"...against nature:" Always a sin?

[Stinker]

Sexual desire is natural. If the sexual desire in a woman is for women it is unnatural, and if the sexual desire in a man is for men it is unnatural.....but neither is sinful. "....where there is no law, there is no sin." (Rom.4:15)

It is very significant that those who hold the view that 'whatever is unnatural in human nature is sinful' somehow excuse themselves whenever they see someone that was born different from the norm in regards to their body or psychology....and who does not claim to be homosexual.

It is significant that those who believe homosexuality to be sinful, can understand that a man can be born with the body of a male, and have the sex organ of a female....but could not have also been born with the psychology-emotions of a female. Likewise a woman born with the sex organ of a male, that she could not have also been born with the psychology-emotions of a male.

 

[Joykins]

What if I told you that I agreed with you and that I do not have anal sex for those exact reasons.

Does that make me "natural" in your eyes? If I only practice in oral sex with my male lover, I must be natural by your definition.

Cool!!!

But if I were to say that as a heterosexual married woman I practiced anal sex with my husband I would be unnatural and damned to hell for all eternity!

 

[invisible trousers]

i've never liked any of these "nature" arguments on both sides; i don't think they're strong enough to be used as evidence and often are fairly arbitrary.

Oral sex isn't sex -- if you believe Bill Clinton.

The Bible prohibits a man lying with a man as he does with woman. Oral stimulation is part of the range of sexual activities a man has with a woman, so is prohibited for men to do between themselves.

Sorry, Sam. Repent.

the bible also prohibits shaving and cutting your hair (leviticus 20:27), mate two kinds of animals, wear clothing with mix fabric, plant more than one type of seed in a field (20:19), have sex with your wife while she's on her period (18:19), etc etc

sorry, porcupine. repent.

BTW, there are no homosexual animals. True science has observed animals to either be: asexual, bisexual (not in the perverted sense of this word), heterosexual. There are many psuedo-scientific studies claiming to observe homosexual animals, but there has never been any penetration with copulation observed among same sex animals, not even in the Bonobos study. Also, the so called gay penguin is claimed to have been observed by a single lone zoo keeper, that is hardly scientific. Reasonable people base opinions on science fact not science fiction. So even animals in nature act with more wisdom about their sexuality than homosexuals do.

you've made some interesting claims. prove them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality has some interesting information about animal sexuality, but i'm not really going to make anything of it. also, i think one of you is going to complain about wikipedia again. this time you need to show how the page and sources on it are wrong.

 

[jasperbound]

As a male, it is in my genes to breed breed breed and not necessarily with just one woman! In fact, I'd say that if I had the opportunity (and was given free reign to do whatever I desired), I'd mate with at least 10,000 women, but try to hit that million milestone (and surpass it). I just thought I'd point out this natural urge I have.

Let me make a correction that is scientific:

Based on observation, animals are not homosexual. They resort to what might be concidered homosexual if the ratio of male:female is significantly unballanced, but it is not a permanent thing, nor is it a thing that occurs in a perfectly ballanced male:female environment. The gay penguine was such an example - there were drastically more male penguines than there were female penguines.

Also, we should note that penguins have participated in what is best described as prostitution. Therefore, one could make the argument that prostitution is natural and therefore not a sin.

 

[invisible trousers]

As a male, it is in my genes to breed breed breed and not necessarily with just one woman! In fact, I'd say that if I had the opportunity (and was given free reign to do whatever I desired), I'd mate with at least 10,000 women, but try to hit that million milestone (and surpass it). I just thought I'd point out this natural urge I have.

you've got a ways to go though. wilt chamberlain has scored with like 25,000 women

 

[intricatic]

you've made some interesting claims. prove them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality has some interesting information about animal sexuality, but i'm not really going to make anything of it. also, i think one of you is going to complain about wikipedia again. this time you need to show how the page and sources on it are wrong.

Even if those claims could be substantiated outside of fond hopes passed on as truth, does it mean that we are slaves to our circumstance, and that all circumstances are equally 'natural' or 'good'?

 

[JunkYardDog]

Even if those claims could be substantiated outside of fond hopes passed on as truth, does it mean that we are slaves to our circumstance, and that all circumstances are equally 'natural' or 'good'?

The mark of being a truly human being -- especially in the Christian sense -- is that we do not live by our urges, but rather control them and even deny GOOD urges for a greater good. It is called sacrifice. There is little in the way of true sacrifice in the animal world. There is no protection for the weak or handicapped, for instance.

 

[intricatic]

The mark of being a truly human being -- especially in the Christian sense -- is that we do not live by our urges, but rather control them and even deny GOOD urges for a greater good. It is called sacrifice. There is little in the way of true sacrifice in the animal world. There is no protection for the weak or handicapped, for instance.

