The Bible calls homosexual activity wrong, but . . .

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
44
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
My lesbian friend loves to remind me that lesbian sex is far less likely to result in injury or illness than heterosexual sex

I've only ever seen one study on average lesbian life expectancies, and it was shockingly low, somewhere around 44-45. The survey itself had clear flaws, but no university, government, or similar institution has taken itself to measure lesbian life expectancies and fill the gap in human knowledge. I think people are afraid to peer into this realm of study out of fear of what they might find.

I'm happy that you're currently healthy, lighthorseman, and I hope you remain that way.
 
Upvote 0

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
44
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
In order to assume ANY of that, you have to assume that homosexuals are incapable of actually loving their partner and are simply in it for the gratification. Which is simply not true. There are homosexuals who vow to remain pure until they're married/unified/whatever they call it just like there are heterosexuals. Now why would someone who is only in it for the gratification make a vow like that?

There are lots of meanings for the word "love." The agape kind of love, the self-sacrificial, unconditional kind of love, is love in conformity with God's character. Two homosexuals can't love each other in the agape way as long as they are engaging in sexual behavior with each other.
 
Upvote 0

FaithLikeARock

Let the human mind loose.
Nov 19, 2007
2,802
287
California
✟4,662.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
There are lots of meanings for the word "love." The agape kind of love, the self-sacrificial, unconditional kind of love, is love in conformity with God's character. Two homosexuals can't love each other in the agape way as long as they are engaging in sexual behavior with each other.

How do you know?
 
Upvote 0

PetersKeys

Traditionalist Catholic , Paleo-conservative
Mar 4, 2008
536
36
42
✟8,376.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.

There is great harm in homosexual acts. You may say "well its just sex , how can it hurt". There are many factors both physical and spiritual. First the homosexual community has a very high suicide rate, which shows there is great post-coital depression in gay couples. The worst is what it does to the state of your soul, which puts you in a state of mortal sin and denial. Lastly the per captia percentage of AIDS and other STDS in the gay community has a much higher per captia rate than heterosexuals. Meaning if you are gay you have greatly a higher risk of a lower life span. I believe the average life of a homosexual is a little over 40 years old. Lastly the sex in itself is dangerous, since the colon was designed to expel waste and has a very thin walls that are not designed to have things inserted against it. There is always risks of things like fissures, perforation, and infection due to contact with bacteria like e-coli and salmenella.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
I've only ever seen one study on average lesbian life expectancies, and it was shockingly low, somewhere around 44-45. The survey itself had clear flows, but no university, government, or similar institution has taken itself to measure lesbian life expectancies and fill the gap in human knowledge. I think people are afraid to peer into this realm of study out of fear of what they might find.

I'm happy that you're currently healthy, lighthorseman, and I hope you remain that way.
I'm a straight male, FYI, but I've seen a great deal of studies that clearly show lesbian sex reports in the lowest rate of disease transmission and activity related trauma of any of the various sexual orientations out there.

Something like this:
Homosexuals have the highest rate of STD transmission,
Heterosexuals have the highest rates of activity related trauma and injury
Lesbians have virtually zero incidence of either.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
If heterosexual sex results in injury, I think one is doing it wrong...
Couldn't the same be said for homosexual sex?

You might be surprised to look up sex related trauma.

Don't even get me started on the hideous injurioes you can get from natural childbirth
 
Upvote 0

icedtea

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2006
22,181
1,738
Ohio
✟30,909.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
There is great harm in homosexual acts. You may say "well its just sex , how can it hurt". There are many factors both physical and spiritual. First the homosexual community has a very high suicide rate, which shows there is great post-coital depression in gay couples. Lastly the per captia percentage of AIDS and other STDS in the gay community has a much higher per captia rate than heterosexuals. Meaning if you are gay you have greatly a higher risk of a lower life span. I believe the average life of a homosexual is a little over 40 years old. Lastly the sex in itself is dangerous, since the colon was designed to expel waste and has a very thin walls that are not designed to have things inserted against it. There is always risks of things like fissures, perforation, and infection due to contact with bacteria like e-coli and salmenella.
Where to begin?High suicicde rate can be explained by societal disapproval.
Where did you get the statistics of more gays have aids than straights? Not Africa?
A little over 40 years old? Quentin Crisp disagrees.
 
Upvote 0

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
44
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
So if an activity "can cause damage" that's evidence that it is sinful? Like rock climbing? Or football?

What makes you think that my relationship with my monogamous same sex partner involves any more sex than that of the average heterosexual couples?

What does it mean for something to "naturally" be a sin? Is there also an "artificial" sin?

Animals and children can't consent. But, frankly, I don't care if you want to have sex with your dog.

Morality is a measure of a legal code ... Moral = Complies with legal code ... So what should be the basis for this legal code which morality is a measure of? The Bible? Do you think America should be a theocracy?

What makes you think sex is the focus of my relationship?

