Is Homosexuality Wrong from a non Biblical perspective?

[fregas]

This isn't a formal debate invite as much as a discussion. I would like to ask if anyone has a NON-biblical reason for thinking Homosexuality is wrong. This is seperate from promiscuity, bestiality or any other "sexual sins." I only want to know what reasons, if any, you have for believing homosexuality is wrong. This is open for christians or non-christians alike.

A few things about me. I do not consider myself a Christian, at least not in the fundamentalist sense. I do admire C.S. Lewis and his views. I'm agnostic about most things but most days I believe in a personal God. Lately I've been rediscovering my spirituality. I"m not gay myself--I'm very happily married and have son and daughter. I have a gay uncle and a gay boss and a few gay friends, so this issue is somewhat personal to me.

Thanks
Fregas

 

[ccastellow]

I see the sexual side of it as being wrong. Why in creation or evolution would we have two separate creatures (male and female) with two separate genitalia. And when put together they create another male or female. This cannot be with homosexuality. Now with the other side of things, such as love and companionship for another I see no problem with it. Everybody needs somebody sometime. It is in us to want companionship. I believe some find it in the same sex for whatever reason. Somewhere though, I believe homosexuals choose how they are going to be. I know they will argue with me, but I just can't believe that people were born homosexual. Think of it another way, if we were all homosexual, there wouldn't be any of us left! Remember this is just an opinion.

 

[Wickwoman]

This isn't a formal debate invite as much as a discussion. I would like to ask if anyone has a NON-biblical reason for thinking Homosexuality is wrong. This is seperate from promiscuity, bestiality or any other "sexual sins." I only want to know what reasons, if any, you have for believing homosexuality is wrong. This is open for christians or non-christians alike.

A few things about me. I do not consider myself a Christian, at least not in the fundamentalist sense. I do admire C.S. Lewis and his views. I'm agnostic about most things but most days I believe in a personal God. Lately I've been rediscovering my spirituality. I"m not gay myself--I'm very happily married and have son and daughter. I have a gay uncle and a gay boss and a few gay friends, so this issue is somewhat personal to me.

Thanks
Fregas

Hi. I do not personally believe homosexuality is wrong. However, I was observing an interesting discussion on another forum between fool who posts here, and a gay participant. Fool was discussing the health pitfalls in male homosexuality, i.e., damage that males do to very delicate tissues in the anus which causes them to be more susceptible to certain diseases of the colon, etc.

However, this argument does not fit well for females who are gay because they basically practice the safest sex there is. Their risk for STDs, AIDS for example, is basically nill if they have sex exclusively with females who have sex with females. The person he was talking with was a male homosexual Buddhist who said homosexuality was not in violation to his Buddhist precepts which basically said "don't harm anyone." Fool's argument was he was harming someone, himself.

I found myself interested and intrigued by the discussion. I usually take a no holds barred, "insomuch as ye harm none do as ye will" approach. (I use that quote a lot.) But I had never looked at it like that before. And my philsophies and politics tend to be very liberal. It was the first time I'd seen the argument presented without the standard far right wing hype and histeria type of bias you usually see connected to arguments against homosexuality.

 

[Wickwoman]

I see the sexual side of it as being wrong. Why in creation or evolution would we have two separate creatures (male and female) with two separate genitalia. And when put together they create another male or female. This cannot be with homosexuality. Now with the other side of things, such as love and companionship for another I see no problem with it. Everybody needs somebody sometime. It is in us to want companionship. I believe some find it in the same sex for whatever reason. Somewhere though, I believe homosexuals choose how they are going to be. I know they will argue with me, but I just can't believe that people were born homosexual. Think of it another way, if we were all homosexual, there wouldn't be any of us left! Remember this is just an opinion.

Yes, but what if the world is getting overtaxed, polution and resources wise, and we don't need everyone to keep doubling the population over and over again. So instead, some are born with a desire for the same sex which would (absent medical intervention) prevent them from reproducing. This would cause the world's population to go down somewhat and provide a better quality of life for those living here, i.e. less polution, more food and land to grow it on, less overcrowding which produces crime and depression, etc.

Sometimes I speculate that homosexuality is a natural evolutionary response to overpopulation of a certain species - in our case humans. That makes a lot of sense.

 

[dclem9834]

i cant look at any sexual choice of any kind that does no harm to anyone unwilling and any harm done to those who are willing participints is known. it is a persons choice if they want to have any kindex they want, and i would fight to the death for the same freesom myself. so no i dont think being gay in anysense is wrong

 

[iliketosing]

This is such a great question; one that I've been looking for answers to as well. In short, I don't believe homosexual behavior is "right" but I base that only on my religious understanding. When issues like gay marriage and gay sexual behavior are brought into the court system I get very courious as to how you can legally appose homosexual behavior without letting religious convictions impose on state/federal/government issues. I dont really think there are any good non-biblical arguments against homosexual behavior. Before 2003 you might have been able to argue that "sodomy" was illegal in some places, but it's not anymore (i think), only applies to a particular sex act, and as somebody already noted, doesn't necassarily apply to lesbians. Plus, those laws were probably religiously motivated anyway.

