It Is Natural For Some, But Is It Right?

[Verv]

Many ideas in the arguments of morality (particularly of homosexuality) come back to the question of it being natural. I think no one can deny that the majority of mankind is heterosexual and when Christians speak of homosexuality as an unnatural desire we mean it in the general sense for mankind that it is unnatural. As surely as the most normal path for man is heterosexuality, so is the way that one should go because we were created in that image.

Even societies that were allegedly inundated with homosexuality had some interesting inconsistencies. Even in ancient Greece, an Athenian homosexual was forced to forfeit the most intrinsic right to a Greek (the right to vote). In Pagan Europe the Nordic peoples were famous for viewing homosexuality as an act that merited death -- while infanticide was occasionally practiced by Viking peoples and not frowned on homosexuality was viewed as an aberration and was punished with death.

This aside, we can look at homosexuality as a largely individual phenomenon. And most assuredly, homosexuality is natural to some people as heterosexuality is to others. But here is the thing:

Nature does not inherently make something moral. This is even evident in Christian belief that our own natural desires are called to be curved.

The natural desire of mankind leans towards sexual promiscuity. Heterosexuals who desire to have promiscuous sex are committing a sin in their hearts -- we are called to curb it and to not act on the urges and even try to erase them.

The natural desire of people often can be moved by passionate moments where one wants to fight somebody, lie to somebody, steal something, etc. There is no person who has not had these moments of anger where the bestial desire to come to blows or to hate is overwhelming. But again, the Christian idea of morality recognizes this as natural and something we must struggle against in our personal lives.

Humans across the board generally agree that we shouldn't fight or steal or lie though it is natural. Most societies, even the Pagan Greek and Roman societies where their gods acted like men and engaged in immoral behavior, still condemn these actions and find the desire to act with moral uprightness.

And so, too, a man who has strong desires to fight or to be gluttonous and eat all day or to be a drunk (which I am and wish to stop) is called to stop and control themselves.

Even in societies without God homosexuality is called out as a disgusting act and one that disgraces the family. Communist China is probably upwards of 95% atheist yet homosexuals are treated terribly. Why? A dozen reasons leading back to the natural repugnance that man has for the action.

Just as most people cannot imagine having sex with an animal or with children, having sex in some extremely violent way or something along these lines they view sex with the same gender as an unnatural and wrong action. Atheist societies also frown on homosexuality. Even Communist Cuba has been famous for jailing homosexuals in spite of its' officially atheist state. The feeling goes across the board.

Few societies were as officially and governmentally moralizing as the Maoist China, yet the strict adherence to atheism and mockery of traditional Chinese religion amongst them is unparalleled. From the beginning Mao Tse-tung was denouncing traditional ancestral worship and gods.

Homosexuality on a larger level represents an action which people fathom to be wrong. Of course as homosexuals are as diverse as man himself we cannot come to large conclusions about the character of a homosexual but are left only to think of homosexuality in terms of what it represents to the collective society.

Societies often feel that they do not want it to occur -- just as one can look at bestiality and in a practical sense where morals are only defined by harming other people it is frowned upon.

There are a thousand victimless acts that are considered immoral, and there are a million acts where one can actually question whether it is right society views them immoral through.

Drug use is a social harm; gluttony, overindulgence in food is viewed as a social harm; excessive luxury in the face of poverty is viewed as a social harm; bestiality even with consenting animals is viewed as much. But should they if we truly divorce ourselves from society and view an individual as his sole proprietor and us having no rights over them?

Man comes together to live in societies because it brings the benefit of order and structure and in a greater sense homosexuality, drug use, excessive gambling, facial tattoos in most societies, adultery, etc. though they are personal choices are highly regulated or even outright outlawed for greater social reasons.

In the same sense God calls us to honor our father and our mother it is a call for social harmony; calling us to love our neighbors as ourselves is a similar call for a society to come together on larger levels.


If you even really want to get deeper we can even question some of the most basic ideas we have about what is right for children. The native tribes of Mexico practiced widespread pedophilia. Mohammed, according to the Haddith entitled "Muslim," fondled his 8 year old wife while she bathed. Mongols cut large scars across their male children's faces to remind them that life was pain. Blackfoot Native Americans cut off the ring and pinky fingers of boys during 'coming of age' ceremonies. Hottentots cut off a ball of a newborn child because it was viewed as 'unnecessary' and the ball was eaten by the parents. Scythians mutilated the right breast of female children under the superstition that it would give them the same power as men to wield spears.

Needless to say, in those societies it was not only normal but viewed as socially acceptable to have sexual relations with children and to even mutilate them. It was not viewed as damaging to anybody...

