Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[RebeccaJO]

I have a question for some of the Christians out there: Can you prove that homosexuality is wrong, harmful, dangerous, etc. without using the Bible?

The reason I ask this question is because on this forum there have beel a lot of debates about if it is wrong from a biblical perspective and why. It just seems to me that if homosexuality is a sin, there should be evidence as to why it is wrong outside of the Bible. Murder is a sin but you don't need the Bible to realize that. The same goes with many other sins.

God did not intend for a woman to be with another woman. And for a man to be with another man. There is law in some states that two woman and two men can not get married. My state is one of them.

People do not want to believe that homosexuality is an abomination against God. Because once they obtatin that knowledge, they would have to change if they really and truely love God. And no one wants to change, not because they can't, it is because they refuse.

 

[Ohioprof]

God did not intend for a woman to be with another woman. And for a man to be with another man. There is law in some states that two woman and two men can not get married. My state is one of them.

People do not want to believe that homosexuality is an abomination against God. Because once they obtatin that knowledge, they would have to change if they really and truely love God. And no one wants to change, not because they can't, it is because they refuse.

Being gay is not an abomination against God. You can believe whatever you want about gay people, but those are your beliefs. They are not what God thinks. You are attributing your own anti-gay attitudes to God.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

God did not intend for a woman to be with another woman. And for a man to be with another man. There is law in some states that two woman and two men can not get married. My state is one of them.

People do not want to believe that homosexuality is an abomination against God. Because once they obtatin that knowledge, they would have to change if they really and truely love God. And no one wants to change, not because they can't, it is because they refuse.

explain WHY "God considers homosexuality an abomination" and I might take you seriously... of course, if all you've got is "the Bible SEZ!" you needn't bother

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ok friends. EnemyParty and Wiccan_child, because I lack understanding of your views on a certain issue, I want to gain some understanding:

Explain to me what sin is how it entered the world, as if I didn't know the bible
Explain to me about Satan as if I didn't know the bible.

I'm not going to comment on your replies for this post, so you won't have to worry about me disagreeing with what you say, and you can send it to me in PM if you would like.

Thank you,

God bless,

Rob =)

sin is a description of acts that harm other people, that we could avoid if we desire to be "better"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Adam and Eve and Satan use to be all good, until they either sinned or sin was found in them. Remember, God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:25)

Satan use to be good.
Adam and Eve use to be good.

If I say, 'Wow, that's a good PC you got there', I am not referring to it's morality.

If you don't believe in that story, then what do you believe concerning the origin of Satan and sin?

I do not believe :
1) That Satan is the antithesis of God,
2) That either Satan or God exist.
3) That sin has an origin (see below).

I explained homosexuality came as a result of sin entering into our lives, as a result of Adam's actions. Because we became sinful, we also became immoral. You keep asking this question, and I keep showing you a picture, but you don't believe in it, do you?

With all due respect, you have shown nothing. For the sake of argument, assume the Eden story is true, and sin entered the world.
Where does the Bible state, 'And sin (including homosexuality) entered the world'? I accept, for the moment, that the Eden-and-sin story happened. But where does homosexuality come into the picture?
You have not shown homosexuality to be sin.

Surely you do not believe because you are a pagan and follow a different set beliefs?

My beliefs are irrelevant. I am debating your beliefs, your statements.

God saw his creation was good. God calls them good, therefore, they were good.

See my above example with the car. 'Good' can mean 'morally right', or 'more than sufficient for it's purpose'. Saying 'and it was good' when referring to Creation is, I believe, an example of the latter.

Explain to me what sin is how it entered the world, as if I didn't know the bible

To sin is to intentionally go against divine commandments. Sin 'enters the world' by one of the following methods:

• Commandments are put in place where no commandments existed before. Before, there was no sin because there were no commandments to go against. After, there are, so there is. Therefore, it is now possible to sin.
• Knowledge of the commandments is given. Before, humans had no knowledge of the commandments, if they were even in palce, and so could not intentionally go against them. After, humans had such knowledge. Therefore, it is now possible to sin.
• Humans were incapable of sinning. Before, humans had limited free will: they couldn't sin, even though commandments existed and they knew of them. After, humans gained the ability to sin. Therefore, it is now possible to sin.

I can't think of any other way for sin to enter the world as thus defined.
Basically, sin enters the world if, before, there was either no commandments to sin against or no ability to sin.
Also note that I am working under certain assumptions, not least of which is a simplified model of humanity.

