Is Homosexuality Wrong from a non Biblical perspective?

[HunterRose]

Um, you mean like Christianity in ancient Rome, modern Iran, or Somalia? Hmmm, I guess Christians are "born again that way".

Sure they can. They have the same rights I do.

Contrary to the observation of Lenin…a lie told often enough does not become true.

 

[rosenherman]

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.

It's not very nice to call someone a fool.
That person does have a good point about anal sex. Not just aids being spread that way, but anal fissures developing and fecal matter being ground into them setting up a minefield of infection.

 

[TricksterWolf]

It's not very nice to call someone a fool.
That person does have a good point about anal sex. Not just aids being spread that way, but anal fissures developing and fecal matter being ground into them setting up a minefield of infection.

This is a gross exaggeration. The risk of infection from intestinal tearing during normal anal sex is virtually zero. Even activities that cause massive distention to the anus, such as fisting, have a low incidence of tear damage.

Plus, gay does not equal anal sex, and straight does not equal no-anal-sex. Anal sex and homosexuality have little to do with one another, other than the fact that some gay males are more likely to engage in it (and gay females, less likely). I had a friend several years back who was gay and had no interest in that kind of activity, mainly because he'd been raped at a young age.

Trickster

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That person does have a good point about anal sex. Not just aids being spread that way, but anal fissures developing and fecal matter being ground into them setting up a minefield of infection.

First of all, not all homosexual sex is anal.

Second, if the anus is purely for defecation, just why did God make it so susceptible to sexual stimulation?

 

[meepmoopmeep]

no, not in a non-biblical way... i'm Christian and though i find homosexuality "different" i don't look at homosexuals any different than anyone else, i don't support it, nor do i frown upon it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Hooray for meepmoopmeep... enlightened "live and let live-ism" at last!

 

[ReverendDG]

It's not very nice to call someone a fool.
That person does have a good point about anal sex. Not just aids being spread that way, but anal fissures developing and fecal matter being ground into them setting up a minefield of infection.

well what ever works to keep you believing this nonsense i guess.
just to tell you AIDS, which by the way is not spread, aids is what happens to your body after you get HIV, HIV is the virus, not AIDS, is as easily spread through vaginal sex and anal by hetros, so this is a faulty argument. HIV is not a gay disease

if a person has anal sex the right way your objections are moot, smart people don't hurt their partner, by not using something to make insertion easy like lube

i mean objections like this are just the same as not using something to make vaginal sex easier, since you can hurt someone if there is no lube there eather
intelligence is needed for things like this

 

[KarateCowboy]

Contrary to the observation of Lenin…a lie told often enough does not become true.

Well, I'm not lying, so I don't see the relevance. Homosexuals have the same rights I do. They may marry one person of the opposite sex, just as I may.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

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

So, you don't understand why you aren't gay?
I, of course, am assuming that you do things for a reason and aren't going blindly through life. I am also assuming that you married your wife for a reason, that you are true to your wife and able to make a distinct separation of what you do with your wife sexually vs. your conduct/behavior with friends and or acquaintances, that you understand what limits are involved with friendship, fellowship, and platonic love vs. erotic behavior that is exclusive to a marriage.

Is any of that and the relating boundaries, reasons foreign or familiar with you?
I suppose I have to ask those, because one must start somewhere when dealing such a rudimentary question.

 

[Brennin]

First of all, not all homosexual sex is anal.

Second, if the anus is purely for defecation, just why did God make it so susceptible to sexual stimulation?

If people weren't meant to sniff glue/paint, then why do people get high from it? (For the obtuse: I am being facetious.)

 

[kopilo]

If people weren't meant to sniff glue/paint, then why do people get high from it? (For the obtuse: I am being facetious.)

Either way that is answering a question with a question which still draws you back to base one.

 

[kopilo]

Well, I'm not lying, so I don't see the relevance. Homosexuals have the same rights I do. They may marry one person of the opposite sex, just as I may.

'All animals are equal but some are more equal then others' - Animal farm.