All the lines which mankind draws in the sand are entirely arbitrary if we follow our natural whims. God, however, laid down distinct rules concerning our behavior.

The natural anarchy that man can lead himself towards if he simply is inclined to think along those lines is pretty overwhelming. Without a God and with man as the only judge we are forced to really concede to all of the natural desires we have and forced to re-position our morality within the greater context of it.

Essentially, for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Bahai and many other religions who subscribe to divine revelation we are capable of drawing lines in the sand on moral behavior while others are left to a neverending slippery slope.

I think that is why a lot of people view the religious as ethically superior and why homosexuality is an abomination on the lines of adultery, lechery, intoxication, etc.: individually it burdens the soul and socially it pushes the lines of acceptability further back, taking away obligations we have to our neighbors and to our parents.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Many ideas in the arguments of morality (particularly of homosexuality) come back to the question of it being natural. I think no one can deny that the majority of mankind is heterosexual and when Christians speak of homosexuality as an unnatural desire we mean it in the general sense for mankind that it is unnatural. As surely as the most normal path for man is heterosexuality, so is the way that one should go because we were created in that image.

Incorrect. The fact that human beings experience sexual oriention as a spectrum ranging form heterosexuality through bisexuality to homosexuality is natural is brought up based on false clams by those who choose to hate that homosexuality is somehow not natural it goes against nature. Claiming what is natural to be somehow unnatural is just a lie that has been used for centuries to justify bigotry. a related example would be the claim Christians made that love between members of different races was ‘unnatural’. Even societies that were allegedly inundated with homosexuality had some interesting inconsistencies. Even in ancient Greece, an Athenian homosexual was forced to forfeit the most intrinsic right to a Greek (the right to vote). In Pagan Europe the Nordic peoples were famous for viewing homosexuality as an act that merited death -- while infanticide was occasionally practiced by Viking peoples and not frowned on homosexuality was viewed as an aberration and was punished with death.

This aside, we can look at homosexuality as a largely individual phenomenon. And most assuredly, homosexuality is natural to some people as heterosexuality is to others. But here is the thing:

Nature does not inherently make something moral. This is even evident in Christian belief that our own natural desires are called to be curved.

The natural desire of mankind leans towards sexual promiscuity. Heterosexuals who desire to have promiscuous sex are committing a sin in their hearts -- we are called to curb it and to not act on the urges and even try to erase them.

The natural desire of people often can be moved by passionate moments where one wants to fight somebody, lie to somebody, steal something, etc. There is no person who has not had these moments of anger where the bestial desire to come to blows or to hate is overwhelming. But again, the Christian idea of morality recognizes this as natural and something we must struggle against in our personal lives.

Humans across the board generally agree that we shouldn't fight or steal or lie though it is natural. Most societies, even the Pagan Greek and Roman societies where their gods acted like men and engaged in immoral behavior, still condemn these actions and find the desire to act with moral uprightness.

And so, too, a man who has strong desires to fight or to be gluttonous and eat all day or to be a drunk (which I am and wish to stop) is called to stop and control themselves.

Even in societies without God homosexuality is called out as a disgusting act and one that disgraces the family. Communist China is probably upwards of 95% atheist yet homosexuals are treated terribly. Why? A dozen reasons leading back to the natural repugnance that man has for the action.

Just as most people cannot imagine having sex with an animal or with children, having sex in some extremely violent way or something along these lines they view sex with the same gender as an unnatural and wrong action. Atheist societies also frown on homosexuality. Even Communist Cuba has been famous for jailing homosexuals in spite of its' officially atheist state. The feeling goes across the board.

Few societies were as officially and governmentally moralizing as the Maoist China, yet the strict adherence to atheism and mockery of traditional Chinese religion amongst them is unparalleled. From the beginning Mao Tse-tung was denouncing traditional ancestral worship and gods.

Homosexuality on a larger level represents an action which people fathom to be wrong. Of course as homosexuals are as diverse as man himself we cannot come to large conclusions about the character of a homosexual but are left only to think of homosexuality in terms of what it represents to the collective society.

Societies often feel that they do not want it to occur -- just as one can look at bestiality and in a practical sense where morals are only defined by harming other people it is frowned upon.

There are a thousand victimless acts that are considered immoral, and there are a million acts where one can actually question whether it is right society views them immoral through.

Drug use is a social harm; gluttony, overindulgence in food is viewed as a social harm; excessive luxury in the face of poverty is viewed as a social harm; bestiality even with consenting animals is viewed as much. But should they if we truly divorce ourselves from society and view an individual as his sole proprietor and us having no rights over them?

Man comes together to live in societies because it brings the benefit of order and structure and in a greater sense homosexuality, drug use, excessive gambling, facial tattoos in most societies, adultery, etc. though they are personal choices are highly regulated or even outright outlawed for greater social reasons.

