It Is Natural For Some, But Is It Right?

[SiderealExalt]

I'm pretty much going to repeat what I said on another similar topic as this.

For me it is simple. I just do not have any sort of moral necessity to play homosexuality and/or homosexuals into the category of immorality. Nothing about simply being homosexual , to me, constitutes a moral wrong.

My saying such is not some half-brained "I'm ok, you're ok." iteration of moral relativism. It's a thought out examination of homosexuals, both ones I've known, and of homosexuality in a general sense. I'd be more prone to ask, why should I consider homosexuality as immoral in the first place? I'm not Christian, so I have no religious precedent for the idea. If I knew a homosexual was say..a drug addict, or for lack of a better term a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]. I would wonder why they being so should mean I should either blame their homosexuality for either issue.


I mention that because sometimes it seems that people who are against homosexuals are quick to point to even the slightest of character flaws and ridiculously say they are that way because they are gay. Who cares that a cursory examination of that would shred such an idea as silly and hateful, but it sure works well to help inspire impressionable youth to think it DOES work that way and engender another generation to hate gays.

Beyond that, I couldn't. As a former Marine, as a U.S. citizen and as just plain a human being feel good with myself and not have a plagued conscience if I allowed myself to treat a homosexual as a second class citizen. I might as well spit on my neighbor for their taste in cars, or features they like in a woman that I don't. It'd be ridiculous, and just as arbitrary as the argument against homosexuals.

And I don't take the "it's icky to me." argument either. You're an adult...ACT LIKE ONE! It's like people that [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] about a radio station or a tv program. Do they not have remotes and radio knobs? Likewise, are you jumping into lesbian and gay men bedrooms to see all the action? If I saw lesbians kissing or holding hands, or men doing the same. My thought, if I was even paying attention, was a momentary thought that I hope they are happy. Beyond that mind bubble just what the hell right do I have to interject myself into their life in a needlessly rude way?

I really just don't get it. I'll dislike someone because they're an ass to me or an ass to someone I know. Or they perpetuate bigoted ideas, are a murderer, or any number of things that seem generally reasonable to most people. But for the simple fact of being gay....I just don't get it.

 

[Tenka]

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

It is the same bollocks as the OP. Gayness is a sin because bible says so. We get it, what bearing does it have on secular society?

Homosexuality is damage to oneself and to the society as a whole, but

But...you never show how.

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).

So if my neighbour is gay I'll start being gay?

Heterosexual sexuality produces children.

Why is this is problem for secular society? We are having no trouble making enough children.

What is the point of this thread?

 

[SiderealExalt]

It is the same bollocks as the OP. Gayness is a sin because bible says so. We get it, what bearing does it have on secular society?

To add to that. Personally I find Christian morality(as in those morals derived primarily from biblical teachings, before being completely interpreted and expressed by individual Christians) to be, for the greater part, completely repugnant.

I mention this, not as an insult to Christians, but to highlight that not only does such a stance not have a greater relevancy to secular and non-Christian society, but that what one can take for granted as a generally agreed upon idea( Christian morals are generally good) is no certain thing.

Heterosexual sexuality produces children.

Beyond ignoring the ways current medical science can manipulate the process of becoming pregnant. The producing of children is an amoral( not to be confused with immoral) product of sex. It places no inherent value on sex in and of itself. That some people are happy to have children, have sex to have children, and some people don't want to have children is a product of themselves. It doesn't make heterosexuality somehow a more moral thing than homosexuality. For that matter, it doesn't somehow make sex with contraceptives somehow less moral than sex without.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

Why is this is problem for secular society? We are having no trouble making enough children.

Indeed. Sodom and Gomorrha obviously didn't have trouble making children either. Otherwise, the Patriarch in the sky could have saved himself the trouble of raining down fire and brimstone and waited for S&G to simply gay themselves into non-procreative oblivion.

 

[cantata]

gay themselves into non-procreative oblivion.

Best. Phrase. Ever.

 

[quatona]

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..

I´ll skip this one. I don´t believe in gods, hell and such.
If this „it´s against the will of the god of my concept“ plays a crucial role in your argument we don´t have much to discuss. I am working from the assumption that it is a projection on your part.
Where I come from, „I don´t like“ and „my god doesn´t like“ are identical statements for all practical purposes.

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.

It seems that one would have to be a theist or Christian in order to even only accept the premises of your argument.

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.

Well, there are a lot of things we are equipped to, but rarely do I see anyone concluding that not doing everything we are equipped with is a problem.

Homosexuality becomes a sin as it goes against the inherent nature of things.

There is a leap in your argument (I am supposing that you are trying to string together some sort of argument here, as opposed to mere ranting – correct me if I am wrong). Above you talked about capabilities and the desires of the majority, and here you already talk about „inherent nature of things“. Unless you explain how you get from one to the other this is just a bold and unsubstantiated assumption.
And what „things“ are you talking about, anyways? If anything, the important part would be the „nature of humans“. This is, of course, a philosophical and or metaphysical matter, and the answer depends largely on your worldview. I guess that´s why you apparently can´t come up with any argument that doesn´t boil down to „my god doesn´t like it“.

