Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[RMDY]

If you live your life worrying or thinking souley about the afterlife I personally think that is "dangerous thinking" too. It is used by many as an excuse to treat others badly as this life dosent matter to them.

Personally I am very thankful for this life its a gift from God, I know wonderful people and Im going to enjoy it and share Gods gift of life with as many people as possible

Do you believe Jesus Christ has come in the flesh?

 

[HaloHope]

Do you believe Jesus Christ has come in the flesh?

Yup

 

[RMDY]

Yup

Praise God. hallelujah!

 

[tulc]

Hey, so do I.
tulc(maybe we're not as different as we thought?)

 

[RMDY]

Hey, so do I.
tulc(maybe we're not as different as we thought?)

Praise God. Hallelujah.

 

[HaloHope]

Praise God. hallelujah!

We may have different views. But as tulc says we arent as different as it may seem.

 

[djbcrawford]

Looking back over the reasons put forward in support of same sex activity I have just realised you can also use them all to justify consentual incest. Let's see...

1. Consenting adults - Check!
2. Doesn't harm anyone - Check!
3. Animals do it - Check!
4. Which means it is natural - Check!
5. Sexual intimacy is just about love - Check!
6. Creates a stronger bond than a non-sexual one - Check!
7. God made you that way - Check!
8. Can't help how you feel - Check!
9. Taking yourself out of the gene pool, helps the species, blah, blah, etc... - Check!

If we can find a gene that causes it or causes animals to act that way, then it's even genetic. All we need is a name to call you to identify you as a specific group. Incestors, incestexual, or something like that. There you go, now you are a specific sub-type of person. You should also be allowed into marriage and/or civil partnerships otherwise you are being discriminated against.

Don't want to risk having children with genetic defects, adopt or surrogate. After all it is everyone's right to raise a child.

For those that believe the bible, all those verses that say it's wrong, don't worry. They were just for a different time and culture. We're much more enlightened now. Besides they were probably translated wrong anyway and Jesus never said it was wrong.

So there you have it. If you're sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, or sisters and you feel that way, go for it. If anyone says it wrong you should call them narrow-minded incestaphobic fundamentalist.

**disclaimer** I do not support incest (which makes me a narrow-minded incestaphobic fundamentalist). The challange is, can anyone prove it's wrong without referring to God or the bible. I will attempt to refute these attempts using nothing but what has been posted already.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Looking back over the reasons put forward in support of same sex activity I have just realised you can also use them all to justify consentual incest. Let's see...

1. Consenting adults - Check!
2. Doesn't harm anyone - Check!
3. Animals do it - Check!
4. Which means it is natural - Check!
5. Sexual intimacy is just about love - Check!
6. Creates a stronger bond than a non-sexual one - Check!
7. God made you that way - Check!
8. Can't help how you feel - Check!
9. Taking yourself out of the gene pool, helps the species, blah, blah, etc... - Check!

Some points:
2) Harm is done to any and all offspring.
3) No social animal does it. Indeed, the 'Animals do it' thing is a counter-argument to the 'It's unnatural' argument. Noone is saying, 'If animals do it, it's OK for humans to do it'.
4) See above.
9a) One is not removed from the gene pool by engaging in incest.
9b) You have not demonstrated how the human species is helped by incestuous behaviour.

Thus, incest is not comparable to homosexuality.

An aside: if the above list held, what is your point? Cain & Abel were incestuous, as were Noah and his kids, so is it not enouraged by the Bible?

 

[tulc]

Don't want to risk having children with genetic defects, adopt or surrogate. After all it is everyone's right to raise a child.

uhmmm I suspect if you want to sleep with your sister you probably don't care all that much if you have kids.
Other then that why not start another thread to discuss this?
tulc(just a thought)

 

[OllieFranz]

Looking back over the reasons put forward in support of same sex activity I have just realised you can also use them all to justify consentual incest. Let's see...

1. Consenting adults - Check!
2. Doesn't harm anyone - Check!
3. Animals do it - Check!
4. Which means it is natural - Check!
5. Sexual intimacy is just about love - Check!
6. Creates a stronger bond than a non-sexual one - Check!
7. God made you that way - Check!
8. Can't help how you feel - Check!
9. Taking yourself out of the gene pool, helps the species, blah, blah, etc... - Check!

If we can find a gene that causes it or causes animals to act that way, then it's even genetic. All we need is a name to call you to identify you as a specific group. Incestors, incestexual, or something like that. There you go, now you are a specific sub-type of person. You should also be allowed into marriage and/or civil partnerships otherwise you are being discriminated against.

Don't want to risk having children with genetic defects, adopt or surrogate. After all it is everyone's right to raise a child.

