Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[Jerrell]

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.

THe main reason you don't believe God set a moral code is because you reject his written word which contains this moral code.

Plus, being a hisotory teach/professor, you should know about the millions of slaves that still exist today and is still considered moral by the masses. As a matter of fact, slavery still exists here in America, it has just taken another form- casuing hundreds of millions to become financial slaves to the system.

 

[Brieuse]

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.

Erm, I'd prefer our crap to go in the loo, thank you.

My dog makes enough of a mess.

 

[CShephard53]

Way to avoid the question, good job enemyparty.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

My point over these past few exchanges has been to try to get a definition of 'natural'.
I think I have finally got it:
'Natural is that which is not learned'. Or, conversly, 'Unnatural is that which has to be learned'.
I'm not quite sure how one can 'learn' a gun, or 'learn' a skyscraper, though.

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

Care to elaborate?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Wiccan_child,

My point over these past few exchanges has been to try to get a definition of 'natural'.
I think I have finally got it:
'Natural is that which is not learned'. Or, conversly, 'Unnatural is that which has to be learned'.

Ah but whilst that is ok for you it isnt ok for Christians who believe that what God has created is evidence of what is natural. Against nature is not what people or animals do, but against what God has created.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ah but whilst that is ok for you

On the contrary, this is the definition given by jawsmetroid. I requested his definition because he was making statements regarding homosexuality and 'natural'.

it isnt ok for Christians who believe that what God has created is evidence of what is natural. Against nature is not what people or animals do, but against what God has created.

Does 'unnatural' equal 'immoral'?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Wiccan_child,

On the contrary, this is the definition given by jawsmetroid. I requested his definition because he was making statements regarding homosexuality and 'natural'.

It’s a valid logic that something is natural if it doesn’t haven’t to be learned. However regarding homosexuality, the definition of what is natural shouldn’t be dependant on homosexuality.

Does 'unnatural' equal 'immoral'?

It depends on whether what is natural is dependant on what is moral. I would say not. I would say that it is natural for us to get tempted to do things, whether they are moral or not is not dependant on whether its natural for us to get tempted to do the things, but rather the things we get tempted to do.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It’s a valid logic that something is natural if it doesn’t haven’t to be learned.

A strange way of putting it, but yes: he can define 'natural' in that way if he so chooses.

However regarding homosexuality, the definition of what is natural shouldn’t be dependant on homosexuality.

Why not?

It depends on whether what is natural is dependant on what is moral.

I don't understand. You previously defined 'natural' via:
what God has created is evidence of what is natural. Against nature is not what people or animals do, but against what God has created.
That is, 'natural' is that which is created by God, or is sufficiently similar to what God created (God created trees, so trees are natural. God didn't create cars, so cars are unnatural, etc).

With that in mind, I asked a question: does 'unnatural' = 'immoral'?
That is, if something is unnatural, does that automatically make it immoral?

I would say not. I would say that it is natural for us to get tempted to do things, whether they are moral or not is not dependant on whether its natural for us to get tempted to do the things, but rather the things we get tempted to do.

Then what do you define as 'moral'?

 

[CShephard53]

My point over these past few exchanges has been to try to get a definition of 'natural'.
I think I have finally got it:
'Natural is that which is not learned'. Or, conversly, 'Unnatural is that which has to be learned'.
I'm not quite sure how one can 'learn' a gun, or 'learn' a skyscraper, though.


Care to elaborate?

I am a Christian who is celibate and gay. Does that make things clearer?

Guns: man did not come on the scene knowing automatically how to make guns. It is not instinct.
Same with skyscrapers.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I am a Christian who is celibate and gay. Does that make things clearer?

Indeed it does. Thank you.

Guns: man did not come on the scene knowing automatically how to make guns. It is not instinct.
Same with skyscrapers.

Ah, I see, OK.
Some questions: would you consider your celibacy to be unnatural?
Do you consider the unnatural to be immoral?

 

[djbcrawford]

God wouldn't want someone to change from the way He made them. The truth is that no one makes a decision to be homosexual, it's the way God made them and there's really no changing that.

It's the way I am could be used to justify everything you do and so isn't really a valid reason for justifying anything.

 

[djbcrawford]

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

No one said it was. You asked why a disability should be "fixed". That was just an example.

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.

And it interferes with the whole pass your genetic material to the next generation thing as well.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And it interferes with the whole pass your genetic material to the next generation thing as well.

Back in the day, my 'sacrifice' would have been to help others procreate (or more specifically, to help others with my own altruistic genes).
By sacrificing myself out of the gene pool, I help encourage the proliferation of my tribe, and my species.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No one said it was. You asked why a disability should be "fixed". That was just an example.



And it interferes with the whole pass your genetic material to the next generation thing as well.

actually... there is significant evidence suggesting that homosexuality is a recessive trait linked to a gene that INCREASES fertility in female carriers... if correct, then, homosexuality actually INCREASES the ability to pass on genetic material.

Sorry, just one more of those times you should, you know... research stuff

 

[Apollo Celestio]

I wouldn't say unnatural = immoral, as long as it isn't sinful. We wouldn't be posting here if Christians thought unnatural = immoral. I know you didn't ask me, but I put in my 2 cents anyway.

 

[Horizonol]

actually... there is significant evidence suggesting that homosexuality is a recessive trait linked to a gene that INCREASES fertility in female carriers... if correct, then, homosexuality actually INCREASES the ability to pass on genetic material.

Actually, that just means that the gene that causes homosexuality, if there were such a thing, is located close to a gene on the chromosomal map responsible for increased female fertility.

In other words, the two genes are located close to each other and therefore, hard to separate during chromosomal cross-linking recombination. It's just piggy backing on a useful gene. The same could be said of any gene located within the same area as a gene whose phenotype causes an increase in its allele frequency in a population over time.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I wouldn't say unnatural = immoral, as long as it isn't sinful. We wouldn't be posting here if Christians thought unnatural = immoral. I know you didn't ask me, but I put in my 2 cents anyway.

By all means, answer away; all input is good input, unless it's not.

I ask if 'unnatural' equals 'immoral' because some people criticise homosexuality for being 'unnatural', thus implying that the 'unnatural' is 'immoral'.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually, that just means that the gene that causes homosexuality, if there were such a thing, is located close to a gene on the chromosomal map responsible for increased female fertility.

In other words, the two genes are located close to each other and therefore, hard to separate during chromosomal cross-linking recombination. It's just piggy backing on a useful gene. The same could be said of any gene located within the same area as a gene whose phenotype causes an increase in its allele frequency in a population over time.

Of course, this presumes that the genes for boosting fertility and the genes for inducing homosexuality do not overlap. Given the complex nature of human sexuality and human fertility, I would be surprised if they could be boiled down to a single gene each.

 

[Horizonol]

Of course, this presumes that the genes for boosting fertility and the genes for inducing homosexuality do not overlap. Given the complex nature of human sexuality and human fertility, I would be surprised if they could be boiled down to a single gene each.

That would require that the heterozygous expression of the gene causes homosexuality and the homozygous increases fertility. Logically, that just doesn't add up.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That would require that the heterozygous expression of the gene causes homosexuality and the homozygous increases fertility.

Not necessarily. One need not have all the genes that lead to homosexuality (hence why we have straight parents bearing gay children), nor all the genes for boosted fertility.