "kind". They go around scouting...looking for other people to "turn" to their ways. With a single bite to the neck, you instantly become a homosexual. Thankfully, we have been blessed with a thing called "gaydar" to protect ourselves with. When a homosexual is approaching, our gaydar will alert us to their presence. This at least gives you a fair shot to run away or place a shield around your neck.

Being a homosexual and sleeping with animals are two completely different things. Someone that sleeps with animals obviously has some sort of psychological disorder that causes them to desire animals sexually. This is not the same for homosexuals. We are BORN with our sexual orientations. I challenge any heterosexual (Christian or not, doesn't matter) to turn homosexual. Just for a week. Decide to have these sort of sexual desires for the same sex. If a heterosexual cannot do it, why do people expect homosexuals to do it? Some of my best friends are homosexuals and it's absolutely absurd to think that they could go from finding my brother attractive to finding me attractive. AND, homosexuality does not hurt anyone. It is nobody elses business who another person sleeps with or is attracted to.

 

[Washington]

Well, Washington, first we can even point out the fact that in many instances in the Bible when they say such other simple rules as 'thou shalt not murder,' 'thou shalt not steal' they do not go on to explain it further. The explanation is inherent in the rest of the context of the Bible.

Quite true, but in these cases we readily recognize the bad effects of murdering and stealing. No such harm results from homosexual contact. If the Bible truly does explain this harm I must have missed it, and would appreciate it if you pointed out the text.

As God created them man and woman so we were intended to be together, and as the traditional Christian view goes: when you sleep with someone you become of one flesh so to speak, and thus it should exist only between a man and a woman as sanctioned by God.

I fail to see how you can go from a "should" to an "only."
Clearly many, many heterosexuals exist in an unmarried state, so it's obviously not the fact that homosexuals are not living as man and wife that is bothering god. And where does it say that homosexuals who "sleep together" do not become "of one flesh"? And If they don't, why are they singled out for not becoming "of one flesh." If becoming "of one flesh" is so important where does this put old maids, widows, and widowers? Just because god sanctions one thing does this make everything else sinful? I don't hear of god having sanctioned roller coaster riding or movie attendance, yet Christians seem to have no problem indulging themselves in these activities.

Men and men or women and women does not jive with the creation and thus is an unnatural desire (perhaps "natural" in the context of the individual but by and larger unnatural in the eyes of the majority and in the eyes of God).

Sorry, but "does not jive" is pretty meaningless, so the rest of your remark is just as meaningless.

More than that, it does not even serve to create a loving family.

Are you actually saying that homosexuals are incapable of creating loving families? They may not be able to fertilize one another, but this is true of many heterosexual couples as well.

Homosexuality is a sin in the same sense that sleeping with an animal is a sin: it is not a proper sexual desire for mankind.

And I agree this is a common Christian notion. So what?

It is also like being intoxicated or gambling or lying: not all of the time does it hurt anyone at all, and sometimes it even seems fun or enjoyable, but in the long run it is damaging to the person who does it and damaging and dishonorable to those around them.

To equate homosexual activity to abusive (I assume that is the context) intoxication, gambling, or lying, you first have to show that homosexual activity is inherently harmful. Moreover, simply saying that "In the long run it is damaging" is hardly enough. You will have to show us that it IS harmful. Your word is simply not good enough. I also have to wonder what you have in mind by the "dishonor" that befalls others "around them."

 

[True_Blue]

does this really make any sense? Exactly what is harmful about two people having mutually agreed upon physical contact? The Bible gives no good reason, but simply says in effect: it's not right.

There must be something evil that comes alive in human physical contact when it is between someone of the same sex, but remains dormant when between someone of the opposite sex. Why is it that human physical contact has such a strange bifurcated nature: good in this circumstance but not that circumstance? It certainly can't be a matter of mental state, because most Christians readily concede that homosexual feelings are not sinful. Love someone of the same sex all you want, just don't express that love physically.