For those that believe the bible, all those verses that say it's wrong, don't worry. They were just for a different time and culture. We're much more enlightened now. Besides they were probably translated wrong anyway and Jesus never said it was wrong.

So there you have it. If you're sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, or sisters and you feel that way, go for it. If anyone says it wrong you should call them narrow-minded incestaphobic fundamentalist.

**disclaimer** I do not support incest (which makes me a narrow-minded incestaphobic fundamentalist). The challange is, can anyone prove it's wrong without referring to God or the bible. I will attempt to refute these attempts using nothing but what has been posted already.

One big difference, though. The Bible calls many forms (so many it clearly means to include all forms) of incest "wicked" (zimmah), a sexually immoral sin. It never says that about any form of same-sex activity. The worst it calls any same-sex activity -- and then only one side of one activity-- is an "abomination" (toevah), a ritual taboo.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Looking back over the reasons put forward in support of same sex activity I have just realised you can also use them all to justify consentual incest. Let's see...

1. Consenting adults - Check!
2. Doesn't harm anyone - Check!
3. Animals do it - Check!
4. Which means it is natural - Check!
5. Sexual intimacy is just about love - Check!
6. Creates a stronger bond than a non-sexual one - Check!
7. God made you that way - Check!
8. Can't help how you feel - Check!
9. Taking yourself out of the gene pool, helps the species, blah, blah, etc... - Check!

If we can find a gene that causes it or causes animals to act that way, then it's even genetic. All we need is a name to call you to identify you as a specific group. Incestors, incestexual, or something like that. There you go, now you are a specific sub-type of person. You should also be allowed into marriage and/or civil partnerships otherwise you are being discriminated against.

Don't want to risk having children with genetic defects, adopt or surrogate. After all it is everyone's right to raise a child.

For those that believe the bible, all those verses that say it's wrong, don't worry. They were just for a different time and culture. We're much more enlightened now. Besides they were probably translated wrong anyway and Jesus never said it was wrong.

So there you have it. If you're sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, or sisters and you feel that way, go for it. If anyone says it wrong you should call them narrow-minded incestaphobic fundamentalist.

**disclaimer** I do not support incest (which makes me a narrow-minded incestaphobic fundamentalist). The challange is, can anyone prove it's wrong without referring to God or the bible. I will attempt to refute these attempts using nothing but what has been posted already.

If you can demonstrate that anyone in an incestuous relationship has given GENUINE informed adult consent, and isn't, infact, being pressured or coerced in some way (I sincerely believe that in just about all incestuous relationships, someone has power over the other member, so I doubt that many incestuous relationships qualify on the "informed adult consent" thing)... AND you demonstrate that the potential couple is taking all possible precautions to ensure they won't give birth to genetically impaired offspring...


IF the above qualifications are followed... nope... nothing wrong with incest

 

[djbcrawford]

Some points:
2) Harm is done to any and all offspring.

So it's okay as long as you practise safe sex? What about homosexual incestexuals? No worries about offspring there. Besides as stated previously in the thread, apparently sex has many uses of which reproduction is merely a minor by-product.

3) No social animal does it. Indeed, the 'Animals do it' thing is a counter-argument to the 'It's unnatural' argument. Noone is saying, 'If animals do it, it's OK for humans to do it'.

Here's a quote from Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/ind...1-20070816-12372800-bc-britain-inbreeding.xml) "Since male hyenas don't contribute to the rearing of their offspring, it's unlikely females know their father. Instead, males decide to leave the group in which they were raised, resulting in a low level of inbreeding." I believe the words low level means it happens.

Besides, I have seen posts here which cited the fact that if something happens in nature, that makes it natural. Perhaps you have a different definition of natural that you could share?

9a) One is not removed from the gene pool by engaging in incest.

By removing the ability to produce "viable" offspring, you are removing yourself from the gene pool, which was put forward by yourself as a benefit, i believe. Mind you it didn't make sense to me at the time when you brought it up so I'm just repeating it. Perhaps you could clarify how it's different.

9b) You have not demonstrated how the human species is helped by incestuous behaviour.

It gives the same benefits as same sex sexual activity. Perhaps you could explain how the benefits are different. By your definition, a romantic link produces a stronger bond which in turn helps the whole group.

Thus, incest is not comparable to homosexuality.

Saying "thus" in front of a statement doesn't make it true. I am just pointing out that all the arguements used could also support consenting incest. That still appears to be the case.

An aside: if the above list held, what is your point? Cain & Abel were incestuous, as were Noah and his kids, so is it not enouraged by the Bible?

Good to see you quoting from a book you don't believe in. It is definitely condemned in the bible many times, however to go into details would require a thread in itself, but I digress as we aren't supposed to be using the bible in this thread.