Explain to me about Satan as if I didn't know the bible.

Satan is a semi-divine entity primarily occupied with tempting humanity into indulgence. He is not evil, unlike most preconceptions.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God did not intend for a woman to be with another woman. And for a man to be with another man.

You would speak for your god? How arrogant.

There is law in some states that two woman and two men can not get married. My state is one of them.

And there are laws in the UK and in some US states that do allow same-sex marriage.
Quite frankly, I don't see your point.

People do not want to believe that homosexuality is an abomination against God.

Can you demonstrate that it is?
It's worth noting that such a demonstrationg would only be useful to those people who believe in your god. I, along with other non-Christians, would look at it with polite interest, but we would not heed it's advice.

Because once they obtatin that knowledge, they would have to change if they really and truely love God. And no one wants to change, not because they can't, it is because they refuse.

Quite.

 

[BloodwashedPilgrim]

sin is a description of acts that harm other people, that we could avoid if we desire to be "better"

Sin does not only harm other people. It can also be the harming of oneself. For example, (and forgive me but I am going to use Scripture...can't believe I just had to say that in a Christian forum) 1 Corinthians 6:18, "Flee immorality. Every other sin a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body." Anyway, there are sins which do not blatantly harm another person. There are sinful thoughts and acts that seem harmless to others. "Sins against his own body" sounds very similar to Paul's passage to the sexual decadent Roman society, "and in the same way also men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecnet acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." (1:28).


The human immunodeficiency virus -- Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV-AIDS)1 -- is a deadly virus that can live for a few seconds outside the body but is primarily transmitted by unprotected sexual intercourse, infected needles, and by transmission of blood or other bodily fluids. Everyone knows that HIV-AIDS is fatal. There are three major modes of HIV transmission today: (1) sexual contact involving the exchange of sperm or vaginal secretions; (2) from mother to fetus or through breast feeding; and (3) between intravenous drug users who share unsterilized needles and syringes. Medical findings support that HIV is not transmitted through casual contact. In Missouri, homosexual sex accounts for 72% of all HIV transmissions; drug usage 9%; a combination of homosexual sex and drug usage another 9%; heterosexual 6%; blood transfusion 1.5%; and prenatal .5%.
http://www.mobar.org/journal/1998/janfeb/wampler.htm

Biologically and anatomically speaking, who would possibly argue that the male and female reproductive organs are not made for use together. It is as simple as the fact that the square peg fits in the square shaped hole. It doesn't matter if you can force it into the round shaped hole, that isn't its designed function.

Negative effects of homosexuality have been manifested and recorded psychologically and physically. From STD transmission to a higher suicide risk, homosexuality certainly has negative ramifications (not saying that this is true of every single person with such preferences, for all those who are going to say how "happy" many monogamous homosexual couples are).

For specific examples and citations see this link (http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/nov05-10.htm) by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D.

How is it not obvious that male and female reproductive organs were designed for specific use together? How is it not obvious that male/female attraction is the intent?

Are sociopaths' actions acceptable being it is how they were born? Because it is totally "natural" to them?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Sin does not only harm other people. It can also be the harming of oneself. For example, (and forgive me but I am going to use Scripture...can't believe I just had to say that in a Christian forum) 1 Corinthians 6:18, "Flee immorality. Every other sin a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body." Anyway, there are sins which do not blatantly harm another person. There are sinful thoughts and acts that seem harmless to others. "Sins against his own body" sounds very similar to Paul's passage to the sexual decadent Roman society, "and in the same way also men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecnet acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." (1:28).


The human immunodeficiency virus -- Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV-AIDS)1 -- is a deadly virus that can live for a few seconds outside the body but is primarily transmitted by unprotected sexual intercourse, infected needles, and by transmission of blood or other bodily fluids. Everyone knows that HIV-AIDS is fatal. There are three major modes of HIV transmission today: (1) sexual contact involving the exchange of sperm or vaginal secretions; (2) from mother to fetus or through breast feeding; and (3) between intravenous drug users who share unsterilized needles and syringes. Medical findings support that HIV is not transmitted through casual contact. In Missouri, homosexual sex accounts for 72% of all HIV transmissions; drug usage 9%; a combination of homosexual sex and drug usage another 9%; heterosexual 6%; blood transfusion 1.5%; and prenatal .5%.
http://www.mobar.org/journal/1998/janfeb/wampler.htm

Biologically and anatomically speaking, who would possibly argue that the male and female reproductive organs are not made for use together. It is as simple as the fact that the square peg fits in the square shaped hole. It doesn't matter if you can force it into the round shaped hole, that isn't its designed function.

