Another question about homosexuality

[aldar]

...why cant we just...answer her question without making excuses..?
all of your reasons come from the bible... so just say it... BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO.
i mean...alteast stop fronting.

 

[FrAnthony]

The arguement from nature is nonsense. Homosexuality is not exactly unknown in the rest of the animal kingdom. In fact it's surprisingly quite common.

You'll have to do better than just saying it's nonsense because other animals do it. Somebody, somewhere, is always doing something different so that really isn't a complete or valid explanation.

If all living things were to practice homosexuality alone, then nature would cease to exist. If all living things were to practice sexuality as originally intended (Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve) then nature is able to continue. Therefore, the practice of homosexuality is not natural. It seems simple enough to understand. Why else would we have male and female? If homosexuality was natural, we would all be the same gender...there probably wouldn't even be a word like "gender".

Remember...the OP chooses to ignore Scripture, so we can't fall back on anything that is in Scripture. Without Scripture, what's left if not creation itself (a.k.a. nature)? If all the Bibles in the world were to disappear overnight and be erased from everyone's mind, we would still be able to look at nature and determine that the practice of homosexuality is not in line with the way things work in nature...the way that God intended things to be. If we go against the way things are created, then, by default, we miss the mark ("sin").

Thanks be to God, we have a way to reconcile ourselves when we do things that go against God's Will...oh, but wait, that involves Scripture.

 

[FrAnthony]

...why cant we just...answer her question without making excuses..?
all of your reasons come from the bible... so just say it... BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO.
i mean...alteast stop fronting.

I agree to the point that it is rediculous to throw out Scripture, because it's like saying "OK, if you don't include anything from the point of creation until today, then what's to say this is right/wrong?".

However, in my opinion, an important point can be made that it is possible to determine the Will of God outside of Scripture. Granted, it's much harder...but it is possible, especially with something so basic as the practice of homosexuality.

 

[calidog]

There is no justification for saying that homosexuality is a sin outside a narrowly-defined inaccurate translation of no more than about 5 verses in the Bible.

The arguement from nature is nonsense. Homosexuality is not exactly unknown in the rest of the animal kingdom. In fact it's surprisingly quite common.

don't believe the Fundies, it's bad for you.

If there were six verses would that be justification? ten? twenty?

If a dog does it, does that justify it? Who's image is man made in?

 

[calidog]

I was wondering why homosexuality is a sin, besides because the Bible said so?

I think it's a fair question (though unbalanced).

I believe a christian can give reasons (convictions of the HS) as to "why" outside of the bible.

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

Speaking from a farming perspective. Animals only display this behavior around mating time in the absence of another animal of the opposite sex. If you bring in their opposite they will choose that over the same sex.
It's a bit of a stupid argument really. Dogs are also prone to humping their owners legs if denied a female does this mean with animals is OK too! Of course not and as we are a little higher than animals and not driven to run off into the night to mate with a female dog in heat I think the comparison is a bit daft.

I believe it is wrong because the bible defines it as such and I believe the bible to have the final word on life's moral standards for my life. Do I force others who do not believe that the bible is God inspired to do likewise.. No I don't each person is responsible for his/her own choices.

 

[CinemaStranger]

Ok, no more equating homosexuality with cannibalism.

And I *think* the poster meant to ask 'Why is homosexuality wrong, besides the Bible saying so?' rather than why is it a sin.

And to my knowledge, outside of religion, there is no reason to say homosexuality is wrong. As for homosexuality "not being supported in nature", it is, it serves a purpose--homosexuality is found rather abundantly in species of over-population. Population control.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I thought it was obvious that men and women are made for eachother. It's kind of like asking "Why is it wrong to put the square shaped block in the circle shaped hole?"

However, a former Taoist would bring up the principle of Yin/Yang. Yin and yang are complimentary opposites. Night and day, male and female, hot and cold, soft and hard. Too have too much of one and none of the other is aberrant. It's yin and yang, not yin and yin, not yang and yang.

At the end of the day we are all sinners and deserve Hell. Jesus offers you a way out. Are you courageous enough to take it?

 

[aldar]

I agree to the point that it is rediculous to throw out Scripture, because it's like saying "OK, if you don't include anything from the point of creation until today, then what's to say this is right/wrong?".