In the same sense God calls us to honor our father and our mother it is a call for social harmony; calling us to love our neighbors as ourselves is a similar call for a society to come together on larger levels.


If you even really want to get deeper we can even question some of the most basic ideas we have about what is right for children. The native tribes of Mexico practiced widespread pedophilia. Mohammed, according to the Haddith entitled "Muslim," fondled his 8 year old wife while she bathed. Mongols cut large scars across their male children's faces to remind them that life was pain. Blackfoot Native Americans cut off the ring and pinky fingers of boys during 'coming of age' ceremonies. Hottentots cut off a ball of a newborn child because it was viewed as 'unnecessary' and the ball was eaten by the parents. Scythians mutilated the right breast of female children under the superstition that it would give them the same power as men to wield spears.

Needless to say, in those societies it was not only normal but viewed as socially acceptable to have sexual relations with children and to even mutilate them. It was not viewed as damaging to anybody...

All the lines which mankind draws in the sand are entirely arbitrary if we follow our natural whims. God, however, laid down distinct rules concerning our behavior.

The natural anarchy that man can lead himself towards if he simply is inclined to think along those lines is pretty overwhelming. Without a God and with man as the only judge we are forced to really concede to all of the natural desires we have and forced to re-position our morality within the greater context of it.

Essentially, for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Bahai and many other religions who subscribe to divine revelation we are capable of drawing lines in the sand on moral behavior while others are left to a neverending slippery slope.

I think that is why a lot of people view the religious as ethically superior and why homosexuality is an abomination on the lines of adultery, lechery, intoxication, etc.: individually it burdens the soul and socially it pushes the lines of acceptability further back, taking away obligations we have to our neighbors and to our parents.[/quote]

 

[Ave Maria]

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with two people of the same sex who romantically love each other. I personally think that gay marriage should be legal. Equal rights for all is what I say!

 

[Joykins]

This aside, we can look at homosexuality as a largely individual phenomenon. And most assuredly, homosexuality is natural to some people as heterosexuality is to others. But here is the thing:

Nature does not inherently make something moral. This is even evident in Christian belief that our own natural desires are called to be curved.

The natural desire of mankind leans towards sexual promiscuity. Heterosexuals who desire to have promiscuous sex are committing a sin in their hearts -- we are called to curb it and to not act on the urges and even try to erase them.
...
Communist China is probably upwards of 95% atheist yet homosexuals are treated terribly. Why? A dozen reasons leading back to the natural repugnance that man has for the action.

So it's naturally attractive or naturally repellent. Perhaps to some people it's both or they wouldn't spend so much time obsessing on other people's love lives.

I think that is why a lot of people view the religious as ethically superior and why homosexuality is an abomination on the lines of adultery, lechery, intoxication, etc.: individually it burdens the soul and socially it pushes the lines of acceptability further back, taking away obligations we have to our neighbors and to our parents.

If you argue that people's natural sexual impulses are chaotic and need to be restrained and ordered for the sake of society and decent behavior--and to a large extent I would agree with that--would holding homosexuality (or homosexual individuals) to the exact same moral standards as heterosexuality (or heterosexual individuals) (except of course to the gender of one's partner) hold up?

 

[Paulos23]

I don't poke my nose into someone elses bedroom. Why do you want to?

 

[quatona]

Many ideas in the arguments of morality (particularly of homosexuality) come back to the question of it being natural.

Not really. The question is completely irrelevant until some opponent argues that it is "unnatural" and typically equivocating different meanings of "natural" in order to make his case look reasonable.
For moral/ethical purposes the question whether homosexuality is "natural" isn´t any more relevant than the question whether eating cooked food, driving a car, cutting your hair and fingernails, walking upright, thinking in abstractions or playing a musical instrument is "natural".

 

[uberd00b]

The questions really is "is it wrong?".

If there's no reason for it to be wrong, then it can't be wrong, right?

 

[TheManeki]

The questions really is "is it wrong?".

If there's no reason for it to be wrong, then it can't be wrong, right?

Agreed. It seems rather out-of-character for a God who espouses love and fidelity to arbitrarily rule one particular expression of it off-limits.

 

[Trevorocity]

Word Salad mostly but this little diddy especially sticks out:

Even in societies without God homosexuality is called out as a disgusting act and one that disgraces the family. Communist China is probably upwards of 95% atheist yet homosexuals are treated terribly. Why? A dozen reasons leading back to the natural repugnance that man has for the action.