**disclaimer** I do not support incest (which makes me a narrow-minded incestaphobic fundamentalist). The challange is, can anyone prove it's wrong without referring to God or the bible. I will attempt to refute these attempts using nothing but what has been posted already.

 

[djbcrawford]

If you can demonstrate that anyone in an incestuous relationship has given GENUINE informed adult consent, and isn't, infact, being pressured or coerced in some way (I sincerely believe that in just about all incestuous relationships, someone has power over the other member, so I doubt that many incestuous relationships qualify on the "informed adult consent" thing)... AND you demonstrate that the potential couple is taking all possible precautions to ensure they won't give birth to genetically impaired offspring...


IF the above qualifications are followed... nope... nothing wrong with incest

Ooh, a convert. If I need numbers for the protest march can I count you in?

 

[djbcrawford]

One big difference, though. The Bible calls many forms (so many it clearly means to include all forms) of incest "wicked" (zimmah), a sexually immoral sin. It never says that about any form of same-sex activity. The worst it calls any same-sex activity -- and then only one side of one activity-- is an "abomination" (toevah), a ritual taboo.

You cannot presume all forms if it doesn't say all forms. Wicked/Abomination/Tabboo - all sound equally bad to me. I believe Paul mentions detestable, but I could be wrong.

But we are talking about evidence outside of the bible, where is that?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You cannot presume all forms if it doesn't say all forms. Wicked/Abomination/Tabboo - all sound equally bad to me. I believe Paul mentions detestable, but I could be wrong.

But we are talking about evidence outside of the bible, where is that?

there isn't any.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So it's okay as long as you practise safe sex? What about homosexual incestexuals? No worries about offspring there. Besides as stated previously in the thread, apparently sex has many uses of which reproduction is merely a minor by-product.

A minor by-product? No, it is the reason sexuality evolved.
Bear in mind that, by my moral code, I do not deem something to be 'wrong' unless it can be demonstrated to cause harm (specifically, if it infringes on the free will of another).

Here's a quote from Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/ind...1-20070816-12372800-bc-britain-inbreeding.xml) "Since male hyenas don't contribute to the rearing of their offspring, it's unlikely females know their father. Instead, males decide to leave the group in which they were raised, resulting in a low level of inbreeding." I believe the words low level means it happens.

Only by statistical chance. Even in the Christian Creationist mindset, all humans are ultimately related. Djbcrawford, no matter who you have sex with (assuming you will), you will be committing incest.
Incest is unavoidable; the point of the phrase 'low level inbreeding' is to imply that any inbreeding is a result of pure chance: they just happened to be sufficiently cloesly related.

Perhaps I should clarify my point: no social animal prefers their own close-family over the rest of the herd.

Note the title of your link: "Female hyenas actively avoid incest"

Besides, I have seen posts here which cited the fact that if something happens in nature, that makes it natural.

I would disagree with those posters on that issue.

Perhaps you could define natural?

Given the context, I will not. When someone says, "Homosexuality is unnatural; therefore, it's wrong", my rebuttle uses the same definition of 'natural' that they used, whatever that may be.

By removing the ability to produce "viable" offspring, you are removing yourself from the gene pool, which was put forward by yourself as a benefit, i believe. Mind you it didn't make sense to me at the time when you brought it up so I'm just repeating it. Perhaps you could clarify how it's different.

Viable offspring are formed by incest.

It gives the same benefits as same sex sexual activity. Perhaps you could explain how the benefits are different. By your definition, a romantic link produces a stronger bond which in turn helps the whole group.

Homosexuality is not incestuous; the group is strengthened because different families are brought together from across the gene pool, effectively improving the chances of a heterosexual couple with more diverse genes mating.
Incest, however, severly limits the genetic diversity available. From an evolutionary point of view, this is suicide.

Saying "thus" in front of a statement doesn't make it true.

Of course not. 'Thus' is used to link all the above arguments to the conclusion, rather like a curly-bracket ( ' { ' ).

I am just pointing out that all the arguements used could also support consenting incest.

And I am pointing out that they do not. Hence our dialogue.

Note that I while I find incest to be revolting, I nevertheless uphold relevant freedoms. Naturally, there is the issue of children born of such unions, and this smacks strongly of the issue of disabled/handicapped people reproducing. Do we have a moral obligation to limit such unions? I am undecided.

Good to see you quoting from a book you don't believe in. It is definitely condemned in the bible many times, however to go into details would require a thread in itself, but I digress as we aren't supposed to be using the bible in this thread.

Indeed.

**disclaimer** I do not support incest (which makes me a narrow-minded incestaphobic fundamentalist). The challange is, can anyone prove it's wrong without referring to God or the bible. I will attempt to refute these attempts using nothing but what has been posted already.