Interestingly, I've heard lesbians have sex only once every 30 days on average, far less than heterosexual couples, so no, I don't think that lesbianism involves more sex. This is just one more reason I believe married, heterosexual relationships are vastly superior to lesbianism. My two daughters bearing the genes of both my wife and I are another huge superiority. No homosexual couple can see each other in the eyes of their children. Instead, all they see are their own genes + plus some third party, or the complete absence of their own genes. Homosexuality is inherently inferior to heterosexuality in every way.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
There are lots of meanings for the word "love." The agape kind of love, the self-sacrificial, unconditional kind of love, is love in conformity with God's character. Two homosexuals can't love each other in the agape way as long as they are engaging in sexual behavior with each other.
I know a lot of homosexuals who will disagree with you. What makes you so sure that their fully commited, long term romantic love isn't the same as the sort heterosexuals feel? It sure looks the same... I mean, mutually supporting relationships with long term commitment... how is that not love?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

icedtea

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2006
22,181
1,738
Ohio
✟30,909.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You might be surprised to look up sex related trauma.

Don't even get me started on the hideous injurioes you can get from natural childbirth
Not if theres photos I won't look it up!
Yes, I was one of the lucky ones who gave birth safely.:sorry:
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
There is great harm in homosexual acts. You may say "well its just sex , how can it hurt". There are many factors both physical and spiritual. First the homosexual community has a very high suicide rate, which shows there is great post-coital depression in gay couples. The worst is what it does to the state of your soul, which puts you in a state of mortal sin and denial. Lastly the per captia percentage of AIDS and other STDS in the gay community has a much higher per captia rate than heterosexuals. Meaning if you are gay you have greatly a higher risk of a lower life span. I believe the average life of a homosexual is a little over 40 years old. Lastly the sex in itself is dangerous, since the colon was designed to expel waste and has a very thin walls that are not designed to have things inserted against it. There is always risks of things like fissures, perforation, and infection due to contact with bacteria like e-coli and salmenella.
citation needed dude...

Prove that suicide rates amongst homosexuals is due to "post coital depression", and not, for example, because of constant vilification and condemnation by society?
 
Upvote 0

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
44
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Are you sure you're right about that?
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28). It doesn't make sense for something to be a "permissible" (i.e., "not prohibited") sin, does it? Now whether homosexuality is a sin at all is another question altogether ...

You're right--it's a sin to look at a woman lustfully (unless she's your wife, of course). God looks into our minds and sees our thoughts and our intentions. Society requires evidence, and can't practically punish thoughts as crimes unless the thoughts are expressed in the physical world by an actus reus.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
Interestingly, I've heard lesbians have sex only once every 30 days on average, far less than heterosexual couples, so no, I don't think that lesbianism involves more sex. This is just one more reason I believe married, heterosexual relationships are vastly superior to lesbianism. My two daughters bearing the genes of both my wife and I are another huge superiority. No homosexual couple can see each other in the eyes of their children. Instead, all they see are their own genes + plus some third party, or the complete absence of their own genes. Homosexuality is inherently inferior to heterosexuality in every way.
Lesbianism is inferior because they don't have sex as much?
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
You're right--it's a sin to look at a woman lustfully (unless she's your wife, of course). God looks into our minds and sees our thoughts and our intentions. Society requires evidence, and can't practically punish thoughts as crimes unless the thoughts are expressed in the physical world by an actus reus.
Oh Gawd, more "thought police for Jesus"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
Not if theres photos I won't look it up!
Yes, I was one of the lucky ones who gave birth safely.:sorry:
Well even without photos, its an interesting subject. I did a case study on it during my A&E prac... its a LOT more common than you'd think... but just like ANY physical activity there are associated risks.
 
Upvote 0

beechy

Senior Veteran
Mar 24, 2005
3,235
264
✟12,390.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
Interestingly, I've heard lesbians have sex only once every 30 days on average, far less than heterosexual couples, so no, I don't think that lesbianism involves more sex. This is just one more reason I believe married, heterosexual relationships are vastly superior to lesbianism.
Heterosexuals are vastly superior to lesbians because they have more sex??? Never heard this argument before. So gay men are inferior because they have too much sex. And lesbian women are inferior because they don't have enough.

My two daughters bearing the genes of both my wife and I are another huge superiority. No homosexual couple can see each other in the eyes of their children. Instead, all they see are their own genes + plus some third party, or the complete absence of their own genes.
My cousin was adopted as an infant by my aunt and uncle who love him to BITS. Are you saying they love him less than they would if they could "see each other in [his] eyes"? Would you would love your adopted children less than your biological ones? Or are you saying you would never consider adopting because this would result in an inferior family?
 
  • Like
Reactions: icedtea
Upvote 0

beechy

Senior Veteran
Mar 24, 2005
3,235
264
✟12,390.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
You're right--it's a sin to look at a woman lustfully (unless she's your wife, of course). God looks into our minds and sees our thoughts and our intentions. Society requires evidence, and can't practically punish thoughts as crimes unless the thoughts are expressed in the physical world by an actus reus.
But you said the Bible (not civil law) only prohibits actus reus.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟57,368.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
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.