The answer is: for the same reasons it is in so-called religious societies. That being - Fear and ignorance reinforced by an overbearing, oppressive, and misguided autocracy. China is a particularly good example. The Chinese government restricts its citizens access to factual information about homosexuality. Preferring instead to "educate" the Chinese people in a manner not at all inconsistent with 1950's America.

I've noticed you're fond of this notion that there is a natural repugnance to homosexuality. But its actually a learned behavior. Granted people born heterosexual will not be drawn toward same-sex behavior. Its not their fault though; they can't help the way they were born. However to say it is therefore "natural" that heterosexuals attack homosexuals out the expression of their innate sexuality is rediculous.

Take for example the contrapositive. You posit:

we can look at homosexuality as a largely individual phenomenon. And most assuredly, homosexuality is natural to some people as heterosexuality is to others.

If I as a homosexual were to take your meaning at face-value (since I have a natural orientation to homosexuality) I should also have a natural aversion/disgust toward heterosexuals. This however is not true, I have nothing against heterosexuals OR what you would call heterosexual behavior.

 

[cantata]

It is true that natural ≠ right and right ≠ natural. I don't really know what "natural" is supposed to mean, let alone "right".

But since we've ascertained that the naturalness of something is not important with regard to its rightness, people's "natural" dislike of hot man-on-man action (which, by the way, they don't tend to experience when two cute girls are getting it on) can be disregarded.

I find certain things disgusting. I really don't like slugs, for example. I think they look like little poos with eyes. But my dislike of slugs doesn't make me think that slugs deserve death, or that they're evil or sinful creatures. Ew, slug, don't crawl around my bathroom, please, but don't fear for your life - I'm not going to pour salt on you just because I find you icky. My dislike is my problem, not the slug's. The slug is just doing its thing.

I understand that some people are deeply troubled by the idea of gay sex. But there is both a lack of empathy going on - an incapability to put oneself in the position of the other and imagine what it's like for them - and also an inability to separate one's feelings from one's moral judgements.

Just try to imagine what it feels like to be shunned for making love to a person you are deeply in love with. Imagine living somewhere where heterosexuals are not legally allowed to marry, and where if a man and a woman are seen holding hands in the street, people will whisper, stare, and may even attack them. Walk a mile in the moccasins of every brand of sinner you love to hate, and ask yourself whether, even if you continue to disagree with them, they deserve the vitriol they receive.

And now, try to separate your feeling from your moral judgement. Precisely why do you regard something as wrong? If God features in the answer, why does God regard it as wrong? What kind of wrong is it? What are your assumptions about the basis of morality?

Peace is achieved when people understand one another properly.

 

[keith99]

Why not ask instead why do people hate the gays?

What was said about an other despised group may fit.

Because of what we have done to them.

 

[jayem]

All the lines which mankind draws in the sand are entirely arbitrary if we follow our natural whims. God, however, laid down distinct rules concerning our behavior.

But I would say that what you claim to be God's rules, are also arbitrary lines in the sand made up by human beings. They are the customs and mores of the ancient Hebrew tribes, as later modified by Christianity. They are no more supernaturally derived than the Buddha's Four Moral Precepts, or the code of Hammurabi. And they are every bit as much products of the culture and time they were written as the moral standards of any other society on earth. Not to say that some Biblical ethical directives are not valid and worthwhile. But it's only your faith and belief that give them a divine and supra-human origin.

And to be honest, they are hardly timeless and unchanging. Do we believe today it's a moral imperative to execute witches? Is owning slaves ethical, provided you treat them according to Biblical principles? I'm sure Calvin thought he was following God's standards by burning Michael Servetus for denying the Trinity. Not to mention fundamentalist Muslims who teach that it's a moral duty to convert non-believers, or kill recalcitrant infidels.

Religously based morals are no different than any others. They are all products of our human nature. The allegation that they have been revealed by a diety is only that--an unprovable allegation. History shows they are all subject to shifting sands of cultural change, and they can all be corrupted by human whim.

 

[Tenka]

Who gives a rat's proverbial if it is 'moral'? the pertinent question is 'is it ethical'. Morals are because I say so rules where ethics are decided for good reasons that people of all positions can agree on.
As you said, many places found murder and child mutilation moral but these things could never be ethical.

Essentially, for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Bahai and many other religions who subscribe to divine revelation we are capable of drawing lines in the sand on moral behavior while others are left to a neverending slippery slope.

Uh, no.
"Christian morality" has been evolving since inception the same way all societies evolve. Your 'line in the sand' is redrawn every time the tide comes in.

 

[Maren]

Many ideas in the arguments of morality (particularly of homosexuality) come back to the question of it being natural. I think no one can deny that the majority of mankind is heterosexual and when Christians speak of homosexuality as an unnatural desire we mean it in the general sense for mankind that it is unnatural.