How very odd that a form of physical expression can be so schizophrenic. One that even forbids homosexuals from kissing. source

Washington, you actually have it backwards--a person's thoughts and intents are what makes something good or evil, not the physicality of touching. If I kiss my daughter with the intent to express love and affection for her, I have not sinned. If I kiss my daughter for the purpose of sexual arousal or to gratify a prurient sexual interest, I've sinned. The act of the kiss itself is neutral with regards to good or evil.

When it comes to sex, the only healthy and moral form of sex is that between a man and a woman who are married to each other. All other forms of sex are evil. When a person engages in an evil form of sex, the evil aspect of that form of sex becomes exciting and sexually stimulating. A person who has sex with a stranger will find the fact that the person is a stranger very exciting and will often try to pursue the experience again. If that person gets married, they will not be having sex with a stranger anymore, so sex with that person's spouse will not be as erotic and exciting as it should be. So the married person will desire sex outside the marital context, which may lead to extramarital affairs, causing the destruction of the marriage.

If a person finds themselves attracted to the same sex, the worst thing they can do is to gratify that passion, just as a person who has sex with a person not their wife has made a serious error in judgment. Basically, we have two dogs in the kennel--a nice dog and a vicious dog. If you're constantly feeding the vicious dog, the dog will only get bigger and more vicious. Eventually the dog will overpower you and kill you. You gotta stop feeding the vicious, addictive dog.

Homosexuality is nothing more than an addition, just as cigarettes or drugs. People also get addicted to sex with strangers, sex with children, sex with animals, inappropriate contentography of various kinds, etc. We all have different proclivities to certain types of addictions. Some people can take pain killers at hospitals and go home without getting addicted. Others will find themselves consumed with the desire to continue using the painkillers and sacrifice all their money and their entire lives to get their next fix. Some people never get the desire to have sex with people of the same gender, some do. If we have a desire to engage in an unhealthy addiction, it's never healthy to feed that addiction. Feeding the addiction only makes it worse. All addictions separate us spiritually from God. I myself am actively fighting certain addictions.

Homosexuality is one of the worst addictions. It goes without saying a person's bowels are not designed to accommodate the insertion of external objects. As a practical matter, it's a very unhealthy and ultimately unpleasant form of intercourse. http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_Bowel_Syndrome#_note-93 A person who is consumed with homosexual sex will be less likely to be married and have children, which I have found to be very satisfying and fulfilling. Many people find it very sad to be over the age of 50 and still not have a family. It makes life, especially around the holidays, very lonely. Homosexuality ultimately causes death. In San Francisco, homosexuals acquire AIDS at a rate of 2.2% per year. By multiplying 2.2% by the number of years a person engages in gay sex, you can get a rough idea of how long it takes that person to get AIDS.

I mentioned that homosexuality is an addiction--it causes sexual desire to boil over and become extremely difficult to control. You can read about homosexual lifestyles here: http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/MarrHoVsHet.htm
"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners."

The result is that homosexuals become epidemiological locus points for disease transmission. If most people have only a few sexual partners, a sexually transmitted disease will peter out. It only takes a relatively few people with a vast number of sexual partners to become an engine for the transmission of diseases through a population. This makes homosexuality a matter of public policy. It's not simply a private matter if people can't control their sexual urges. That's why the Bible bans homosexual intercourse.

That said, God loves homosexuals as much as everyone else. All sins are equivalent in God's eyes--addiction to caffeine and addiction to homosexuality are equivalent in God's eyes, though their practical consequences are considerably different. If a person is willing, God can and will save them from their homosexual desires.

 

[Nathan45]

I mentioned that homosexuality is an addiction--it causes sexual desire to boil over and become extremely difficult to control.

Which is really no different than heterosexual sex.

You can read about homosexual lifestyles here: http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/MarrHoVsHet.htm
"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners."

Question: Do you agree that homosexuals would be overall less promiscuous and less likely to spread STDs if they were allowed to marry?

(these statistics smell fishy but that's besides the point )

 

[uberd00b]

...it's clearly and obviously not.

This does lead to problems.