Except he wasn't trying to claim that man is a dolphin, rather he was countering your claim of "unnatural". He was simply showing that since it is common in nature, it cannot be unnatural.

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.

See, here you seem to prove his point for him. Since the do what is "natural" rather than acting consciously, homosexuality is a natural occurrence.

The rest of what you did was just absurd.

So you claim but much of what you claim appears to be 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.

But preferences or prevalence have nothing to do with what is natural. If prevalence determined what is natural, both blond hair and blue eyes would be "unnatural" since both occur less frequently than homosexuality.

As for Romans 1, where most Christians get this idea of "unnatural", there are two problems. First, the chapter is talking about what occurred with those who rejected God. The homosexual acts occur after these people rejected God, they do not appear to be homosexual prior to that. Which plays into the second point: this word is used to talk about what is natural for the person (not for all people). Paul uses it in later writing when he talks about God going against his nature (I think you would agree that God wouldn't go against nature, like you are wanting to use the word against homosexuals).

So, it would appear those people in Romans 1 were heterosexual who had homosexual sex -- something common in some Greek Pagan rites, which fits in with the idea that these people rejected God and replaced him with idols.

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).

And heterosexual sex can (and does) cause damage in women. So does this mean heterosexual sex is sinful as well?

It abuses the body, so to speak.

Again, just like heterosexual sex can. Though, I notice you are only talking of anal sex, something lesbians don't practice. So does this mean lesbianism is okay?

It goes against the natural will...

Proof? In fact, pretty much all the evidence here (aside from your interpretation of the Bible) goes against you.

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.

So, since lesbians in a committed relationship (see lesbian bed death) likely have less sex than heterosexuals, does this mean they are even more righteous?

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. [/quote]

So basically, God expects homosexuals to have more sexual control than heterosexuals?

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.

Except you have zero evidence of this. The Bible doesn't support this view (other than a using a questionable interpretation of Romans 1). And every major medical and psychiatric organization disagrees with you on this one. Not to mention, even using statistics from the various ex-gay organizations, the vast majority of homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation.

If just being homosexual is "unnatural" like you claim, should not a majority (if not all) be able to "cure" homosexuality through the help of these Christian organizations? Yet for some reason, even using unverified statistics provided but the ex-gay groups, less than 20% can actually change. And if you use the claims of someone that actually tried doing a scientific study, one touted by the ex-gay groups, only 3% of homosexuals are capable of changing their orientation.

The harm from homosexuality is on a larger social level.

First, it dishonors the person and the family.

Do you have any evidence for that at all?

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.

It sounds like you are trying to claim the lawless days of the "wild wild west" were more moral (despite the prevalence of prostitutes and murders) than today. I'm sorry, the way we treated minorities (including the Italians, Irish, Blacks, etc.) makes it hard to claim those days were "moral". In fact, it would be fairly easy to show that "morality" in the "good old days" had less to do with morality and more to do with being part of the majority.

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?

And this plays into what I just said. In fact, this is why the arguments made against homosexuality today mirror, almost exactly, the arguments made against minorities historically. The idea isn't "moral", it's "they aren't like us".

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.

Except that there is no evidence that homosexuality harms the person -- except your belief that they will be judged by God for it after they die.

It is irrelevant...

So why did you make those claims if they are irrelevant? :scratch:

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.

Which just brings us back to an argument of what is moral. And there are lots of Christians who disagree with your claims of what is moral, not to mention the non-Christians.

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.

But as has been said numerous times on this thread, just because something was "intended" does not make unintended results bad.

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.

So you claim, but this is not even a universal belief among Christians.

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.

Except there are many (possibly even most) that find that abusing animals is directly harmful to society -- at least in part because it often is a precursor to abusing people. And that by teaching people that abuse of any sort is wrong when they are doing it to animals keeps these people from abusing people. And that is just one of the arguments.

As for "wrath", I think you'd have a hard time making an argument that it is always immoral, unless you are wanting to claim that God has acted immorally. In some cases, it even seems like the sentences given by the law are a form of wrath.

And in Christian morality, sex is for procreation primarily and warding off of sexual impurity.

At least according to you. Then again, I can remember fundamentalists here quoting the statement about how "fundamentalists have the best sex" -- which seems to be contrary to what you are claiming Christians believe.

If you had limited it to a belief that is primarily limited to the tenets of the Catholic church, I might agree, but most Protestant denominations do not agree with this idea.

Sex should never be the focus of a relationship

I'll agree. Yet I have seen little evidence that it is a problem in homosexual relationships. In fact, as linked earlier, it definitely is not a problem in lesbian relationships.

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.

Yet what does this have to do with the OP?

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.

And here we get to the truth... it is not "natural" to you. In the same way heterosexual sex is not "natural" to a homosexual. But you are trying to make it so everyone has to live by what you feel is right and "natural".

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

So you appear to accept you have no evidence for your claims, and that reality contradicts your claims.
 
Upvote 0