Negative effects of homosexuality have been manifested and recorded psychologically and physically. From STD transmission to a higher suicide risk, homosexuality certainly has negative ramifications (not saying that this is true of every single person with such preferences, for all those who are going to say how "happy" many monogamous homosexual couples are).

For specific examples and citations see this link (http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/nov05-10.htm) by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D.

How is it not obvious that male and female reproductive organs were designed for specific use together? How is it not obvious that male/female attraction is the intent?

Are sociopaths' actions acceptable being it is how they were born? Because it is totally "natural" to them?

Your citing of a description of HIV/AIDS in the middle of your post is exceptionally indicative of bias...

HIV/AIDS is NOT synonomous with homosexuality

as for the rest of what you are saying... I don't think anyone is trying to say that male and female sexual organs don't fit together... however, male-male and female-female sexual organs fit together perfectly well too... why else do you think homosexuals use them that way?

And while the stats from Misouri sure might be useful for condemning homosexuals in the minds of wowsers... in WORLD terms... HIV is spread most frequently by heterosexual sex... just check the WHO stats

 

[CShephard53]

Since I have no idea what site you're talking about, I'll chalk this up to lack of advertising.


A crude description, but accurate enough. What is your point?


You are asking for someone to prove a negative. Since there is no reason to believe that homosexuality came about because of direct intervention, and there is every reason to believe that it did, well, the logic speaks for itself.


Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Biology deals in evidenced probability, and the evidence points to natural homosexuality.

No, there is no evidence to suggest homosexuality came about on its own. And I'd like to see you cite some. Do you know for sure what happened all around the world at any given time in history?

If you have to ask what my point is with the sperm and the egg...
Eggs happen in females and hermaphrodites- the latter is a very rare occurance. Sperm come from males. They are designed for sex. Their parts are designed for sex.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No, there is no evidence to suggest homosexuality came about on its own. And I'd like to see you cite some. Do you know for sure what happened all around the world at any given time in history?

If you have to ask what my point is with the sperm and the egg...
Eggs happen in females and hermaphrodites- the latter is a very rare occurance. Sperm come from males. They are designed for sex. Their parts are designed for sex.

no, No, NO NO! Sexual function and reproductive function are NOT THE SAME THING!!!!!!!


They are RELATED sure... but NOT THE SAME.

No one disagrees that homosexual intimacy will not result in reproduction... but reproduction is not the POINT of homosexual intimacy, and that is NOT what we are claiming it is!

 

[Ohioprof]

Sin does not only harm other people. It can also be the harming of oneself. For example, (and forgive me but I am going to use Scripture...can't believe I just had to say that in a Christian forum) 1 Corinthians 6:18, "Flee immorality. Every other sin a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body." Anyway, there are sins which do not blatantly harm another person. There are sinful thoughts and acts that seem harmless to others. "Sins against his own body" sounds very similar to Paul's passage to the sexual decadent Roman society, "and in the same way also men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecnet acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." (1:28).


The human immunodeficiency virus -- Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV-AIDS)1 -- is a deadly virus that can live for a few seconds outside the body but is primarily transmitted by unprotected sexual intercourse, infected needles, and by transmission of blood or other bodily fluids. Everyone knows that HIV-AIDS is fatal. There are three major modes of HIV transmission today: (1) sexual contact involving the exchange of sperm or vaginal secretions; (2) from mother to fetus or through breast feeding; and (3) between intravenous drug users who share unsterilized needles and syringes. Medical findings support that HIV is not transmitted through casual contact. In Missouri, homosexual sex accounts for 72% of all HIV transmissions; drug usage 9%; a combination of homosexual sex and drug usage another 9%; heterosexual 6%; blood transfusion 1.5%; and prenatal .5%.
http://www.mobar.org/journal/1998/janfeb/wampler.htm

Biologically and anatomically speaking, who would possibly argue that the male and female reproductive organs are not made for use together. It is as simple as the fact that the square peg fits in the square shaped hole. It doesn't matter if you can force it into the round shaped hole, that isn't its designed function.