However, in my opinion, an important point can be made that it is possible to determine the Will of God outside of Scripture. Granted, it's much harder...but it is possible, especially with something so basic as the practice of homosexuality.

well...as for your last statement, while some would certainly agree...many would not, i think that is a souley conservative point of view.
i do not believe homosexuality is unnatural or wrong.(though changing me isnt the objective of this post) i dont believe your perseption can be found in nature alone.
"blocks fitting in circle shaped holes..." "adam and eve, not adam and steve" are just cheap slurs that dont bring alot of credibility, and they arent quality representations of "nature". those comes from a pre-formed bias.
men have round holes in them too...
a doctor can stick his finger in a males rectal area and make him ejacualate for a sperm sample...
does that mean men are made to enjoy insertion or sexuality in that area? you certainly would disagree...

unless you link all the fetishes in the world too nasty little demonic tricks... how do you deal with the fact that there are many ways to stimulate diffrent people? not just the common conservative christian style of sexuality, how does this fit with your view of whats natural and whats not?

while nature might show procreation as a diffrent gender activity, nature doesnt show that sex is simply for procreation.
it might as well have been a non sensual act of sticking a males big toe in a womans mouth... if it were simply for procreation.

 

[artybloke]

So, how many Bible verses have to condemn something before it's wrong?

There are no verses, taken in their proper historical and linguistic context, that unequivocally say that all homosexual acts are condemned.

Text without context is pretext, and it's not the first time the Bible has been used to justify prejudice and it won't be the last.

 

[Robinsegg]

Sin was originally an archery term, meaning to "miss the mark" or to "miss the target". In a religious context, "sin" means to "miss the target" that God set up. God's standards, God's target. We learn about God's standards in the Bible. We don't learn about them outside the Bible.

Therefore, I cannot explain why anything is sin outside Scripture.

Rachel

 

[BelindaP]

I am requesting a point of clarification from the OP. Are you looking for answers from religions outside of Christianity, or are you looking for a naturalistic reason why homosexuality is wrong?

I'm asking because you use the word 'sin' which implies a standard based on some form of religion. Otherwise, a better term would be 'wrong'.

 

[MikeMcK]

There are no verses, taken in their proper historical and linguistic context, that unequivocally say that all homosexual acts are condemned.

Actually, there are many verses that tell us that homosexuality is condemned.

You seem to be the only person here who does not know them.

Text without context is pretext, and it's not the first time the Bible has been used to justify prejudice and it won't be the last.

Actually, the quote is, "Text without context is prooftext." Not pretext.

 

[KarateCowboy]

There are no verses, taken in their proper historical and linguistic context, that unequivocally say that all homosexual acts are condemned.

Text without context is pretext, and it's not the first time the Bible has been used to justify prejudice and it won't be the last.

Ignore this guy. He's a revisionist who wants to rewrite scripture.

 

[artybloke]

Ignore this guy. He's a revisionist who wants to rewrite scripture.

Ignore this guy. He's a fundie who wants to rewrite scripture to prove how conservative he is.

 

[MikeMcK]

Ok, no more equating homosexuality with cannibalism.

I didn't equate homosexuality with cannibalism.

A poster made the claim that homosexuality must be OK because animals in the wild do it.

I was simply asking how far he was willing to go with the logic that, if an animal does it, it must be morally OK.

If you're going to make the claim that animals do it, therefore, it must be OK, then it's perfectly reasonable to ask what other things are OK because animals do them.

If you're going to make the claim that homosexuality is OK because animals in the wild do it, then it's perfectly reasonable to ask if that logic also applies to cannibalism, since animals do that, too.

 

[Space]

Ignore this guy. He's a revisionist who wants to rewrite scripture.

Ignore this guy. He's a fundie who wants to rewrite scripture to prove how conservative he is.

Would "ignore this guy" be a very Christ-like attitude?

 

[Robinsegg]

Would "ignore this guy" be a very Christ-like attitude?

This reply is only best if anger is going to get the best of one, keeping one from a civil reply. Otherwise, it comes across much more as an insult.

Rachel

 

[KarateCowboy]

Ignore this guy. He's a fundie who wants to rewrite scripture to prove how conservative he is.

Too bad for you I am neither a fundamentalist or a conservative. I am a moderate, and if I chose any denomination, it would be Catholic.

 

[*Starlight*]

Not all Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong, it's one of the many controversial issues within Christianity. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with homosexual relationships.