ASIDE from apparent Biblical injunctions...

[EnemyPartyII]

So, I speak what comes from the bible.

wELL THIS THREAD IS SUPPOSED TO BE A FORUM FOR PEOPLE TO EXPLAIN THEIR POSITION without TROTTING OUT TIRED IRRELEVANT bIBLE VERSES, SO, EITHER EXPLAIN HOW, IN OBSERVABLE REALITY, (oops, sorry caps) physical intimacy destroys same sex relationships, or don't say such things in the first place.

All I've ever asked for is objective evidence...

 

[david_x]

in the same way that loving opposite sex relationships are good because they need physical contact.

They don't need physical contact, physical contact is somthing that grows out of a relationship.

 

[david_x]

wELL THIS THREAD IS SUPPOSED TO BE A FORUM FOR PEOPLE TO EXPLAIN THEIR POSITION without TROTTING OUT TIRED IRRELEVANT bIBLE VERSES, SO, EITHER EXPLAIN HOW, IN OBSERVABLE REALITY, (oops, sorry caps) physical intimacy destroys same sex relationships, or don't say such things in the first place.

All I've ever asked for is objective evidence...

I'm sorry what i said sounded mean.

 

[ReformedChapin]

wELL THIS THREAD IS SUPPOSED TO BE A FORUM FOR PEOPLE TO EXPLAIN THEIR POSITION without TROTTING OUT TIRED IRRELEVANT bIBLE VERSES, SO, EITHER EXPLAIN HOW, IN OBSERVABLE REALITY, (oops, sorry caps) physical intimacy destroys same sex relationships, or don't say such things in the first place.

All I've ever asked for is objective evidence...

The bible is objective and clear

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The bible is objective and clear

No its not, nor is it relevent in this thread.

 

[ReformedChapin]

No its not, nor is it relevent in this thread.

Yes it is, it's the absolute truth. And without the bible we can all come to arbitrary conclusions depending on our espistemology. Asking a christian an ethical question without the bible is like asking a bird to fly without wings.

 

[BereanTodd]

I'm interested to know if anyone has any reason why we should consider homosexuality immoral or improper, without reference to Leviticus of Romans...

That is to say, is there an objective, empirical reason why homosexuality should be considered immoral or "wrong" in ANY moral framework, not just the Judeo-Christian one?

I don't care about what is right or wrong in "any" moral framework. There is one God, YHWH, Jehovah God, who has given us His word in the Bible, and His moral code is all that matters.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Not a question to be asked to brainwashed sheep...

Ironic

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Yes it is, it's the absolute truth.

yet open to endless variations of interpretation and bias... at some point you have to use logic and first principals to make your own decisions... or at the least, admit that your opinions are spoon fed to you by someone else

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I don't care about what is right or wrong in "any" moral framework. There is one God, YHWH, Jehovah God, who has given us His word in the Bible, and His moral code is all that matters.

fine right good... why not go talk about it any of the bazillion other threads here where people don't ask you for a NON-Biblical rationale

 

[BigBadWlf]

They don't need physical contact, physical contact is somthing that grows out of a relationship.

This was in response to the claim that somehow same sex relationships “need” to be physical rather this is somethign that grows out of a relationship.
They obviously do not any more than heterosexual relationships need to be physical.

 

[BigBadWlf]

The bible is objective and clear

If this were so…there would be no arguments about interpretation…there would be no need for interpretation.

 

[BereanTodd]

fine right good... why not go talk about it any of the bazillion other threads here where people don't ask you for a NON-Biblical rationale

Why ask a moral question of a Christian and then exclude the Bible?? As someone else pointed out, that is the same thing as asking a bird to fly, right after cutting off it's wings.

 

[ReformedChapin]

If this were so…there would be no arguments about interpretation…there would be no need for interpretation.

The bible is objective and as far as my clear comment I was reffering to this issue.

 

[david_x]

This was in response to the claim that somehow same sex relationships “need” to be physical rather this is somethign that grows out of a relationship.
They obviously do not any more than heterosexual relationships need to be physical.

Yeah, I didn't say anything about homosexuals needing physical contact.

 

[ReformedChapin]

yet open to endless variations of interpretation and bias... at some point you have to use logic and first principals to make your own decisions... or at the least, admit that your opinions are spoon fed to you by someone else

Duh you have to use logic...I never said you didn't and the bible is objective the readers biases just get in the way which is different.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Duh you have to use logic...

Ah... so, maybe it ISN'T quite as objective and clear as you initially said... now you have to use logic... presumeably to INTERPRET it...

So, back to the earlier question... how do you know YOUR bversion of logic is the correct one?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Why ask a moral question of a Christian and then exclude the Bible?? As someone else pointed out, that is the same thing as asking a bird to fly, right after cutting off it's wings.

Nonsense. Can you come up with a NON BIBLICAL reason to condemn murder? Sure... bad for society, upsets people, counter productive, the list goes on. See? No Bible verse needed. My initial question, and my intention for this whole thread, was to see if anyone could do something similar for this thread. Thus far, I've seen lots of whining about why they should be allowed to cite the Bible even in a discussion that is supposed to be strictly NON-biblical... but I've seen no attempt to explain anything apparently wrong with homosexuality that relies on self contained logic and social principals.

 

[BereanTodd]

Nonsense. Can you come up with a NON BIBLICAL reason to condemn murder? Sure... bad for society, upsets people, counter productive, the list goes on. See? No Bible verse needed. My initial question, and my intention for this whole thread, was to see if anyone could do something similar for this thread. Thus far, I've seen lots of whining about why they should be allowed to cite the Bible even in a discussion that is supposed to be strictly NON-biblical... but I've seen no attempt to explain anything apparently wrong with homosexuality that relies on self contained logic and social principals.

Sure then, how about this. Homosexual males make up about 2-3% of the population, and yet are nearly half the cases of AIDS. Coincidence?

Studies show that homosexuals are far more likely to experience domestic violence/"spousal abuse".

We could list other facts like this. Now as I said before, I actually support gay marriage, believe gays should be protected in the workplace, and despise the idiots like those who say things like "God hates f**s". I welcome gays to attend my church, I think we should show love to homosexuals (as we should to ANYONE). We are not to judge those who are in the world, regardless of their particular sin issue.

At the same time I do not think that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt or be foster parents, and I absolutely believe it to be immoral, the Bible is unambiguous on that, and no homosexual would be allowed to JOIN a church I was the head over.

But again, non-biblical arguments are an acceptable form of defining what laws we should have in a society. They are not an acceptable way of defining what is morally right and wrong. There is an objective truth out there, and God has given us His word.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Sure then, how about this. Homosexual males make up about 2-3% of the population, and yet are nearly half the cases of AIDS. Coincidence?

Really? Suggest you check your facts and don't extrapolate American statistics to the rest of the World.

Further, does the presence of one disease enedemic to a population make something about that population inherently WRONG? For example, sickle cell anaemia is almost exclusively found among African people. Does this mean that there is something wrong with Africans? Seems to be the same logic...

Most cases of AIDS occur in homosexuals, therefore, homosexuals are bad
Most cases of sickle cell anaemia occur in Africans, therefore, Africans are bad

Studies show that homosexuals are far more likely to experience domestic violence/"spousal abuse".

Has there been a study yet that demonstrates a CAUSAL LINK between homosexuality and spousal abuse?

i.e. is the rate of spousal abuse higher amongst homosexuals BECAUSE of their homosexuality, OR is the rate of partner abuse higher among homosexuals because of the extra pressure homosexual relationships come under from society and family etc?

At the same time I do not think that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt or be foster parents,

why not?