Negative effects of homosexuality have been manifested and recorded psychologically and physically. From STD transmission to a higher suicide risk, homosexuality certainly has negative ramifications (not saying that this is true of every single person with such preferences, for all those who are going to say how "happy" many monogamous homosexual couples are).

For specific examples and citations see this link (http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/nov05-10.htm) by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D.

How is it not obvious that male and female reproductive organs were designed for specific use together? How is it not obvious that male/female attraction is the intent?

Are sociopaths' actions acceptable being it is how they were born? Because it is totally "natural" to them?

Oh, you cite Timothy Dailey, who works for the Family Research Council. He has written extensively on how terrible "homosexuality" is. The problem is that Timothy Dailey is NOT a scientist. He does not hold a PhD in psychology or even in sociology. What are his credentials?
Ph.D. - Religion; Marquette University, M.A. - Theological Studies; Wheaton College, B.A. - Bible/Theology; Moody Bible Institute

Timothy Dailey, PhD is a religious scholar, with a conservative agenda, just like the Family Research Council. Timothy Dailey, PhD does no real scientific research into gay people; he simply writes negative propaganda about gay people, and he tries to pass it off as credible by throwing around his title of PhD.

I have a PhD. I have as much expertise in this area of researching "homosexuality" as Timothy Dailey does, which is, essentially, none. My PhD is in history. I do not try to pretend that I am a scientific researcher in the areas of sexuality or sexual orientation.

Timothy Dailey is simply putting out anti-gay propaganda on behalf of his employer, the Family Research Council, which does no real research at all. They just churn out right-wing religious propaganda,
in the guise of "research." Most of their so-called research is phony, and their claims are false. These are not researchers seeking to uncover the truth through objective scientific inquiry. They are phonies with a religious agenda trying to make their propaganda sound like real research.

 

[Ohioprof]

Sin does not only harm other people. It can also be the harming of oneself. For example, (and forgive me but I am going to use Scripture...can't believe I just had to say that in a Christian forum) 1 Corinthians 6:18, "Flee immorality. Every other sin a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body." Anyway, there are sins which do not blatantly harm another person. There are sinful thoughts and acts that seem harmless to others. "Sins against his own body" sounds very similar to Paul's passage to the sexual decadent Roman society, "and in the same way also men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecnet acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." (1:28).


The human immunodeficiency virus -- Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV-AIDS)1 -- is a deadly virus that can live for a few seconds outside the body but is primarily transmitted by unprotected sexual intercourse, infected needles, and by transmission of blood or other bodily fluids. Everyone knows that HIV-AIDS is fatal. There are three major modes of HIV transmission today: (1) sexual contact involving the exchange of sperm or vaginal secretions; (2) from mother to fetus or through breast feeding; and (3) between intravenous drug users who share unsterilized needles and syringes. Medical findings support that HIV is not transmitted through casual contact. In Missouri, homosexual sex accounts for 72% of all HIV transmissions; drug usage 9%; a combination of homosexual sex and drug usage another 9%; heterosexual 6%; blood transfusion 1.5%; and prenatal .5%.
http://www.mobar.org/journal/1998/janfeb/wampler.htm

Biologically and anatomically speaking, who would possibly argue that the male and female reproductive organs are not made for use together. It is as simple as the fact that the square peg fits in the square shaped hole. It doesn't matter if you can force it into the round shaped hole, that isn't its designed function.

Negative effects of homosexuality have been manifested and recorded psychologically and physically. From STD transmission to a higher suicide risk, homosexuality certainly has negative ramifications (not saying that this is true of every single person with such preferences, for all those who are going to say how "happy" many monogamous homosexual couples are).

For specific examples and citations see this link (http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/nov05-10.htm) by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D.

How is it not obvious that male and female reproductive organs were designed for specific use together? How is it not obvious that male/female attraction is the intent?

Are sociopaths' actions acceptable being it is how they were born? Because it is totally "natural" to them?

Besides relying on phony research, as I have explained above, your post starts with the assumption that human organs were "designed." You don't know that they were "designed." We do know that they evolved.

 

[naotmaa]

God did not intend for a woman to be with another woman. And for a man to be with another man. There is law in some states that two woman and two men can not get married. My state is one of them.

But that isn't really evidence that homosexuality is wrong or harmful outside of the Bible.

People do not want to believe that homosexuality is an abomination against God.

Its not that we don't want to its just that we don't. Why would I have any reason to believe that homosexuality is wrong?

Because once they obtatin that knowledge, they would have to change if they really and truely love God.