Politics aside, the best thing I can think of is along the same lines as the first reply: Homosexual behavior doesnt come off as beneficail for a species in any evolutionary model. As someone else noted, this isnt a great argument though if you believe the world is overpopulated (which i dont). It also doesnt account for gay couples who procreate through artifical means. Most importantly, this is such an impersonal argument. I cant imagine trying to convince one of my gay friends he needs to seek an alternative lifestyle because he's "ruining our species' chance for survival." *Lord God, PLEASE dont let me ever become that impersonal*

In the end, I am completely satisfied with (though greatly challenged by) a reality where God's word alone determines what is right and wrong. As for your close gay friends and family I can only reccomend that you do what what I think Jesus might have: love them, rejoice with them, cry with them, tell them the truth, and be prepared to die for them.

 

[fregas]

This is such a great question; one that I've been looking for answers to as well. In short, I don't believe homosexual behavior is "right" but I base that only on my religious understanding. When issues like gay marriage and gay sexual behavior are brought into the court system I get very courious as to how you can legally appose homosexual behavior without letting religious convictions impose on state/federal/government issues. I dont really think there are any good non-biblical arguments against homosexual behavior. Before 2003 you might have been able to argue that "sodomy" was illegal in some places, but it's not anymore (i think), only applies to a particular sex act, and as somebody already noted, doesn't necassarily apply to lesbians. Plus, those laws were probably religiously motivated anyway.

Politics aside, the best thing I can think of is along the same lines as the first reply: Homosexual behavior doesnt come off as beneficail for a species in any evolutionary model. As someone else noted, this isnt a great argument though if you believe the world is overpopulated (which i dont). It also doesnt account for gay couples who procreate through artifical means. Most importantly, this is such an impersonal argument. I cant imagine trying to convince one of my gay friends he needs to seek an alternative lifestyle because he's "ruining our species' chance for survival." *Lord God, PLEASE dont let me ever become that impersonal*

In the end, I am completely satisfied with (though greatly challenged by) a reality where God's word alone determines what is right and wrong. As for your close gay friends and family I can only reccomend that you do what what I think Jesus might have: love them, rejoice with them, cry with them, tell them the truth, and be prepared to die for them.

The problem is assuming that something is God's word when it may not be and expecting everyone else to live by the same standard. But i'm glad you don't seem to think that way. And evolution and the species is doing just fine with the small percentage of homosexuals.

I believe God has reasons for having moral laws. He doesn't just make stuff up. I see no valid reason for a moral law against homsexuality. Therefore, the restriction against it must not be from God, in my opinion.

 

[iliketosing]

The problem is assuming that something is God's word when it may not be and expecting everyone else to live by the same standard. But i'm glad you don't seem to think that way. And evolution and the species is doing just fine with the small percentage of homosexuals.

I believe God has reasons for having moral laws. He doesn't just make stuff up. I see no valid reason for a moral law against homsexuality. Therefore, the restriction against it must not be from God, in my opinion.

hmm. good point. i had to think about that for a bit. It is true that many if not most of God's "moral laws" have practical earthly implications not just spiritual ones. out of curiosity, do you believe that fornication (sex outside of marriage in my definition) is one of God's moral laws? if so what reasons might God have chosen to implement this law other than His own preference? or in your words, do you see any valid reason for a restriction on sex outside of marriage?

 

[Wickwoman]

Sex outside of marriage causes harm to the wronged partner. It is a violation of a trust. So, that would be a reason it's wrong. It causes harm to another.

 

[fregas]

hmm. good point. i had to think about that for a bit. It is true that many if not most of God's "moral laws" have practical earthly implications not just spiritual ones. out of curiosity, do you believe that fornication (sex outside of marriage in my definition) is one of God's moral laws? if so what reasons might God have chosen to implement this law other than His own preference? or in your words, do you see any valid reason for a restriction on sex outside of marriage?

I think sex in general is a gray area. I have heard of married couples who fought all the time but used each other in bed. That doesn't sound like a loving relationship to me, so i don't see marriage as the ultimate "OK" for sex. I don't see anything inherently wrong with premarital sex, masturbation, etc. As long as you don't hurt someone else, I think its generally ok. I think promiscuity is generally bad and that if you're going to have sex with lots of partners you are morally obligated to use protection, but its better to just not be promiscous. I think adultery is bad but less as a "sexual sin" and more because you broke an oath (C.S. Lewis said the same thing.) Also, I find it interesting that many people are against gays because of anal sex, but many married couples engage in anal sex and I see nothing wrong with that either. Pat Robertson said in one of his books that he though oral sex was wrong. That, if for no other reason proves the man is completely insane.