Not least of which is the inability of this moral statement to be justified in any way other than from the Bible. This of course is no justification at all but amounts to an argument from authority.

There must be an answer to the question "why is it wrong?" or it cannot be called wrong, not even on God's authority.

 

[alerj123]

Homosexuality is nothing more than an addition, just as cigarettes or drugs. People also get addicted to sex with strangers, sex with children, sex with animals, inappropriate contentography of various kinds, etc. We all have different proclivities to certain types of addictions. Some people can take pain killers at hospitals and go home without getting addicted. Others will find themselves consumed with the desire to continue using the painkillers and sacrifice all their money and their entire lives to get their next fix. Some people never get the desire to have sex with people of the same gender, some do. If we have a desire to engage in an unhealthy addiction, it's never healthy to feed that addiction. Feeding the addiction only makes it worse. All addictions separate us spiritually from God. I myself am actively fighting certain addictions.

You are assuming all addictions are bad. The obvious truth is, however, is that they aren't. People are addicted to food, for example. Eating is a habit and if you do not eat you will suffer severe physical and psychological problems. You are implying, however, that homosexuality is a bad addiction. Let's look more closely at why you think it is a bad addiction.

Homosexuality is one of the worst addictions. It goes without saying a person's bowels are not designed to accommodate the insertion of external objects. As a practical matter, it's a very unhealthy and ultimately unpleasant form of intercourse.

Yes, I agree that it is not particularly healthy for a persons bowels to be inserted with external objects. However, for the most part, only gay men take part in this particular sexual act. gay women, for example, have other ways of having sex. Are these ways ok? Furthermore, straight couples also partake in this type of sex relativly frequently, including married couples, is this act equally condemnable and do you therefore condemn all married and straight couples because of the acts of a few? Even more importantly, homosexual men can partake in other sexual actives and completely avoid "the insertion of external objects into the bowels". This argument, therefore, falls flat on its face due to the fact that you are condemning an entire group for the actions of a few and if you were to follow your logic to its completion, all married and straight couples should be equally sinful.

A person who is consumed with homosexual sex will be less likely to be married and have children, which I have found to be very satisfying and fulfilling. Many people find it very sad to be over the age of 50 and still not have a family. It makes life, especially around the holidays, very lonely.

This is a rather foolish reason to condemn homosexuality. Can you think of, maybe, another reason that homosexual couples dont have children and dont marry as often other then because it is "inherently sinful". Mabye because, there are people like you who dont ALLOW them to marry in the first place. Furthermore, because of people like you, society is quite against homosexuality. This makes people less likely to get married because of the social pressure not too.

Homosexuality ultimately causes death. In San Francisco, homosexuals acquire AIDS at a rate of 2.2% per year. By multiplying 2.2% by the number of years a person engages in gay sex, you can get a rough idea of how long it takes that person to get AIDS.

Citation? I have a feeling this is a nice example of a quote mine, and that instead of saying "homosexuals" it says "promiscuous homosexuals". You could probably say something similar about promiscuous heterosexuals.

Besides, the argument that some sort of activity is unsafe therefore wrong is flawed. There are many act ivies that are fundamentally unsafe. For example, driving is very unsafe. But, what do people do who really care about safety do? They make driving safer, they don't just ban it. If you REALLY cared about the safety of homosexuality, you would promote safer sex practices, you wouldn't ban it all together.

If we banned everything that was unsafe, what would be left? I can tell you one thing, any straight sex would be immediately banned, for that is unsafe as well and causes a host of illnesses.

I mentioned that homosexuality is an addiction--it causes sexual desire to boil over and become extremely difficult to control. You can read about homosexual lifestyles here: http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22Sx...arrHoVsHet.htm
"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners."

You should really look into your sources before spouting them off as fact. After a small amount of goggling, I found that the source that your article used for this "fact" is horribly misrepresented. The source your article uses for these numbers was written by Dr. Xiridou. Her study had NOTHING to do with the amount of sexual partners of homsexuals. Instead, the porpous was to "To access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)."