And no one wants to change, not because they can't, it is because they refuse.

Why would I want to change something about me that I know isn't wrong? That is like telling someone to change their eye color.
Its also not possible to change one's sexual orientation. They may be able to suppress their feelings but that does not mean their feeling disappear.

 

[CShephard53]

no, No, NO NO! Sexual function and reproductive function are NOT THE SAME THING!!!!!!!


They are RELATED sure... but NOT THE SAME.

No one disagrees that homosexual intimacy will not result in reproduction... but reproduction is not the POINT of homosexual intimacy, and that is NOT what we are claiming it is!

The parts go together. They are designed to be fitted together. You cannot deny that much, surely.

And I don't see you denying my logic in saying that we cannot prove that it is or isn't natural, or continuing to spout that it is, so I'll (unless you clarify) take that to mean that you accept that you can't prove homosexuality's being natural.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The parts go together. They are designed to be fitted together. You cannot deny that much, surely.

And I don't see you denying my logic in saying that we cannot prove that it is or isn't natural, or continuing to spout that it is, so I'll (unless you clarify) take that to mean that you accept that you can't prove homosexuality's being natural.

well proof is one of those weasel words... no, I probably can't PROVE homosexuality is natural, just like I can't PROVE a giant invisible pink spider isn't sleeping on your couch... however all available evidence supports those conclussions

 

[CShephard53]

Yeah, sure it does. You can't even *begin* to even give anything that remotely resembles evidence on whether or not it is natural unless you knew exactly what went on with the first gay person. And the Bible doesn't even give us that.

 

[CShephard53]

Oh, and you've avoided the design thing. So you may want to address that point, else others will take it to mean you admit I have a point. When I say prove I say it the same way the courts of law use it- beyond the shadow of a doubt. There's plenty of doubt that (A) homosexuality is natural (B) it is designed and (C) that the Bible condones it and thinks its natural. So I don't see why you've either on this thread or in the past argued all three.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Yeah, sure it does. You can't even *begin* to even give anything that remotely resembles evidence on whether or not it is natural unless you knew exactly what went on with the first gay person. And the Bible doesn't even give us that.

*blank look* what? Um... I don't understand what you mean... although I suspect you are really just interested in making it impossible to PROVE homosexuality is natural... of course, the other side of the coin is it is impossible to prove homosexuality is UNnatural, or that heterosexuality is natural, or even that we aren't all really pink unicorns dreaming of being humans...

but agin, all the evidence suggests homosexuality is natural.

There's plenty of doubt that (A) homosexuality is natural

so what is it, artificial?

There's plenty of doubt that (B) it is designed and

Um, thats because no biological process is DESIGNED they EVOLVE

There's plenty of doubt that (C) that the Bible condones it and thinks its natural.

the Bible doesn't THINK anything... I think this is part of the problem, that you somehow think the Bible is capable of making such decisions, and possed of some sort of devinity all by itself

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The parts go together. They are designed to be fitted together. You cannot deny that much, surely.

And I don't see you denying my logic in saying that we cannot prove that it is or isn't natural, or continuing to spout that it is, so I'll (unless you clarify) take that to mean that you accept that you can't prove homosexuality's being natural.

no one is denying male and female sex organs go together... but the ways homosexuals use their sex parts they go together just as well.

 

[CShephard53]

*blank look* what? Um... I don't understand what you mean... although I suspect you are really just interested in making it impossible to PROVE homosexuality is natural... of course, the other side of the coin is it is impossible to prove homosexuality is UNnatural, or that heterosexuality is natural, or even that we aren't all really pink unicorns dreaming of being humans...

but agin, all the evidence suggests homosexuality is natural.so what is it, artificial? Um, thats because no biological process is DESIGNED they EVOLVEthe Bible doesn't THINK anything... I think this is part of the problem, that you somehow think the Bible is capable of making such decisions, and possed of some sort of devinity all by itself

The Bible=God's words, in the eyes of most real Christians, keeping in mind that Christian is a Christ follower. God thinks, last time I checked.

If homosexuality was caused by sin- a result of someone's sin, or a result of the fall- it is not natural, per the definition of natural that has previously been put forth. And there is no way to have any kind of evidence outside of the Bible that would indicate that it is or isn't natural.

Oh, and there's evidence in the Bible that it's unnatural, but you and others choose to write it off as addressing idolatry and such... sickening...