If you were to tax everyone with the same amount of tax, say $1000 would that be equal? No, people have different incomes.

 

[:æ:]

Well, I'm not lying, so I don't see the relevance. Homosexuals have the same rights I do. They may marry one person of the opposite sex, just as I may.

So simple-minded and typical. Please, read, learn:

From the perspective of our government, marriage is a contract between two people to be regulated by our country's legal system. In order to get the tax breaks and other benefits, John and Sally must sign a marriage contract. Are you with me this far?

A ban on homosexual marriage is gender-discriminatory, and I'll explain why. Suppose John wanted to enter into a marriage contract with Mike. A ban on homosexual marriages would say that John is not free to enter into that contract with Mike because Mike is a man. Sally could enter into the contract with John, but Mike could not solely because of Mike's gender. That's gender discrimination, and gender discrimination is un-Constitutional.

 

[TricksterWolf]

That's gender discrimination, and gender discrimination is un-Constitutional.

I agree that it should be unconstitutional, but it isn't. There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits gender-based discrimination; the ERA never passed. We still have separate bathrooms, bans on same-sex marriage, social security-based draft requirements based solely on the presence of a penis, and people in the military who try to keep women from being fighter pilots.

Trickster

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And just to play devils advocate, there is evidence to suggest that people DO have a need to use drugs and chemicals to enhance ceretain functions and experiences... which may account for why humans are so keen to put all manner of wierd substances into their system despite risks to the contrary, including sniffing glue.

 

[KarateCowboy]

If people weren't meant to sniff glue/paint, then why do people get high from it? (For the obtuse: I am being facetious.)

ROFL

 

[KarateCowboy]

So simple-minded and typical.

I keep things simple so you may understand.

From the perspective of our government, marriage is a contract between two people to be regulated by our country's legal system.

You have made your first mistake. It is a contract between a man and a woman. Not just 'two people'.

In order to get the tax breaks and other benefits, John and Sally must sign a marriage contract. Are you with me this far?

A ban on homosexual marriage is gender-discriminatory, and I'll explain why. Suppose John wanted to enter into a marriage contract with Mike. A ban on homosexual marriages would say that John is not free to enter into that contract with Mike because Mike is a man. Sally could enter into the contract with John, but Mike could not solely because of Mike's gender. That's gender discrimination, and gender discrimination is un-Constitutional.

Ok. Gender consititution is un-Constitutional. Please excuse me while I go to the varsity girls locker room at my local state university. There's a football game soon and the cheerleaders are all changing.
Throughout all of this you fail to address the purpose of marriage. Could you please explain to me why you think marriage exists?

 

[:æ:]

I keep things simple so you may understand.

I suspect that despite your claim your naivite is unintentional.

You have made your first mistake. It is a contract between a man and a woman. Not just 'two people'.

Good job at spectactularly missing the point. NO CONTRACT can stipulate that prerequisite for the very reasons I've given.

Ok. Gender consititution[sic] is un-Constitutional. Please excuse me while I go to the varsity girls locker room at my local state university. There's a football game soon and the cheerleaders are all changing.

It has become apparent that a rational discussion with you is going to be impossible.

You are prohibited from entering into a girls' locker room because of the girls' right to privacy, and to enter would violate those individual's rights. Entering into a homosexual marriage contract does not violate anyone's rights.

Got any other brain-busters for me?

Throughout all of this you fail to address the purpose of marriage. Could you please explain to me why you think marriage exists?

The legality of marriage is a separate issue from its purpose. Marriage has different purposes for different people. As I said above, it appears that you are not interested in rational dialogue. I shall have to seek it elsewhere.

 

[KarateCowboy]

As I said above, it appears that you are not interested in rational dialogue. I shall have to seek it elsewhere.

No, what I am disinterested in is condescendingly being told I am simpleminded and being spoken to like an idiot.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No, what I am disinterested in is condescendingly being told I am simpleminded and being spoken to like an idiot.

How he speaks to you doesn't change the fact that a contract that is discriminatory on the basis of gender, race, or religion is illegal