This is the logical fallacy of equivocation, trying to use different meanings of the word "unnatural" to make your point. Using "unnatural" they way you are attempting to use it here, we would also be forced to conclude those that are left-handed, blond, or blue eyed were also unnatural. This becomes even more evident when you realize that blond hair and blue eyes each occur no more frequently than homosexuality in humans.

As surely as the most normal path for man is heterosexuality, so is the way that one should go because we were created in that image.

Sorry, your conclusion does not follow from what you were saying above. It would be like saying many sons follow in their father's footsteps so, if a boy chooses a different profession than he is wrong. I think we can all agree this is illogical.

Even societies that were allegedly inundated with homosexuality had some interesting inconsistencies. Even in ancient Greece, an Athenian homosexual was forced to forfeit the most intrinsic right to a Greek (the right to vote).

Homosexual prostitutes (typically catamites) were denied the right to vote. This is actually little different than known heterosexual prostitutes are not allowed to vote in our society. Not to mention that Athens, as a city-state, has a couple of thousand years of history, these laws were not in effect for most of Athen's history. Further, Athens was merely one city-state, other areas of Greece had different laws and customs (such as in Sparta, where homosexual relationships were used in the training of young members of the army).

In Pagan Europe the Nordic peoples were famous for viewing homosexuality as an act that merited death

Though I'm sure you can quote specific instances where this is true, as a generalization it is false. Paganism in ancient time did not have any negative beliefs about homosexuality.

-- while infanticide was occasionally practiced by Viking peoples and not frowned on homosexuality was viewed as an aberration and was punished with death.

Not sure what infatricide has to do with anything here, unless you mean it to say that there culture was "evil" but still punished homosexuality. But using similar ideas of the ancient Israelis killing the children of their enemies and allowing slavery make everything about their culture evil?

This aside, we can look at homosexuality as a largely individual phenomenon. And most assuredly, homosexuality is natural to some people as heterosexuality is to others. But here is the thing:

Nature does not inherently make something moral. This is even evident in Christian belief that our own natural desires are called to be curved.

Agreed, just as being natural or rare does not make something immoral. The fact is that people who are "different" are oven perceived as threats. There have been cultures that shunned/killed blonds because they were different, does this make being blond immoral? There are also many cultures that have revered homosexuals, though more commonly transsexuals, does this make transsexuality something not only moral but desired?

The natural desire of mankind leans towards sexual promiscuity. Heterosexuals who desire to have promiscuous sex are committing a sin in their hearts -- we are called to curb it and to not act on the urges and even try to erase them.

Here you are inserting your own moral beliefs and not looking at things logically. While there are arguments that can be made for abstinance/marriage, promiscuity is not automatically immoral. Many sexually promiscuous societies have lasted for centuries, not to mention that even Western civilization has plenty of promiscuous behavior in its history.

The natural desire of people often can be moved by passionate moments where one wants to fight somebody, lie to somebody, steal something, etc. There is no person who has not had these moments of anger where the bestial desire to come to blows or to hate is overwhelming. But again, the Christian idea of morality recognizes this as natural and something we must struggle against in our personal lives.

Again, you seem to overgeneralize. While most believe passions must be controlled (the Greek philosophers spent time on this idea), passion can be channeled to be a force for good. In fact, it seems to be pretty well established that denying our passions causes psychological problems. Even the Bible recognizes this, such as Paul saying that if your passion for sex is too strong that you should marry, that simply denying those passions will cause problems.

Humans across the board generally agree that we shouldn't fight or steal or lie though it is natural. Most societies, even the Pagan Greek and Roman societies where their gods acted like men and engaged in immoral behavior, still condemn these actions and find the desire to act with moral uprightness.

Yes, but that is because in cheating and stealing, you harm others. Lying actually becomes a good example, though. Even Christians admit that lying can be the right thing to do, that lying is not automatically immoral. If lying is aimed to hurt another or used selfishly, than typically it is condemned (again, the idea that it hurts others). However, if you lie to someone committing a crime, such as if there are others in the area, can be seen as a moral thing as it is being used to help, and often save the lives, of others.

And so, too, a man who has strong desires to fight or to be gluttonous and eat all day or to be a drunk (which I am and wish to stop) is called to stop and control themselves.

That actually depends a lot on the society. In authoritarian societies, especially ones where things are done for the common good, one person not contributing is seen as "stealing" from others. In societies that believe in personal freedom, it is typically seen as a personal choice and, if the person wishes to self-destruct, the person has that right.

For example, in the United States, there is nothing that would prevent a person from being gluttonous or a drunkard. Instead, it is typically family and friends (those that care about the person) that seek to stop the downward spiral because they care for the individual; not necessarily for moral reasons.

