Homosexuality: Wrong How?

[Anduril]

Nobody that I see is stating that God hate homosexuals, so your commentary is implying something unnecessarily and is unappreciated.

But isn't that what the Bible says?

 

[Rae]

your commentary is implying something unnecessarily and is unappreciated.

I don't see a gun pointed at your head, forcing you to read anything I write.

 

[Zaac]

PLUS, homosexual men have shorter life spans, due to scarring tissue by 'doing something' unnatural.

Okay, I was with ya up until this point. Where on God's green earth did you come up with this?

 

[Zaac]

But isn't that what the Bible says?

NOPE.

 

[Anduril]

NOPE.

What about the verses that talk about God's hatred for the impenitent sinners?

Psalm 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

 

[butterfoot]

What about the verses that talk about God's hatred for the impenitent sinners?

Psalm 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Definition of iniquity


[size=-1]absence of moral or spiritual values; "the powers of darkness"
[/size]

 

[Seeking...]

http://www.narth.com/docs/satinovr.html

This article and subsequent interview express something I have been straining to find reference to for quite some time regarding the subject of homosexuality. The argument for tolerance appears to be a combination of claims that one cannot help ones desires, that desires are themselves intrinsically good, that any possible repurcussions of any given activity are not moral, but simply cicumstantial and not worthy of consideration, and finally that people just in general have a right to do as they please.

One can see the obvious comparisons to this sort of mindset and the supposedly unhealthy state of antisocial personality disorder - colloquially, sociopathic behavior. Yet the one is conserdered an illness and the other is not.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=39219
"Antisocial personality disorder: A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others and inability or unwillingness to conform to what are considered to be the norms of society"

Inevitably, someone will accuse me of trying to insinuate that homosexuality is some expression of sociopathic behavior. That is not at all my point. My point is, if you read the first article referenced at the top of this OP, you will find that the entire scope of psychological endeavor suffers from the same problem: it is all a matter more or less of social acceptance or lack thereof.

From the article -
"Q: Should the American Psychiatric Association have de-pathologized homosexuality?

A: In some ways I think the psychiatric establishment was right--homosexuality is not a disease the way that, say, pneumonia or cancer or schizophrenia are diseases. Homosexuality makes a certain kind of sense as an understandable adaptation to some types of life circumstances. If you grow up in a Cosa Nostra family, it makes sense to be a sociopath. By the same token, it's profoundly confusing to label the sociopathic responses, of, say, war orphans as "disordered" when a war orphan must become a sociopath in order to survive; if he fails to, he may die. So, under the circumstances of war, which response is "healthier"--that is to say, "adaptive"?

Homosexuality, too, is a method of adapting to adverse circumstances. But like sociopathy, it exacts a cost in terms of constrictions in relationships."

My favorite quote from the whole article: "Intellectuals, I've come to believe, are definitely creatures of fashion, and much less leaders than they are followers."

The bottom line is the entire subject desperately needs further inquiry, and yet it has come to the forefront of political discourse now and is being rushed along pell mell with no thought as to all the possible damage.

How do you define what is damaging enough to society to legitimate a law? If we can outlaw smoking in privately owned institutions like resteraunts, what civil rights are there at all? If everyone is a victim, how do we decide who to protect anymore?

I just have a couple of problems with this:

Homosexuality hasn't been shown to be adaptive, unless you are talking about studies that focus on prisons and single-sex boarding schools. Just the statement that homosexuality "is a method of adapting to adverse circumstances" suggests a bias towards belief that homosexuality is a learned behavior as a result of abuse, disordered relationship & etc. - which has never been proven. In addition, how does it constrain relationships? How does it damage society?

The problem with this is that everyone starts off with assumptions and works backward. NARTH believes it to be a treatable disorder, which taints everything they touch. Other organizations assume it is a natural, positive - alternative to heterosexuality and that taints them. Until we get a group of asexual, non-religious, independently wealthy scientists to study this - I don't think we will ever see unbiased answers - or questions...

 

[Rae]

How did we get on God hates someone from the discussion we were having????

See below for examples.

What about the verses that talk about God's hatred for the impenitent sinners?

But isn't that what the Bible says?

 

[Zaac]

What about the verses that talk about God's hatred for the impenitent sinners?