The way they got these numbers was through various protocles, all of them making their numbers incredibly biased when used to just show how many sexual partners homsexuals had. In the end, the study represented the following.

So, what do we have? We have a study population that was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, excluded monogamous participants, was predominantly urban, and under the age of thirty. While this population was good for the purposes of the study, it was in no way representative of Amsterdam’s gay men, let alone gay men anywhere else."
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm

As you see, your numbers are horribly biased. this is simply another example of the anti-gay twisting results to say what they want it to say. You should probably look into your sources a little better in the future.

The result is that homosexuals become epidemiological locus points for disease transmission. If most people have only a few sexual partners, a sexually transmitted disease will peter out. It only takes a relatively few people with a vast number of sexual partners to become an engine for the transmission of diseases through a population. This makes homosexuality a matter of public policy. It's not simply a private matter if people can't control their sexual urges. That's why the Bible bans homosexual intercourse.

This assertion is based on the flawed premise that homosexuals have more sexual partners then heterosexuals. Read above for why your numbers are biased and flawed.

 

[Washington]

Washington, you actually have it backwards--a person's thoughts and intents are what makes something good or evil, not the physicality of touching.

If that is the Bible's view, then what is it about homosexual acts that make them "evil"?

If I kiss my daughter with the intent to express love and affection for her, I have not sinned. If I kiss my daughter for the purpose of sexual arousal or to gratify a prurient sexual interest, I've sinned. The act of the kiss itself is neutral with regards to good or evil.

Okay. But what is it about homosexual acts that make them "evil"?


I was going to continue answering your remarks but I read the rest of what you've said and see they don't really address my OP, so have a good day, True_Blue.

 

[True_Blue]

Which is really no different than heterosexual sex.

Question: Do you agree that homosexuals would be overall less promiscuous and less likely to spread STDs if they were allowed to marry?

(these statistics smell fishy but that's besides the point )

No, I do not agree. For two reasons--statistics show that few homosexuals are interested in marriage or monogamy. It's contrary to the homosexual culture. Second, one can be monogamous without being married. The two are weakly related.

 

[Nathan45]

No, I do not agree. For two reasons--statistics show that few homosexuals are interested in marriage or monogamy. It's contrary to the homosexual culture. Second, one can be monogamous without being married. The two are weakly related.

Most statistics on homosexual lifestyles are actually bogus, i've found, which is why i'm suspicious of the ones you cite. 1000+ partners? i mean, that seems pretty absurd to me, and i've heard stories about statisticians simply making up slander about homosexuals.

 

[stumpjumper]

Much more of an Ethics and Morality topic.

Off it goes...

 

[True_Blue]

You are assuming all addictions are bad. The obvious truth is, however, is that they aren't.

Alerj123, note my use of the word “unhealthy addiction.” I’m addicted to running, which on the whole is not unhealthy. Your criticism of statistics is interesting, but I’ve long noticed that homosexual apologists do not use statistics in good faith. There are two relatively old studies on the life expectancy of homosexual men and women (around 40-45, if I remember correctly). Those studies were relentlessly assaulted, yet no university, government, or polling institution has ever gone out to collect more accurate and up-to-date information on how long the average gay or lesbian person can expect to live. Yet this is the most important statistic relevant to this discussion. I find the absence of such data very enlightening. I firmly believe that liberals and homosexuals don’t want to collect such data because they are extremely afraid of what it will reveal. So Alerj123, I encourage you to apply your mind and study the science of homosexual behavior. There is a huge gap in the research that perhaps you can fill.

The 2.2% HIV contraction rate per year comes from The San Francisco Chronicle, as reported on January 24, 2001.

 

[Mythunderstood]

No, I do not agree. For two reasons--statistics show that few homosexuals are interested in marriage or monogamy. It's contrary to the homosexual culture. Second, one can be monogamous without being married. The two are weakly related.

What is the "homosexual culture"?

 

[True_Blue]

If that is the Bible's view, then what is it about homosexual acts that make them "evil"?

Okay. But what is it about homosexual acts that make them "evil"?


