Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[Wiccan_Child]

Wiccan_Child, if you have faith, why are you a Pagan?

I am Pagan, therefore I have faith. All religious folk have faith (hence why religions are sometimes called faiths). Christians have faith in various things, Hindus have faith in various other things, and Wiccans have faith in yet other things.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Wiccan_child,
I agree all except

Christians have faith in various things

No they dont Christians have faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yet I did not say that was the only 'theory' it clearly demonstrates, did I? I said clearly demonstrates for a reason.

Your words were, perhaps unintentionally, misleading: by saying it clearly demonstrates theory A, you implicitly state that it doesn't demonstrate theory B, C, and D.

That would probably be more accurate to my responses to your posts, which should, but may not be clear. Do you want to go with that?

Perhaps, but a clarification is needed: do skyscrapers count as 'natural'?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Dear Wiccan_child,
I agree all except No they dont Christians have faith in Jesus Christ.

Which is a thing. I would also wager that Christians have faith in various other things (the concepts espoused by Christ, the Bible, etc).
But anyway, Christ is a thing (insofar as all things are things (damn our language)).

 

[CShephard53]

Your words were, perhaps unintentionally, misleading: by saying it clearly demonstrates theory A, you implicitly state that it doesn't demonstrate theory B, C, and D.


Perhaps, but a clarification is needed: do skyscrapers count as 'natural'?

Anything manmade or maninfluenced is not natural, as it did not come about without human influence.

When I post things, I don't imply anything. I state what I mean. That's in my signature. If I imply something, you'll know it. So please don't tell me that I imply things when I don't- and don't assume that I'm implying something, ask.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Hi EnemyPartyII
Dear EnemyPartyII

No it isnt Christian at all, you are referring to sex again, love isn’t sex, sex may be a part of love, but to love God and love ones neighbour according to the God’s love in the Bible it is not inclusive of all sex, sex is to be within a faithful man/woman union otherwise its not loving God.

Christian view

NONSENSE!

And quit with this "mine is the Christian view" garbage... MY views are just as Christian as yours.

Homosexuality is no more about sex than heterosexuality is.

Homosexuals in committed loving relationships love each other exactly the same as heterosexuals in committed loving relationships.

 

[tulc]

No they dont Christians have faith in Jesus Christ.

Well not to nit pick but that isn't compleatly true, is it? I mean there are a lot of people here who have been told they aren't Christians even though they trust in Jesus. Because after the trusting in Jesus comes the "...and His book and the people who head up His Church and the traditions handed down to us the councils decisions about various doctrines so on and so forth. etc. etc.!" to be a Christian.
tulc(just curious)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Anything manmade or maninfluenced is not natural, as it did not come about without human influence.

Then the entire planet is unnatural: once humans existed on Earth, the entire planet was different. This is most obviously apparent today.
Or perhaps you would like to place an abritrary line so that human influence only constitutes unnaturality up to a point?

 

[djbcrawford]

I have never said that I find people of the opposite sex repulsive. Please do not put words in my mouth. I love many men; I just am not attracted to them as romantic partners.

Your question makes quite a few assumptions, does it not?

FYI, I adopted my daughter. And I must get her to bed now. Ciao.

Good grief, I miss a day and have to trawl through about 10 pages to find my last post. These topics are always so popular.

I'm not trying to say you hate men, I'm trying to say that if you're not sexually attracted to them and to have a child you need to have sex with them, doesn't that produce a contradiction.

Since you adopted a child, this point doesn't really apply to you, but the general point still stands. Either the desire to have a child is "incorrect" as it goes against the desire for a same sex partner (with which a child cannot be produced without a third party), or the desire to procreate with the same sex is "incorrect" as it goes against the desire as a woman to produce a child which requires procreation an opposite sex partner.

 

[djbcrawford]

To extend your reasoning, using your "design" argument, our genitals are designed to make love in a variety of ways, just as the mouth is designed to act in a variety of ways.

We have vocal cords which we use to communicate, which requires the mouth to move. We smile because our facial muscles move the mouth and again this is used for communication. We kiss (it is thought) because children used to have food pre-chewed by our parents before baby-food was invented and it kinda caught on. I don't see how any of these require the mouth to act differently from what it's meant to.

As to how our genitals are designed to make love in a variety of ways, every way I can think of just tries to imitate how they are meant to be used, nothing more.

Also could you try to define "love", without using God, the bible, or anything moral, special or magical, since I have discovered everyone will only accept evolution in our discussion. Evolution makes "love" just a chemical reaction in out brains, nothing else and makes the purpose of "love", just sex and procreation.

 

[djbcrawford]

Homosexuality is beneficial to sexually-reproducing social specie. In over 1,500 species, it is present. It is primarily used to reinforce the bonds between same-sex hunter-gatherer groups, nursing groups, birthing groups, warrior groups, scout groups, etc. Indeed, notice that it is rarely, if at all, found in non social species.

Why does it need to be a sexual bond. Non-sexual intimacy bonds many males in many different groups today (army, football, fighters, business). In fact, it would only actually be useful in a group of 2, where they both happen to have the same desire and happen to find each-other attractive. By your own statistics, 2-5% of people have this desire, so in a group of 10 hunter gatherers, they would be lucky to have one, which would defeat the purpose in the first place. Increase it to 100 and you might get one or two pairing off, so where's the benefit. They are more likely to sacrifice anyone else in the group in preference of their favoured one.

