Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[Wiccan_Child]

People are born with disabilities and change those.

I'm trying to understand here- are you attempting to justify homosexuality? On the basis that since someone is born with an attraction, it is okay to act on it?

If it doesn't infringe on anyone's free will (informed consent, etc), sure, why not.

 

[Aquamarine81]

People are born with disabilities and change those.

I'm trying to understand here- are you attempting to justify homosexuality? On the basis that since someone is born with an attraction, it is okay to act on it?

I'm referring to a person's attractions, not disablilities.
And I personally don't think homosexuality is a sin -- I just don't see it as a big deal if men are attracted to men, or women are attracted to women.

 

[Horizonol]

I'm referring to a person's attractions, not disablilities.
And I personally don't think homosexuality is a sin -- I just don't see it as a big deal if men are attracted to men, or women are attracted to women.

I don't think it is either- but I assume the topic of discussion is what they do with those attractions.

As for attractions versus disabilities- I was pointing out the fact that being 'born' with someone doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't think it is either- but I assume the topic of discussion is what they do with those attractions.

As for attractions versus disabilities- I was pointing out the fact that being 'born' with someone doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

Could you explain why you think disabilities should be changed? Do you believe in normalising individual people, or the human race as a whole?

 

[Horizonol]

Could you explain why you think disabilities should be changed? Do you believe in normalising individual people, or the human race as a whole?

I didn't say should, but individuals with them to get them repaired.

People are born with nearsightedness and get correction-surgery. It's about avoiding the hassle of glasses or contacts.

 

[CShephard53]

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?

Um, no I would not like to put that in because it defeats the whole purpose. Natural is something that has not been made as a result of man being in the picture, as in no direct involvement.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I didn't say should, but individuals with them to get them repaired.

People are born with nearsightedness and get correction-surgery. It's about avoiding the hassle of glasses or contacts.

So how is nearsightedness (an obvious handicap; I should know), akin to homosexuality? Beyond their vaguely similar cause, of course.

Come to think of it, both are (likely to be) caused by a mixture of nature and nurture: some people (like me) are predisposed to it, some aquire it through overstraining their eyes, and some are predisposed to it and overstrain their eyes.
The difference bewteen homosexuality and nearsightedness (or any other blatant handicap) is just that: homosexuality is not a blatant handicap. As a gay man, I see only two downsides to it: the whole finding-a-partner thing is given one more obstacle; and the scorn I feel by the occasional homophobe.

Neither are handicaps. Neither justify 'rectification', if that is even possible.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Um, no I would not like to put that in because it defeats the whole purpose. Natural is something that has not been made as a result of man being in the picture, as in no direct involvement.

How direct are we talking here? Physical contact? Man does not touch the building he bulldozes, so does 'direct involvement' extend to his tools?

 

[CShephard53]

If it was created or caused to happen because of man's direct involvment it is not natural- as in a footprint would be natural but a building would not. Our crap on the ground would be natural but a gun would not.

 

[Jerrell]

Based on how this thread was started....could anyone proove anything is wrong without there being a set moral code by a God....

 

[Ohioprof]

I don't think it is either- but I assume the topic of discussion is what they do with those attractions.

As for attractions versus disabilities- I was pointing out the fact that being 'born' with someone doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

Being born with something doesn't mean it should be changed either.

 

[Ohioprof]

Based on how this thread was started....could anyone proove anything is wrong without there being a set moral code by a God....

You can only decide that you think something is wrong. I don't think that God has set a "moral code." I think people create moral codes. Moral codes are a human construction, and they are good human construction. Sometimes, however, what one generation thinks is moral turns out to be not moral to another generation, and so moral codes change. They don't change quickly, nor should they, but they do change.

Slavery, for example, was accepted as moral by most people for most of human history. Then people in large numbers decided that slavery was immoral, and they changed their moral code and abolished slavery. That was a good change.

Most people used to think that "homosexuality" was immoral. But over time, people have come to change their mind about that, and to recognize that some people, a minority of us, are born gay. Gradually people are coming to accept gay people and to accept that gay people will have spouses of the same sex. I think this is a positive change.....a change in the direction of what I think is moral.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If it was created or caused to happen because of man's direct involvment it is not natural- as in a footprint would be natural but a building would not. Our crap on the ground would be natural but a gun would not.

Why? Our crap is there because of our direct involvement. Why is it different to a gun?

 

[CShephard53]

Okay, if you're going to ask for me to define it even more than that then I'm not interested in debating with you. Crap is a natural process of the body and did not have to be learned in some way. Relationships, as long as we're not using the Bible, are something that must be learned. How to build a gun and a building must be learned.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Okay, if you're going to ask for me to define it even more than that then I'm not interested in debating with you.

You said homosexuality was unnatural. I asked you what 'natural' was. To then whine is a tad childish: if you do not define your terms, then how can anyone understand what you are saying?

Crap is a natural process of the body and did not have to be learned in some way. Relationships, as long as we're not using the Bible, are something that must be learned. How to build a gun and a building must be learned.

Well why didn't you just say that? 'Something is natural if it doesn't have to be learned'.
Of course, under this definition, homosexuality is natural: I did not learn to be gay, I simply am. Likewise, you did not learn to be straight, you simply are.

 

[CShephard53]

Which goes back to the nature-nurture debate, and most thinking people know that it is both nature and nurture that influences who we are. Nice try.

 

[CShephard53]

Oh, and wiccanchild, you may want to read some of my other posts. I'm not 'heterosexual' in the popular sense of the word.

 

[CShephard53]

the way you interpret the Bible, maybe.

Doesn't change the fact that the love homosexual couples feel for each other is exactly the same as the love heterosexual couples feel for each other

Um, is there a way to prove that? Because I don't think you can be homosexual and heterosexual and feel both unless you went directly against the Bible's admonition for marital sex.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Um, is there a way to prove that? Because I don't think you can be homosexual and heterosexual and feel both unless you went directly against the Bible's admonition for marital sex.

well if you want to follow THAT to its logical conclusion, how do we know that ANYONE'S relationships are based on love?

 

[Brieuse]

deleted