Why is homosexuality a sin? The same way murder and adultery is a sin.
Funny. I thought they were wrong because they cause harm to others.
It is unnatural and contrary to God's nature and plan.
Define unnatural. If you mean occurs in nature, then you're wrong. It occurs in animals.
The second half of the statement would require:
1) your god to be real
2) his nature and plan to be obvious
Sex was created for procreation, not pleasure.
Clearly false. Please explain why women are fertile only 3-5 days per cycle but sex is enjoyable at ANY time.
Men cannot procreate, thus sex between 2 men is against God's nature and his plan.
Using the same premise (i.e., inability to procreate)...
Sex between elderly men and women is against God's nature and plan as well.
Sex between infertile couples...
You get my point. Yours, however, is full of phail.
The colon is designed to remove waste from the body, not be used as a sexual tool. Just the same way the mouth is used to talk and to eat..Homosexuality is contrary to natural law...
The penis is "designed" to remove waste from the body as well, but it's also a sexual tool.
Assuming the same designer for both that implies lack of caring about secondary uses.
Oh...and if it violated natural law, it wouldn't be physically possible. Yet, it is possible.
Again...you are full of phail.
...just as a person knows in his heart to not have sex with animals, the male knows in his heart not to engage in same sex relations.The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestialitythat it is wrong because it is unnatural.
The phail keeps on coming. Gay and lesbians feel same sex relations are the natural romantic relationship for them.
You keep saying "unnatural." To quote a famous swordsman, you keep using that word...I don't think it means what you think it means.
Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.
You clearly don't understand:
1) what natural law is...the principles by which reality functions
2) moral development (in the academic sense)...morality are the rules of behavior dictated by a higher power (e.g., a god, society as a whole).
Oh...and as a fun fact..."unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse" being "immoral" never stopped the Christian churches from doing them whenever they acheived political power (c.f., the Inquisition).
Simply put homosexuality is a grave moral matter that must be dealt with before it ruins the person. But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn.
Hmm...no.
Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice.
Funny how many gays and lesbians know they are different from age at which sexuality is the furthest thing from their minds. Cantata...your input here would be useful.
For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.
As a point of fact, alcoholism (and other addictions) may have some genetic or congenital components that are necessary conditions. Granted this requires exposure to alcohol, but as I note above gays and lesbians may feel they are different from others prior to exposure and awareness of sexuality.
Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.
Apples and oranges, kiddo.
Let's test this idea for reasonableness.
To what extent is the concept of sex with any woman whatsoever affected by these things?
The answer is that it isn't. Oh sure, specifics can be influenced, but at a basic level, desire for intercourse with women in general is not.
It's the same with gays and lesbians.
Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive),
Monozygotic and fraternal twin studies conclusively show rates of same sex attraction that are statistically higher than what you would expect if there is no genetic component.
Again...you phail in a magnificent manner.
the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.
For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.
Alcoholism causes direct harm to the self and others. Homosexuality does not. Again...you encounter the apples and oranges fallacy.
Your phail is most delicious.
Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Your "sacred scripture" also doesn't actually say that. The original text refers to other behaviors which other threads cover nicely. I've already dealt with the bogus "gift of life" canard.
PHAIL!
homosexuals are best called to chasity. And It can be done. couragerc is a wonderful program that has helped many people
Oh yeah? What's it's recidivism rate?
Mankei, i really think you should give it up. Your denial of sin being sin.
Renton, you should give it up...you denial of phail being phail.
Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with homoph**ia that they hold the position they do because they are "afraid" of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.
Two words: Ted Haggard.
Oh...and those opposed are also often thought of as &@+$#!+ crazy right wingers too.
Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals
Actually...the fear is of the behavior (and that they desire themselves).
I really suggest you tone down the self righteouness. There are many people who pray and do much more than just read the bible..It is immature to claim that "No one cares about what God says" when there are plenty of people who do..
I would suggest using arguments that are not so full of phail.