I was going to continue answering your remarks but I read the rest of what you've said and see they don't really address my OP, so have a good day, True_Blue.

There are two related questions that have to be addressed:

1. Why is something evil?
2. Why would something be prohibited in civil law?

Something is evil ultimately because God says so. That's the only definition that works because one person's morality is not better than another's. Only a being greater than people can dictate right and wrong to people. So the best morality is that which best approximates God's intent.

Why might something be prohibited in the civil law? Because it has a deleterious effect on other people. Thoughts can be evil, but thoughts cannot be crimes. Generally speaking, crimes require both an evil intent (mens rea) and an overt act (actus reus). So the Biblical law does not prohibit homosexual thoughts (the mens rea) even though such thoughts are sinful. The Biblical law only prohibits the combination of the mens rea and the actus reus--[the intent and action] of lying with a man as one lies with a woman.

 

[beechy]

Homosexuality is one of the worst addictions. It goes without saying a person's bowels are not designed to accommodate the insertion of external objects. As a practical matter, it's a very unhealthy and ultimately unpleasant form of intercourse. http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_Bowel_Syndrome#_note-93 A person who is consumed with homosexual sex will be less likely to be married and have children, which I have found to be very satisfying and fulfilling. Many people find it very sad to be over the age of 50 and still not have a family. It makes life, especially around the holidays, very lonely.

I've been in a monogamous lesbian relationship for over three years. I have every intention of growing old and enjoying many a holiday with her. We are not consumed with or addicted to sex. And neither of us have gay bowel syndrome.

 

[LightHorseman]

No, I do not agree. For two reasons--statistics show that few homosexuals are interested in marriage or monogamy. It's contrary to the homosexual culture. Second, one can be monogamous without being married. The two are weakly related.

[citation needed] If your going to make massive broad brush statements about entire populations, you might want to have some, you know, FACTS?

 

[LightHorseman]

I've been in a monogamous lesbian relationship for over three years. I have every intention of growing old and enjoying many a holiday with her. We are not consumed with or addicted to sex. And neither of us have gay bowel syndrome.

Does "gay bowel syndrome" exist anywhere in the universe other than in conservapaedia? Serious question.

 

[Verv]

Unnatural...That's interesting because sexual encounters with the same sex occur all the time. Dolphins for instance. Some male dolphins have a lifetime relationship with other male dolphins and have sexual encounters with females simply to procreate. Oh yes...homosexuality is so awful. Homosexuals are an interesting "kind". They go around scouting...looking for other people to "turn" to their ways. With a single bite to the neck, you instantly become a homosexual. Thankfully, we have been blessed with a thing called "gaydar" to protect ourselves with. When a homosexual is approaching, our gaydar will alert us to their presence. This at least gives you a fair shot to run away or place a shield around your neck.

Hey dude, is man a dolphin? Is man any animal besides himself? If we were to take animal's behavior and apply it to mankind then we would sometimes eat our own babies, sometimes be monogamous and other times polygamous; your dad would go around beating up other adult males to have the right to sire you, etc.

The animal world has nothing to do with us and since animals are incapable of higher conscience such as ourselves they are not held responsible for any actions on a moral level.

The rest of what you did was just absurd.

Homosexuality goes against the nature of man as ordained by God; evidence of this is the preference of men to be with women and vice versa that is prevalent. More evidence is the fact that homosexual sex can cause damage to men (and to that extent anal sex amongst married people is also a sinful activity).

It abuses the body, so to speak.

It goes against the natural will...

And more than that: Christians are not supposed to engage in excessive amounts of any pleasure. This includes everything from gluttony towards food to luxury to sex itself being taken to too far of levels.

The reason why the 'missionary' position was recommended by religious institutions as the proper way was to minimize the role of sex in one's life and not turn it into a sort of sport that began dominating your Earthly life.

Christians believe in a sense becoming dead to the world and alive in Christ, doing a sort of penance and bringing themselves closer to God by forsaking pleasures.