Psalm 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

That would also cover the heterosexual workers of iniquity.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

What about the verses that talk about God's hatred for the impenitent sinners?

Psalm 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

In case you don't know, there is a period of grace that God gives. That is why in OT there were atonement offerings for sin. The act of love sacrifice was an action of repentance. Jesus Christ was the perfect love sacrifice and what is left to complete the atonement is to accept Him as our Lord and Savior and repent. God's long suffering is more than we deserve, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have it's limits. He has also judged people and punished them before death or with death as well. It's not a game to play how far we test God's grace.

John 3:16
16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

God is also the perfect Judge of man's heart. So as He states that He hates wickedness in other scirptures, when He states that He hates workers of iniquity it is presumed that they would not change and judgment is perfect in it's execution. God doesn't hate His creation, but that doesn't mean that His creation is incapable of doing things that He hates. Even Satan which was a beautiful creation became wicked, but is allowed grace - though it is to serve as an example.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Okay, I was with ya up until this point. Where on God's green earth did you come up with this?

She might be referring to:

Between the Lines, Michigan's statewide "gay" newspaper, reports the risk of anal cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. "The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive." Between the Lines admits there's no such thing as "safe sex" to prevent this "soaring" cancer risk: "A condom offers only limited protection."
http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha031901.asp

Solid, irrefutable evidence proves that there are lethal consequences to engaging in the defining features of male homosexuality—that is, promiscuity. Active homosexuals are vulnerable to dozens of sexually transmitted diseases.19 According to one report, the risk of anal cancer rises by an astounding 4,000 percent for those engaging in homosexual intercourse and doubles again for those who are HIV positive.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/homosexuality/maf/a0028248.cfm
2Fenger, C. “Anal Neoplasia and Its Precursors: Facts and Controversies,” Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 8, no. 3, August 1991, pp. 190-201; Daling, J.R. et al., “Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine 317, no. 16, 15 October 1987, pp. 973-77; Holly, E.A. et al., “Anal Cancer Incidence: Genital Warts, Anal Fissure or Fistula, Hemorrhoids, and Smoking,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81 , no. 22, November 1989, pp. 1726-31; Daling, J.R. et al., “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no. 14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90; Cooper, H.S., Patchefsky, A.S. and Marks, G., “Cloacogenic Carcinoma of the Anorectum in Homosexual Men: An Observation of Four Cases”; Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 22, no. 8, 1979, pp. 557-58. Also see Between the Lines, Michigan's statewide gay newspaper, reporting on the risk of anal cancer for men who have sex with men,

 

[Randall McNally]

I Don't give a fig what some article states, that is another way to indoctrinate a certain mindset of the masses.

Pedophiles like what they do too, doesn't mean they should do it.

Because it harms others.

Cannibals like eating people, doesn't make it right.

Because it harms others.

Homosexuals are unnatural. regardless of their desires for obtaining equal footing with hetero's, they still have abnormal desires.

Nothing that occurs in nature is "unnatural."

PLUS, homosexual men have shorter life spans, due to scarring tissue by 'doing something' unnatural.

Where in the world did you hear that scar tissue reduces life spans?

Lesbians cannot do anything, without 'outside' help.

Neither can infertile couples.

Men and women fit together, and they have the natural ability to procreate, but even without the ability, they still 'fit' and women do not scar from the act.

Women don't scar from sex? You need to spend some more time talking to your OB/GYN.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Damage to the internal and external skin and tissue of the anus jeopardizes health, causes pain, and impairs function.
http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/analhealth/

There are other sites, but I forget the key words.
Anyway, the info is out there.

 

[Randall McNally]

Solid, irrefutable evidence proves that there are lethal consequences to engaging in the defining features of male homosexuality—that is, promiscuity. Active homosexuals are vulnerable to dozens of sexually transmitted diseases.19 According to one report, the risk of anal cancer rises by an astounding 4,000 percent for those engaging in homosexual intercourse and doubles again for those who are HIV positive.

What about women? What about homosexual men who don't have anal sex? - there are a significant number of them, you know.