+
As I have stated above, I do not condemn incestuous couples. I find it revolting, but I see no reason to condemn them. Do you?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

As I have stated above, I do not condemn incestuous couples. I find it revolting, but I see no reason to condemn them. Do you?

I find them challenging and once would have condemned them... however, I am now of the opinion that if they are genuinely giving informed adult consent, that they can do as they like.

Its not for me, but just because people do things I don't want to do, does not mean they need to be condemned.

I don't understand why people want to play football (its unnatural, by the way) but I don't condemn people who like football

 

[Ohioprof]

Different states in the United States have different laws regarding "incest." 26 states allow first cousin marriages. First cousin marriage is also allowed in Canada and Mexico and throughout Europe.

 

[djbcrawford]

A minor by-product? No, it is the reason sexuality evolved.

I agree, however there have been plenty of quotes that have said otherwise to counter the function of the human sex organs argument.

Bear in mind that, by my moral code, I do not deem something to be 'wrong' unless it can be demonstrated to cause harm (specifically, if it infringes on the free will of another).

As an aside, what about justice. Should someone go to jail? That infringes on their free will and causes them harm?

Only by statistical chance. Even in the Christian Creationist mindset, all humans are ultimately related. Djbcrawford, no matter who you have sex with (assuming you will), you will be committing incest.
Incest is unavoidable; the point of the phrase 'low level inbreeding' is to imply that any inbreeding is a result of pure chance: they just happened to be sufficiently cloesly related.

Which was to counter your argument that it never happens in nature. A Christian Creationist can use the bible which defines what level of incest is permissable and which isn't.

Perhaps I should clarify my point: no social animal prefers their own close-family over the rest of the herd.

Sounds to me like they take it where they find it, and I know plenty of people like that.

Note the title of your link: "Female hyenas actively avoid incest"

I'm not worried about the title. The article was only to show that it happens and it served it's purpose

I would disagree with those posters on that issue.

Me too.

Given the context, I will not. When someone says, "Homosexuality is unnatural; therefore, it's wrong", my rebuttle uses the same definition of 'natural' that they used, whatever that may be.

Not really, you just disagree with their version of natural and ask them to define it. Good to see you have the same problem defining it yourself.

Viable offspring are formed by incest.

Only if it is a male-female couple and only if they don't indulge in safe sex

Homosexuality is not incestuous; the group is strengthened because different families are brought together from across the gene pool, effectively improving the chances of a heterosexual couple with more diverse genes mating.

But that will happen anyway. I fail to see how Homosexuality increases the chances of this happening over hetrosexuality.

Incest, however, severly limits the genetic diversity available. From an evolutionary point of view, this is suicide.

Some would say the same about homosexuality

Of course not. 'Thus' is used to link all the above arguments to the conclusion, rather like a curly-bracket ( ' { ' ).

And I am pointing out that they do not. Hence our dialogue.

Oh I see. In that case... Thus you are incorrect given my responses above. Of course we could take it as read that this sentence will be at the end of each argument and leave it out.

Note that I while I find incest to be revolting, I nevertheless uphold relevant freedoms. Naturally, there is the issue of children born of such unions, and this smacks strongly of the issue of disabled/handicapped people reproducing. Do we have a moral obligation to limit such unions? I am undecided.

It is difficult, given the rare cases of 2 people falling in love, only to later discover they are brother and sister who were seperated at birth.

As I have stated above, I do not condemn incestuous couples. I find it revolting, but I see no reason to condemn them. Do you?

I can state an act is wrong without condemming the people who do it. Unfortunately many people don't see the distinction.

I think this discussion has run it's course for me. It has been a challenging and interesting discussion, but the arguments seem to be going in circles and are now just longer winded versions of "Oh yes it is" and "Oh no it isn't". Besides, our sermon this morning was about controlling the tongue (i think that can also apply to fingers) and I found myself thinking about this discussion. Am I building up or breaking down? I believe the act is wrong both because of the bible and what I see in the design/purpose/function of the human body. I haven't read anything which has changed that view, and I doubt mine have changed anyone elses. I don't believe homosexuality is a choice people make, but much of what we face in life has very little choice involved and we play with the hand we are dealt. People who end up with this card in their hand have my sympathy. I have my own views on how it should be played, but ultimately they are the ones that have to play it.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Evidence without the bible..
Well, I doubt the persecution they get (Which i'm sure you believe only followers of Jesus do this!) and that they cannot have children would be of any use here.
Why do you try to trap Christians in a debate and tell them they have no place to stand? The bible is what God revealed to us and tells us about our faith, you tell people to stop being Christians...