If it is for moral reasons, it is typically for religious reasons, which again has authoritarian roots.

Even in societies without God homosexuality is called out as a disgusting act and one that disgraces the family. Communist China is probably upwards of 95% atheist yet homosexuals are treated terribly. Why? A dozen reasons leading back to the natural repugnance that man has for the action.

As mentioned about, this is because people who are different are considered a threat in most authoritarian cultures. It is further interesting to note that China was accepting of homosexuality, it is only in the last century that this has changed.

Just as most people cannot imagine having sex with an animal or with children, having sex in some extremely violent way or something along these lines they view sex with the same gender as an unnatural and wrong action.

But again, sex with animals and children is typically viewed as harmful. Your arguing apples and oranges here. The fact is that homosexuality is typically condemned only because it is "different". This is little different than the Romans condemning Christianity because they perceived those that believed differently, Christians believing in a single God, as a threat.

Atheist societies also frown on homosexuality. Even Communist Cuba has been famous for jailing homosexuals in spite of its' officially atheist state. The feeling goes across the board.

Actually, I have a hard time seeing communism as atheistic in the way you mean it. Communism, as practiced by Russia, China, and their satellites, instead create a religion of nationalism -- and again, anything that is different, be it homosexuality, religion, etc. is seen as a threat to the state.

Few societies were as officially and governmentally moralizing as the Maoist China, yet the strict adherence to atheism and mockery of traditional Chinese religion amongst them is unparalleled. From the beginning Mao Tse-tung was denouncing traditional ancestral worship and gods.

Yet since Maoism was a religion, it was not atheism. And more to the point, this was a single authoritarian persons view who was founding a communist state (different is bad). Racial minorities also tend not to fare well in communist societies (they are different), Jews are a prime example. Does this make them immoral?

Homosexuality on a larger level represents an action which people fathom to be wrong. Of course as homosexuals are as diverse as man himself we cannot come to large conclusions about the character of a homosexual but are left only to think of homosexuality in terms of what it represents to the collective society.

Societies often feel that they do not want it to occur -- just as one can look at bestiality and in a practical sense where morals are only defined by harming other people it is frowned upon.

And the southern states did not what Blacks that were not slaves -- did that make being Black immoral? Simply because a society decides it doesn't like something does not make those morals correct. Much of your post seems to be logical fallacies, either through making over broad statements and using them to draw conclusions, argumentum ad populum, etc.

There are a thousand victimless acts that are considered immoral, and there are a million acts where one can actually question whether it is right society views them immoral through.

Drug use is a social harm;

But the arguments for keeping drug use illegal are based on societal harm. They point to the criminals who promote its use, the junkies that commit crimes in order to feed their habits, etc.

gluttony, overindulgence in food is viewed as a social harm;

Except there are no laws against gluttony, in fact it hardly seems to be considered immoral in American society. Though the arguments against it today are all based on societal harms -- increase in health care costs for those that are not gluttons, less food for poor areas of the world, etc.

excessive luxury in the face of poverty is viewed as a social harm;

Again, this is not seen as immoral in Western culture. We do not condemn the Bill Gates with his $135 million home, Hollywood stars and their supposed lifestyle, sports stars, etc. Though most would say we don't have "excessive poverty" in this country. But again, the reason excessive wealth is seen as bad is that it destabilizes societies -- the French Revolution ("let them eat cake") would seem to be a prime example.

bestiality even with consenting animals is viewed as much.

Umm... how does an animal consent? Again, we see preventing the abuse of animals as good for society, though honestly while most look down on bestiality I'm not aware of many laws against it. And, in fact, most laws against sex with animals are based on public safety, because of possible disease transmission.

At this point the post is getting too long. But in response to the remainder of your post, you seem to be merely making excuses to make laws based on religious beliefs without testing if they are actually moral. The terrible things other societies have done have often been based on their religious beliefs. Even some beliefs Christians have defended based on the Bible, such as slavery, have now been abandoned because they are seen to be morally wrong.

This is why, as a free society, our laws on based on things that can be shown to harm society rather than creating laws solely on religious dogma.

 

[Stinker]

"If I as a homosexual were to take your meaning at face-value (since I have a natural orientation to homosexuality) I should also have a natural aversion/disgust toward heterosexuals. This however is not true, I have nothing against heterosexuals OR what you would call heterosexual behavior." [Treverocity post #9]


This is such a profound discernment!

 

[Bombila]

Jmverville, I think where human sexuality is concerned, you have only managed to come up, in all that verbiage, with the argument "I think it is icky and God does too and so do a lot of other people."

Not a convincing argument. Perhaps you should consider, as an experiment, examining your personal aversion to homosexuality outside of the context of religious prohibition, and see where that leads you, intellectually speaking.