 

[Zaac]

She might be referring to:

Between the Lines, Michigan's statewide "gay" newspaper, reports the risk of anal cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. "The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive." Between the Lines admits there's no such thing as "safe sex" to prevent this "soaring" cancer risk: "A condom offers only limited protection."
http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha031901.asp

Solid, irrefutable evidence proves that there are lethal consequences to engaging in the defining features of male homosexuality—that is, promiscuity. Active homosexuals are vulnerable to dozens of sexually transmitted diseases.19 According to one report, the risk of anal cancer rises by an astounding 4,000 percent for those engaging in homosexual intercourse and doubles again for those who are HIV positive.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/homosexuality/maf/a0028248.cfm
2Fenger, C. “Anal Neoplasia and Its Precursors: Facts and Controversies,” Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 8, no. 3, August 1991, pp. 190-201; Daling, J.R. et al., “Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine 317, no. 16, 15 October 1987, pp. 973-77; Holly, E.A. et al., “Anal Cancer Incidence: Genital Warts, Anal Fissure or Fistula, Hemorrhoids, and Smoking,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81 , no. 22, November 1989, pp. 1726-31; Daling, J.R. et al., “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no. 14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90; Cooper, H.S., Patchefsky, A.S. and Marks, G., “Cloacogenic Carcinoma of the Anorectum in Homosexual Men: An Observation of Four Cases”; Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 22, no. 8, 1979, pp. 557-58. Also see Between the Lines, Michigan's statewide gay newspaper, reporting on the risk of anal cancer for men who have sex with men,

Thanks CC. I thought for sure that there had to be some sort of documentation out there.

 

[WarriorAngel]

She might be referring to:

Between the Lines, Michigan's statewide "gay" newspaper, reports the risk of anal cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. "The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive." Between the Lines admits there's no such thing as "safe sex" to prevent this "soaring" cancer risk: "A condom offers only limited protection."
http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha031901.asp

Solid, irrefutable evidence proves that there are lethal consequences to engaging in the defining features of male homosexuality—that is, promiscuity. Active homosexuals are vulnerable to dozens of sexually transmitted diseases.19 According to one report, the risk of anal cancer rises by an astounding 4,000 percent for those engaging in homosexual intercourse and doubles again for those who are HIV positive.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/homosexuality/maf/a0028248.cfm
2Fenger, C. “Anal Neoplasia and Its Precursors: Facts and Controversies,” Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 8, no. 3, August 1991, pp. 190-201; Daling, J.R. et al., “Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine 317, no. 16, 15 October 1987, pp. 973-77; Holly, E.A. et al., “Anal Cancer Incidence: Genital Warts, Anal Fissure or Fistula, Hemorrhoids, and Smoking,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81 , no. 22, November 1989, pp. 1726-31; Daling, J.R. et al., “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no. 14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90; Cooper, H.S., Patchefsky, A.S. and Marks, G., “Cloacogenic Carcinoma of the Anorectum in Homosexual Men: An Observation of Four Cases”; Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 22, no. 8, 1979, pp. 557-58. Also see Between the Lines, Michigan's statewide gay newspaper, reporting on the risk of anal cancer for men who have sex with men,

Yes, thank you.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

What about women? What about homosexual men who don't have anal sex? - there are a significant number of them, you know.

It's not all restricted to anal sex you know...

Exerpt:
Gay and Bi Men Less Likely to Disclose They Have HIV
Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco studied a nationwide sample of 1,397 HIV-infected men and women receiving medical treatment. The study was conducted from September to December of 1998. Around sixteen percent of gay and bisexual men reported having unprotected anal or vaginal sex at least once within the previous six months without disclosing their serostatus. By contrast, around five percent of heterosexual men and around six percent of heterosexual women reported unprotected anal or vaginal sex without disclosure during the same time period.

Substantially different rates of nondisclosure were reported among gay and bisexual men with casual sex partners versus those with steady ones, according to the study. Thirty-six percent of those who reported unprotected oral, anal or vaginal sex did not disclose their serostatus to casual sex partners, compared to 13 percent of heterosexual men and around 9 percent of heterosexual women. Nondisclosure to steady partners, however, dropped to around five percent among gay and bisexual men, similar to rates found among heterosexuals with steady partners.
http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/1114186410292088123969/news?record=136&trycookie=1

^ Yes, I'm an equal opportunity quoter.