That's sort of what I mean, even in secular thinking, that idea is perverted to mean something else. I.E. The greater good of society, the greater good of government, etc... I just find it an interesting train of thought. Be it a confusing and contradictory one, but still quite interesting.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

a man can be born with the body of a male, and have the sex organ of a female....but could not have also been born with the psychology-emotions of a female. Likewise a woman born with the sex organ of a male, that she could not have also been born with the psychology-emotions of a male.

...and the moon is made out of cheese.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

you've made some interesting claims. prove them

Prove what claim? that no homosexual penetration or copulation occured in these so called animal homosexual studies. Read them for yourself. When you find one let me know, I won't be holding my breath.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

the bible also prohibits shaving and cutting your hair (leviticus 20:27), mate two kinds of animals, wear clothing with mix fabric, plant more than one type of seed in a field (20:19), have sex with your wife while she's on her period (18:19), etc etc

Apples to oranges.
These are not specifically labeled an abomination like homosexuality is. These also did not deserve the death penalty like homosexuality. These also are not moral issues like homosexuality. The moral aspects of the law are still in force in the New Testament.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Even if those claims could be substantiated outside of fond hopes passed on as truth, does it mean that we are slaves to our circumstance, and that all circumstances are equally 'natural' or 'good'?

Good point. What's next... homosexuals drinking out of toilets and eating vomit because dogs do?

 

[intricatic]

Good point. What's next... homosexuals drinking out of toilets and eating vomit because dogs do?

Indeed. If they want to be consistent at least.

 

[jasperbound]

Sexual desire is natural. If the sexual desire in a woman is for women it is unnatural, and if the sexual desire in a man is for men it is unnatural.....but neither is sinful. "....where there is no law, there is no sin." (Rom.4:15)

That verse is my license to steal, pillage, and kill.

 

[Stinker]

Posted by: Stinker

Sexual desire is natural. If the sexual desire in a woman is for women it is unnatural, and if the sexual desire in a man is for men it is unnatural.....but neither is sinful. "....where there is no law, there is no sin." (Rom.4:15)

That verse is my license to steal, pillage, and kill.

It appears that you do not understand that God placed this sexual desire in us. In a perfect world, the man whose psychology-emotion is also male, is sexually attracted to the female whose psychology-emotions are also female. It is just too bad that this is not a perfect world.

 

[JunkYardDog]

Posted by: Stinker

Sexual desire is natural. If the sexual desire in a woman is for women it is unnatural, and if the sexual desire in a man is for men it is unnatural.....but neither is sinful. "....where there is no law, there is no sin." (Rom.4:15)


It appears that you do not understand that God placed this sexual desire in us. In a perfect world, the man whose psychology-emotion is also male, is sexually attracted to the female whose psychology-emotions are also female. It is just too bad that this is not a perfect world.

I know you keep repeating this myth about a person whose body is one sex but their psychology/emotions are the other, but there is no evidence at all that anyone is born with this. I suspect that some experiences may help warp their psychology like that, but this is not innate.

 

[beechy]

Science helps. It helps us to know what the nature of the object is. If the lining inside is designed to be one way and is fragile (compared to, let's say, a vagina -- which is also designed for BOTH WAY) and that the sphincter loses its normal and natural ability due to repeated misuse as an entrance for the wrong objects, then science assists what is an obvious conclusion even without science -- that it is an exit, not an entrance.

Here we go again with another "natural law" = homosexuality-is-morally-wrong discussion. Ok. I'll bite.

How do you conclude that because you can somehow glean one observable, “rational” purpose for something in “nature”, that another use is somehow impermissible/immoral/”against nature”? I can find no support for this notion. My feet, for example, are made for walking. You can observe this by where they are located on my body, what their physiology seems to support, etc. But I also use my feet to kick things (an activity which can injure me if I’m not careful), and to tap along to music. Are these uses “against nature”? Trees are made for, what?, shade for forest animals? Providing fruit for us to eat? But children also use them as jungle gyms, or support for their tree houses. And we cut them down to build houses with and mash into paper. “Against nature”? My back is made for supporting my body, and holding me upright. Sometimes I tell my little cousin to hop on it, however, and use it to give her a "horsie" ride. Condemnable? Again, how do you conclude that just because you can glean one observable “purpose” for something that all other uses are “against nature”?