Aesthetic practices used to be inherent to most Christians but now they have fallen to the wayside, sadly.

Ideally people only have sex for procreation though 1 Corinthians 7 allows it also to ward off sin and temptation thereof. However, being that homosexuality is naturally a sin that cannot be used as an excuse for practice of even a monogamous homosexual relationship.

Being a homosexual and sleeping with animals are two completely different things. Someone that sleeps with animals obviously has some sort of psychological disorder that causes them to desire animals sexually. This is not the same for homosexuals. We are BORN with our sexual orientations.

And some people may be born with the desire to have sex with animals. So what makes it entirely different? OH yeah, I recognize one is more disgusting than the other but they are both deviations of the sexual desires. As is pedophilia.

They're malfunctions in the brain.

Quite true, but in these cases we readily recognize the bad effects of murdering and stealing. No such harm results from homosexual contact. If the Bible truly does explain this harm I must have missed it, and would appreciate it if you pointed out the text.

The harm from homosexuality is on a larger social level.

First, it dishonors the person and the family.

Second, it pushes the lines of moral behavior back. This seems entirely irrelevant in modern society as we know it but discipline and adherence to local culture and laws was a form of strength and still is. Communities that did not tolerate decadence, indulgence and immorality were communities that were closer and healthier, more prepared for the challenges of the day. People really were 'warriors' in every sense of the word back then.

When the society becomes morally disjointed it is no longer united and can become subject to its neighbors. Do you see what I am saying?

Thirdly, it is irrelevant if the sin does not harm others if it does harm yourself. A person can be a drunk their whole life and never, ever hurt anybody. However, they have still have damaged their spiritual life by beign chemically dependent and also have not honored their parents.

It is irrelevant...

Morality is not measured by what hurts and does not hurt others -- that is rather a measure of a legal code. Even though it is legal to hurt other people's feelings it does not make it morally right.

I fail to see how you can go from a "should" to an "only."
Clearly many, many heterosexuals exist in an unmarried state, so it's obviously not the fact that homosexuals are not living as man and wife that is bothering god. And where does it say that homosexuals who "sleep together" do not become "of one flesh"? And If they don't, why are they singled out for not becoming "of one flesh."

They are singled out of it because Eve came from Adam's rib and thus in a roundabout sense woman and man were intended to be of one flesh from the beginning; it is clear that men and women ought to be attracted to one another and to create families together.

It is abuse of the design that God has of the world, it si a deviation thereof. It is abuse of your own temple primarily and it does bring dishonor to the family and weakens the morals of the greater community.

As I say again... A lot of things do not have inherent harm to the whole society or even to others but are still immoral.

It is not harmful to society in a direct way to abuse a dog or torture a cat but it is wrong; it is not harmful to society directly to to be wrathful. In fact, sometimes wrathful people can use this to benefit themselves and theoretically others... Yet, it is still immoral.

And in Christian morality, sex is for procreation primarily and warding off of sexual impurity. Sex should never be the focus of a relationship

If becoming "of one flesh" is so important where does this put old maids, widows, and widowers? Just because god sanctions one thing does this make everything else sinful? I don't hear of god having sanctioned roller coaster riding or movie attendance, yet Christians seem to have no problem indulging themselves in these activities.

Christ set down specific instances where divorce and re-marriage are good.

It was actually recommended to widows and widowers not to re-marry. Some sects I beleive still think re-marriage is impossible after death.

The only total basis for divorce that God gave was adultery by one party. I tend to agree with this.

If I marry a woman and she dies I do not think I want to get remarried as I cannot have two wives in heaven.

Are you actually saying that homosexuals are incapable of creating loving families? They may not be able to fertilize one another, but this is true of many heterosexual couples as well.

I think they definitely could create a family that is loving but it is not natural to me, and in that sense there is a malfunction.

But logically, you cannot say that they could not create a loving family as homosexuals just as us are capable of doing so.

 

[StarCannon]

...

Then again some of us have long ago stopped caring about what schizophrenic Jahweh has to say because Jahweh is not the ultimate god.