Lesbians:
The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports [Executive Summary, "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," 1999]:

- "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."
- "Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."
- "Domestic violence is...probably more common among homosexuals than among heterosexuals."
- "Significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals."


The Advocate, a "national gay and lesbian newsmagazine,"concurs that "lesbians are at higher risk of breast, cervical, and ovarian cancer."

As with smoking, homosexual behavior's "second hand" effects threaten public health.
http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha031901.asp

 

[Anduril]

In case you don't know, there is a period of grace that God gives. That is why in OT there were atonement offerings for sin. The act of love sacrifice was an action of repentance. Jesus Christ was the perfect love sacrifice and what is left to complete the atonement is to accept Him as our Lord and Savior and repent. God's long suffering is more than we deserve, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have it's limits. He has also judged people and punished them before death or with death as well. It's not a game to play how far we test God's grace.

John 3:16
16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

God loves the whole world, but does that mean every single person in it? If God loves everyone then why are some going to perish? No, God only loves His elect, the children of God, He does not love the damned, thats why they are going to perish.

Here are some more verses:

Romans 9:13
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Proverbs 6:
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Because it harms others.

Because it harms others.

Nothing that occurs in nature is "unnatural."

Where in the world did you hear that scar tissue reduces life spans?

Neither can infertile couples.

Women don't scar from sex? You need to spend some more time talking to your OB/GYN.

Because it harms others...? The whole society has to put up with deviant sexual attitudes....and yes it harms the pysche of children, and those who have no desire to live with it as it 'immorally' shoves the 'IN you face' attitude to God loving people.

NOTHING that occurs in nature is unnatural??
Then why do animals leave their young to die if they are imperfect...?

Plenty of things in nature are unnatural, including salactious desires that deviate off the path of which life was meant to be.....continious by procreation.

DID I not just say some couples dont have the ability??, but they still 'fit' properly...and even if men CAN be deviant, there are absolutely NO natural means to lubricate said area.

The only women who scar from sex, also go off the normal path of married sex, or mature sex...
YOUNG girls will scar easily, and unmarried women who have several partners can get STD's that cause scarring.

IT should be noted all the factors that 'NATURE' shows us...male and female married couples that are 'monogamous' have the least amount of worries when it comes to these concerns.

the risk of anal cancer rises by an astounding 4,000 percent for those engaging in homosexual intercourse and doubles again for those who are HIV positive

 

[Phred]

The argument for tolerance appears to be a combination of claims that one cannot help ones desires, that desires are themselves intrinsically good, that any possible repurcussions of any given activity are not moral, but simply cicumstantial and not worthy of consideration, and finally that people just in general have a right to do as they please.

Of what possible relevance is this? If I do a thing that is against your morality, yet I harm no one... I have every right to do what I please, when I please, as long as I'm not breaking any laws or harming someone else by my actions.

"Antisocial personality disorder: A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others and inability or unwillingness to conform to what are considered to be the norms of society"

I don't accept your definition.

Diagnostic Criteria for Antisocial personality disorder:

1. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
   1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
   2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
   3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
   4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
   5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
   6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
   7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

Inevitably, someone will accuse me of trying to insinuate that homosexuality is some expression of sociopathic behavior. That is not at all my point. My point is, if you read the first article referenced at the top of this OP, you will find that the entire scope of psychological endeavor suffers from the same problem: it is all a matter more or less of social acceptance or lack thereof.

There are mental illnesses that have nothing to do with the society in which they occur. How does this relate to homosexuality?

How do you define what is damaging enough to society to legitimate a law? If we can outlaw smoking in privately owned institutions like resteraunts, what civil rights are there at all? If everyone is a victim, how do we decide who to protect anymore?

It's not nearly as difficult as you make it sound. Your rights stop about an inch in front of my nose. If what you do harms me or others without sufficient reason then it may be outlawed. You may choose to kill yourself by smoking, but you may not make that choice for others.

Basic politeness would suggest you don't put your desire for a cigarette over my desire to enjoy my dinner. Surely you'd complain if I decided I had a right to vent gas for 5 or 6 minutes while you were eating. In fact, I'd be liable to be arrested if I didn't cease or leave. Why shouldn't a smoker be liable for the same fate?

How you think this is relevant to a person's personal sexual choices escapes me.

.
​