Clearly, many, many heterosexual people are completely accepting of homosexuality, and consider it a common aspect of the human condition. In Canada, we've even managed, several years ago, to get the typical government full of old men to legalize same-sex marriage. The country hasn't fallen apart, no one rioted in the streets and apparently, no gay couples have frightened the horses.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Why not ask instead why do people hate the gays?

What was said about an other despised group may fit.

Because of what we have done to them.

You assume that everyone who supports sex as being ONLY for within marraige between a man and woman hates gays. You also assume that everyone who supports sex as being ONLY for within the marriage of a man and a woman is straight. You might want to recall what the first three letters of assume spell.

 

[Beanieboy]

I, too, live in Toronto. And not once has it rained fire from the sky. People are far less antagonistic to gay people here than the states, and you often see as many straight people as gay at the Pride Parade.

And no one has "married their dog", as I have heard threatened in the States.

A friend of mine is married here to her wife. She is American, and her wife is Canadian. However, they have to stay in Canada (where the American is sponsored by her wife.) If they were to go to the US, the Canadian spouse could not be sponsored, as a heterosexual spouse could. So, they have to live in Canada.

Ironic, in a place called "the Land of the Free."

 

[Verv]

I will put this more simply and though I do not address any, single person it is still good...

First: Homosexuality is a sin. It is a bad sin but not on the level of murder or anything, but rather it is a habit that if becomes a pattern in one's lifestyle sends one to hell..

Homosexuality is damage to oneself and to the society as a whole, but legitimate repentance for the sin (like any other) combined with spirited following of God is the path to Heaven.

To explain briefly why homosexuality is a sin we can look to the natural, biological faculties of men and women and see that we are equipped to mate with one another and by and large, heterosexuality is the dominant desire of us. Homosexuality becomes a sin as it goes against the inherent nature of things.

I do not use bestiality because it is a sin on the same level. It clearly is a worse one in the sense that animals do not necessarily give consent (though some do, particularly when male animals are with female humans) and also worse in the sense that one cannot even relate to animals on intellectual levels. I use bestiality because it is a similar mis-use of one's body that goes against the nature that we were designed to adhere by.

A woman can be intimate with a dog and essentially no one is hurt by it but it is an abomination in the sense that it is turning basic moral laws upside down. Naturally, when these laws are turned upside down enough in society then it gives way to further forms of sin, a social slack, a slippery slope.

It is probably quite difficult for a Japanese man, where crime rates are low, to think I should just kill my neighbor if I do not like him so much..." But it would be quite an easy to fathom and to act upon idea for someone who lives in a war infested nation where violence is so great. Similarly, it is hard to imagine anyone dreaming up the idea of 'free love and polyamory' in Saudi Arabia but it is a concept that has been greatly practiced in Western nations.

Societies which slip into such acts and accept them decrease the collective standards.

If you've ever worked in an Army unit you will see just this -- when some people show up late, everyone starts showing up late; when some people have longer hair, everyone starts having longer hair (and thus the United States Air Force was born).

The line in the sand is not arbitrarily drawn. In the Old Testament God warns the Jews of falling into the practices of pagans -- though it starts simply and in small doses a collective society can be ruined.

But for Christians, to put it simply, we are a community within a society, a community that lives under the government and not through the government.

The notion of legislating our personal morality should be utterly alien to us. Christianity is about showing one's example to others and not dictating them as humankind requires the liberty of choice. When that liberty is taken away we violate more fundamental principles.

We must always remember that Christ saved the life of the adulteress and stopped punishment from being given to her then merely told her to leave her life of sin. God-On-Earth essentially outlawed Earthly enforcement of His Laws. Christianity is theologically prevented from enacting theocratic societies and one of the most regrettable things to occur in Christian history was our assumption of governing institutions and doing just that.

In reality, that is our dark age.

I have no interest in what people do in their bedrooms but rather I have an interest in the salvation of others, and since we are discussing it I simply like to give my view to people. I want to explain that the choice is not arbitrary but rather a guidepost for the community of Christians.

Christians should not be homosexuals, and as all people should strive to be as Christ, homosexual behavior is immoral because it violates natural principles and jeopardizes the morality of the Christian community by marginalizing sin.

That is why Christian clergymen in Catholicism and often in Orthodox Christianity are celibate and beyond desires of the flesh; they live up to the highest standards. Their celibacy speaks to the conquering and bridling of the entire body, which should be what Christians in their own right strive for. Christ even said that the man who can go without a wife as He did should try to do so (and so should the woman who can do so!).

If you remember anything from this...