But beechy, Just Because Something Can be Done Doesn’t Necessarily Mean It Should be done, you say. Some point to the potential physical harm that can come from certain kinds of homosexual sex. But this argument would have to assume that there are no potential health risks or dangers that can come from having heterosexual vaginal sex. This just isn’t the case. A woman can (and many women do) get urinary tract infections from simply having regular vaginal intercourse because female physiology is such that unwanted bacteria can easily get forced into the vaginal canal during intercourse. If left untreated, aside from being extraordinarily painful, UTI’s can develop into serious problems such as kidney infections and pelvic inflammatory disease, which can lead to sterility. What's more, the "potential for harm = against nature" argument also only gets half the job done when you're talking about homosexuality, since it doesn't address lesbian sex which (without violating forum rules by introducing explicit descriptions/explanations) is no more likely (perhaps even less likely) to involve anal sex than an intimate relationship between a heterosexual couple would.

In sum, the simple observation that an activity carries a potential health risk does not support the argument that it is worthy of moral condemnation and/or “against nature”. There are lots of ways we use our bodies that could potentially harm them. I’ve never heard anyone object to baseball, for example, as an “unnatural” activity which should be condemned because pitchers are destroying their rotator cuffs … might this be because many of us like baseball, and it's a mainstream part of our culture?

 

[jasperbound]

It appears that you do not understand that God placed this sexual desire in us. In a perfect world, the man whose psychology-emotion is also male, is sexually attracted to the female whose psychology-emotions are also female. It is just too bad that this is not a perfect world.

I understand He has, just as He placed this desire for me to kill my enemies into me. Of course, one might argue that God didn't actually place this desire into me, and even if He didn't, using that verse to argue that there is no sin is to argue that murder is not a sin. Surely that verse did not simply refer to homosexuality, right?

 

[Stinker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by: Stinker

It appears that you do not understand that God placed this sexual desire in us. In a perfect world, the man whose psychology-emotion is also male, is sexually attracted to the female whose psychology-emotions are also female. It is just too bad that this is not a perfect world.

I understand He has, just as He placed this desire for me to kill my enemies into me. Of course, one might argue that God didn't actually place this desire into me, and even if He didn't, using that verse to argue that there is no sin is to argue that murder is not a sin. Surely that verse did not simply refer to homosexuality, right?

You know, I made a mistake in my post. I put the word 'this' instead of the word 'the' in the first sentence! It made the sentence say that I was gay when I am not! But you know what? It brought out how irrationally aggressive you are on this issue jasperbound! To deny that God placed the sex-drive in his creation.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Here we go again with another "natural law" = homosexuality-is-morally-wrong discussion. Ok. I'll bite.

How do you conclude that because you can somehow glean one observable, “rational” purpose for something in “nature”, that another use is somehow impermissible/immoral/”against nature”? I can find no support for this notion. My feet, for example, are made for walking. You can observe this by where they are located on my body, what their physiology seems to support, etc. But I also use my feet to kick things (an activity which can injure me if I’m not careful), and to tap along to music. Are these uses “against nature”? Trees are made for, what?, shade for forest animals? Providing fruit for us to eat? But children also use them as jungle gyms, or support for their tree houses. And we cut them down to build houses with and mash into paper. “Against nature”? My back is made for supporting my body, and holding me upright. Sometimes I tell my little cousin to hop on it, however, and use it to give her a "horsie" ride. Condemnable? Again, how do you conclude that just because you can glean one observable “purpose” for something that all other uses are “against nature”?

But beechy, Just Because Something Can be Done Doesn’t Necessarily Mean It Should be done, you say. Some point to the potential physical harm that can come from certain kinds of homosexual sex. But this argument would have to assume that there are no potential health risks or dangers that can come from having heterosexual vaginal sex. This just isn’t the case. A woman can (and many women do) get urinary tract infections from simply having regular vaginal intercourse because female physiology is such that unwanted bacteria can easily get forced into the vaginal canal during intercourse. If left untreated, aside from being extraordinarily painful, UTI’s can develop into serious problems such as kidney infections and pelvic inflammatory disease, which can lead to sterility. What's more, the "potential for harm = against nature" argument also only gets half the job done when you're talking about homosexuality, since it doesn't address lesbian sex which (without violating forum rules by introducing explicit descriptions/explanations) is no more likely (perhaps even less likely) to involve anal sex than an intimate relationship between a heterosexual couple would.

In sum, the simple observation that an activity carries a potential health risk does not support the argument that it is worthy of moral condemnation and/or “against nature”. There are lots of ways we use our bodies that could potentially harm them. I’ve never heard anyone object to baseball, for example, as an “unnatural” activity which should be condemned because pitchers are destroying their rotator cuffs … might this be because many of us like baseball, and it's a mainstream part of our culture?

I'll concede my "homosexuality is against nature" stance if you can provide one instance of a baby being born out of a man's colon.