Unless of course this is actually a mistake, where the non-sexual bond meant to be between a group of men/woman to produce useful things like comradeship and loyalty, gets mixed up with the sexual bond meant to be between a man and a woman to produce useful things like children...

 

[CShephard53]

NONSENSE!

And quit with this "mine is the Christian view" garbage... MY views are just as Christian as yours.

Homosexuality is no more about sex than heterosexuality is.

Homosexuals in committed loving relationships love each other exactly the same as heterosexuals in committed loving relationships.

Yeah, except one sex is condemned in the Bible and one isn't.

 

[djbcrawford]

so what, we should assume all beahiours are harmful until proved otherwise???

Wouldn't be a bad idea actually.

Following on from the original point that it is okay because it is something consentual and seemingly doesn't harm anyone, it is medically proven that certain same sex acts do cause physical harm to the body.

As an aside about the consenting adults bit, this has been used by people to say sex before marriage between consenting adults is fine, why should they wait until they are married. Yet in society, tax money which could be spent in other important area's ends up supporting multitudes of single parents and treating multitudes of STD's. Sometimes the harm goes wider than the individuals involved.

 

[djbcrawford]

Wiccan child, listen, you don't even believe in Yahwah. With that lack of faith you won't understand Spiritual things, so it is no wonder you lack an understanding about sin.

God designed us so that women and man are made for each other. Just like any kind of thing, man made something more out of it and abused it.
Homosexuality was not part of God's original design even if there is love involved between two people. God did not intend for people to partake in anal sex. We are not designed this way. People were designed to love each other, marry and be fruitful and multiply and serve God in a relationship between a man and a women. And just like in science, opposites attract as if we are two magnets. Two magnets of the same charge do not go together and are not natural. However, one can put them both together if man decides to do it, but naturally they will not. Do you see?

Man wills itself to be homosexual, but naturally that is not how God intended. Proof of that is in the design of our bodies. But Man loves to put a spin on sexuality and love. That was one of Israel's downfalls: putting a spin on love and sex and believing that it was right in the eyes of God.

I don't believe man "wills" himself to be homosexual any more than he "wills" himself to have a short temper. However neither state gives him free license to act on either.

 

[RebeccaJO]

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

If you don't believe in God's word, then it is impossible for your to believe in anything. I can tell you what God says in his word, but I can't make you believe his word.

 

[djbcrawford]

No, just who I am attracted to. Consider Stephen Fry: he is celebate, and does not want to have sex. However, he is attracted to men.

[/FONT]
Except it is not defined in terms of sex. You keep saying it has to do with sex, but you have yet to demonstrate where sex comes into it from the definitions given.[/FONT]

Although this is bringing the Bible and God in again, I couldn't resist adding, if you are attracted to someone of the same sex, and don't have sex with them it's not a sin. It's just dealing with temptation.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why does it need to be a sexual bond.

Whoever said anything about sex? Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not, directly, about sex. Monogamous couples within the groups are undeniable strengths: compare this to steel rods vastly improving the strength of concrete.

Non-sexual intimacy bonds many males in many different groups today (army, football, fighters, business). In fact, it would only actually be useful in a group of 2, where they both happen to have the same desire and happen to find each-other attractive.

I disagree. The love in a romantic relationship is easier to garner and, in most cases, stronger, than that in platonic relationships. Having just one of these relationships would held create a more cohesive group. Teamwork is vital, after all.

By your own statistics, 2-5% of people have this desire, so in a group of 10 hunter gatherers, they would be lucky to have one, which would defeat the purpose in the first place. Increase it to 100 and you might get one or two pairing off, so where's the benefit. They are more likely to sacrifice anyone else in the group in preference of their favoured one.

Except social mammals can congregate in their thousands.

Unless of course this is actually a mistake, where the non-sexual bond meant to be between a group of men/woman to produce useful things like comradeship and loyalty, gets mixed up with the sexual bond meant to be between a man and a woman to produce useful things like children...

In all likelyhood that is the cause of homosexuality: a change in the individual from it's ancestors that cause it to be more affectionate to it's own gender.
But if this affection was detrimental, it would have quickly died out. That it was able to proliferate throughout the species and even focus into homosexuality (that is, cause some individuals to be soley attracted to their own gender) is tantamount to proof that homosexuality is beneficial.

From an evolutionary standpoint, of course.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Although this is bringing the Bible and God in again, I couldn't resist adding, if you are attracted to someone of the same sex, and don't have sex with them it's not a sin. It's just dealing with temptation.

Not necessarily. One doesn't have to be celebate for the sake of celebacy; one can be celebate because of previous traumatic experiances with sex.
I have not read Fry's autobiography, but I would wager that this is the case with him.
He does not deny his orientation, he just chooses not to engage in sexual conduct.
This is not necessarily 'dealing with temptation'.

 

[RebeccaJO]

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.

We all have the right to believe whatever we want to believe. But I believe the truth. You don't even know what the truth is, because you do not believe in God's word. I don't care what you say, it is impossible for you or anyone else to say that they believe God, but they don't believe his word. I'm sorry but that is silly. Because he is the word.

How do you know what God thinks, you don't even believe his word? My beliefs are from the true word of God. But I can't expect you to believe that, since you don't even know what the truth is. all you know is what others have taught you. The Holy Ghost taught me about God's word.

 

[RebeccaJO]

You would speak for your god? How arrogant.


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.


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.


Quite.

Yes, I speak for God. For I am a mouthpiece for God. As he said his followers should be.

Read God's word and you shall know the truth. If your eyes are opened. If your eyes are blinded, as they seem, you'll never know the truth.