 

[Wickwoman]

Pat Robertson said in one of his books that he though oral sex was wrong. That, if for no other reason proves the man is completely insane.

Like we needed more proof of THAT!

 

[Torchwood]

I am not sure it is wrong any more from a bible view. I might be wrong but does it even touch on the subject in the new testiment?

 

[vossler]

There are a lot reasons for society to think that homosexuality is wrong without turning to the bible.

1. Once its considered o.k. it leads to what we have now: Homosexual marriage and it doesn't benefit society for these reasons:

a. No procreation
b. More disease
c. Deviate behavior becomes legitimized.

2. Health care costs for you and I will go up.

3. Our kids will be brought up to believe its normal.

There are more, but the point is society in no way benefits from it.

 

[Wickwoman]

There are a lot reasons for society to think that homosexuality is wrong without turning to the bible.

1. Once its considered o.k. it leads to what we have now: Homosexual marriage and it doesn't benefit society for these reasons:

a. No procreation

Excessive reproduction is already placing a great strain on the environment - global warming, using up too many natural resources, etc.

b. More disease

In a monogamous relationship - homosexual or otherwise, sexually transmitted diseases are not spread through the population.

c. Deviate behavior becomes legitimized.

Your opinion that the behavior is "deviant" comes from religion, therefore it's not relevant to the question in the OP.

2. Health care costs for you and I will go up.

How so?

3. Our kids will be brought up to believe its normal.

Another opinion stemming from your religious viewpoint.

There are more, but the point is society in no way benefits from it.

Gay persons are members of society and, therefore, they benefit from the ability to marry the person of their choice. They also gain rights which are now withheld from them such as inheritance rights, partner healthcare benefits, healthcare surrogate and other consent rights in cases of medical emergency. All these benefits must be gained at a high legal cost to gay partners at present when they are automatically realized by married persons.

 

[Envy]

I am all for homosexuality, it's a good way to keep the worlds population in the balance. Since I think the world is over populated...

 

[vossler]

Excessive reproduction is already placing a great strain on the environment - global warming, using up too many natural resources, etc.

That logic would also allow for the introduction of diseases to control the population.

In a monogamous relationship - homosexual or otherwise, sexually transmitted diseases are not spread through the population.

The problem is, unfortunately, we have very few monogamous relationships.

Your opinion that the behavior is "deviant" comes from religion, therefore it's not relevant to the question in the OP.

No, my opinion comes from the fact that we aren't built that way, so therefore it is deviant.

How so?

By far, percentage wise, more homosexuals carry the aids virus.

Another opinion stemming from your religious viewpoint.

How is that religious?

Gay persons are members of society and, therefore, they benefit from the ability to marry the person of their choice.

Quite an interesting position. If marriage should be so open, why should the state even license it? By your definition, why shouldn't polygamists also have the same right? What about roommates?

They also gain rights which are now withheld from them such as inheritance rights, partner healthcare benefits, healthcare surrogate and other consent rights in cases of medical emergency. All these benefits must be gained at a high legal cost to gay partners at present when they are automatically realized by married persons.

Again, if they can do so, why not anyone? Where is the value in a traditional marriage for society?

 

[Wickwoman]

1. If a homosexual person wants to get married, there is no more reason to believe they will NOT be monogamous than a hetero, therefore, the spread of aids point is moot and the increase of healthcare cost is moot.

2. Monogamous relationships among gay persons are not comparable to polygamy.

3. Expansion of marriage to include same sex is of NO THREAT to traditional marriage. Traditional marriages will realize no less benefits as a result.

4. The reason marriage licenses exist is to provide health, insurance, consent, and other privileges to married persons. So saying the license would be of no benefit if gay persons are allowed to married doesn't make sense to me. That is the very reason they want to be allowed to marry.

You seem to think the reason a marriage license is important is because it's between a man and a woman. Why does that make it more special than a marriage license among two men or two women?

 

[MQTA]

too bad you can't just get a Permit, first. then you gotta pass the road test to get the license

 

[vossler]

1. If a homosexual person wants to get married, there is no more reason to believe they will NOT be monogamous than a hetero, therefore, the spread of aids point is moot and the increase of healthcare cost is moot.

Since its all moot, case closed.

 

[Wickwoman]

too bad you can't just get a Permit, first. then you gotta pass the road test to get the license

I think folks should have to take a test before they have kids!