Remember that homosexuality is a sin because it goes against the natural role of man and woman and in so doing collectively lowers moral standards and jeopardizes the body of the person who engages in it and no fruit comes from it. Heterosexual sexuality produces children. As it is said, a tree should be known for the fruit it bears.

And more than that...

Christianity is never enforced on Earth; God Himself prevented the stoning of an adulteress and healed a man who came to bring Him to His Death. Theocratic governments should never exist. Christianity is a community that falls under a greater society and under the government itself.

 

[Maren]

I will put this more simply and though I do not address any, single person it is still good...

First: Homosexuality is a sin. It is a bad sin but not on the level of murder or anything, but rather it is a habit that if becomes a pattern in one's lifestyle sends one to hell..

Homosexuality is damage to oneself and to the society as a whole, but legitimate repentance for the sin (like any other) combined with spirited following of God is the path to Heaven.

To explain briefly why homosexuality is a sin we can look to the natural, biological faculties of men and women and see that we are equipped to mate with one another and by and large, heterosexuality is the dominant desire of us. Homosexuality becomes a sin as it goes against the inherent nature of things.

I do not use bestiality because it is a sin on the same level. It clearly is a worse one in the sense that animals do not necessarily give consent (though some do, particularly when male animals are with female humans) and also worse in the sense that one cannot even relate to animals on intellectual levels. I use bestiality because it is a similar mis-use of one's body that goes against the nature that we were designed to adhere by.

A woman can be intimate with a dog and essentially no one is hurt by it but it is an abomination in the sense that it is turning basic moral laws upside down. Naturally, when these laws are turned upside down enough in society then it gives way to further forms of sin, a social slack, a slippery slope.

It is probably quite difficult for a Japanese man, where crime rates are low, to think I should just kill my neighbor if I do not like him so much..." But it would be quite an easy to fathom and to act upon idea for someone who lives in a war infested nation where violence is so great. Similarly, it is hard to imagine anyone dreaming up the idea of 'free love and polyamory' in Saudi Arabia but it is a concept that has been greatly practiced in Western nations.

Societies which slip into such acts and accept them decrease the collective standards.

If you've ever worked in an Army unit you will see just this -- when some people show up late, everyone starts showing up late; when some people have longer hair, everyone starts having longer hair (and thus the United States Air Force was born).

The line in the sand is not arbitrarily drawn. In the Old Testament God warns the Jews of falling into the practices of pagans -- though it starts simply and in small doses a collective society can be ruined.

But for Christians, to put it simply, we are a community within a society, a community that lives under the government and not through the government.

The notion of legislating our personal morality should be utterly alien to us. Christianity is about showing one's example to others and not dictating them as humankind requires the liberty of choice. When that liberty is taken away we violate more fundamental principles.

We must always remember that Christ saved the life of the adulteress and stopped punishment from being given to her then merely told her to leave her life of sin. God-On-Earth essentially outlawed Earthly enforcement of His Laws. Christianity is theologically prevented from enacting theocratic societies and one of the most regrettable things to occur in Christian history was our assumption of governing institutions and doing just that.

In reality, that is our dark age.

I have no interest in what people do in their bedrooms but rather I have an interest in the salvation of others, and since we are discussing it I simply like to give my view to people. I want to explain that the choice is not arbitrary but rather a guidepost for the community of Christians.

Christians should not be homosexuals, and as all people should strive to be as Christ, homosexual behavior is immoral because it violates natural principles and jeopardizes the morality of the Christian community by marginalizing sin.

That is why Christian clergymen in Catholicism and often in Orthodox Christianity are celibate and beyond desires of the flesh; they live up to the highest standards. Their celibacy speaks to the conquering and bridling of the entire body, which should be what Christians in their own right strive for. Christ even said that the man who can go without a wife as He did should try to do so (and so should the woman who can do so!).

If you remember anything from this...

Remember that homosexuality is a sin because it goes against the natural role of man and woman and in so doing collectively lowers moral standards and jeopardizes the body of the person who engages in it and no fruit comes from it. Heterosexual sexuality produces children. As it is said, a tree should be known for the fruit it bears.

And more than that...

Christianity is never enforced on Earth; God Himself prevented the stoning of an adulteress and healed a man who came to bring Him to His Death. Theocratic governments should never exist. Christianity is a community that falls under a greater society and under the government itself.

Sorry, but no. Without your preconceived notions of "sin" and "what God wants", it really is nothing more than several unsubstantiated and unprovable claims to "prove" your predetermined position. A great example of this is your bolded portion, if heterosexualities sole "fruit" is children than the only morally accepted reason for any person to have heterosexual sex would be to create a child. Not only homosexuality would be immoral but also any sex for people who are infertile. That this is not so shows that your claims are nothing more than a red herring.