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.

But simply claiming that something goes against the nature that we were designed to adhere to is not an argument. You are welcome to think so, and you are welcome to strive for matching that which you feel you were „designed to adhere to“, but that´s how far it goes – unless you come up with some sort of argument, for a change.

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.

Just claiming that which you don´t like is „turning basic moral laws upside down“ doesn´t help your case. Everybody can do that.

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.

Hang on. You haven´t even explained how you arrived at your notion of „basic moral laws“ and what „turns them upside down“, so far.

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.

Cultural differences. What does that have to do with sexual orientation?

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

You still haven´t shown that homosexuality means „low standards“; thus, your conclusion that tolerance towards homosexuals means „decreasing the collective standards“ is baseless and rashed.

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).

And you are working from the assumption, that sexual orientation is a willful arbitrary issue comparable to growing your hair or being late?
In a society ever more tolerant to homosexuality I have never been tempted to engage in homosexual activities. Something doesn´t add up in your comparison.


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!).

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.

If there were any indication that people simply turn into homosexuals and if there were any indication that this could happen to a degree where there aren´t enough children due to the fact that everyone prefers homosexual activities, I would see your point.


The entire "it´s against nature" argument is a complete mess.

 

[Verv]

It is the same bollocks as the OP. Gayness is a sin because bible says so. We get it, what bearing does it have on secular society?
But...you never show how.
So if my neighbour is gay I'll start being gay?
Why is this is problem for secular society? We are having no trouble making enough children.

What is the point of this thread?

No... I do not think you have read everything that I wrote. I explained how homosexuality goes against the natural order of things, the way things were intended to be, and on personal and social levels is a harm.

The problem for secular society is a collective slipping towards more loose moral views which bring a collective collapse of societal structure. It loses the cultural ties and bonds which bring it together. However, I do not worry about secular society but rather Christian society where we now have Churches like the Anglican Church even nominate amongst themselves homosexual Bishops. That is an apostasy as much as electing a drunkard, an adulterer or a wrathful, shallow person to such a position.

To add to that. Personally I find Christian morality(as in those morals derived primarily from biblical teachings, before being completely interpreted and expressed by individual Christians) to be, for the greater part, completely repugnant.

I think you need to distinguish between Old and New testament. Most people do not do this and they think that somehow the morality taught for survival in the 14th century BC for the Jewish people is somehow applicable today.

However, everything from the dietary laws to the literal, earthly punishments for moral infractions are personally overturned by Christ. If you would like, I will cite the relevant Biblical passages. It is important that in understanding Christianity you leap past the Old Testament moral codes -- for if we were meant to follow those we would merely be Jews with a New Testament of poetry.

Beyond ignoring the ways current medical science can manipulate the process of becoming pregnant. The producing of children is an amoral( not to be confused with immoral) product of sex. It places no inherent value on sex in and of itself. That some people are happy to have children, have sex to have children, and some people don't want to have children is a product of themselves. It doesn't make heterosexuality somehow a more moral thing than homosexuality. For that matter, it doesn't somehow make sex with contraceptives somehow less moral than sex without.

Of course medical science and adoption can give homosexuals kids but it does not stop collective moral slippage of the society, nor does it do anything for the morals of the individual engaged in harmful sexual behavior.

I´ll skip this one. I don´t believe in gods, hell and such.
If this „it´s against the will of the god of my concept“ plays a crucial role in your argument we don´t have much to discuss. I am working from the assumption that it is a projection on your part.
Where I come from, „I don´t like“ and „my god doesn´t like“ are identical statements for all practical purposes.

We can just go into the reasons I discuss... That is better. I will delete parts that you post which I do not feel tackle the arguments.

Well, there are a lot of things we are equipped to, but rarely do I see anyone concluding that not doing everything we are equipped with is a problem.

That is valid -- however, misuse of our bodies is still an abuse to ourselves and negative for our society.

There is a leap in your argument (I am supposing that you are trying to string together some sort of argument here, as opposed to mere ranting – correct me if I am wrong). Above you talked about capabilities and the desires of the majority, and here you already talk about „inherent nature of things“. Unless you explain how you get from one to the other this is just a bold and unsubstantiated assumption.

OK, thanks for pointing that out.

I am going back to read this...

What I was shooting for here is more along the lines of misuse of your body and sort of absorbing oneself into the sin of seemingly purposeless sexual activity. What I am about to say will not please many people but it is a part of my logic that I had previously left out:

Sex is a self-centered activity. It serves a more base part of our character and does not provide us any tangible reward other than a fleeting pleasure -- a pleasure that will largely give us nothing. In fact, the more one focuses on indulgence in sexual activity the more one travels down a useless path and a path that can lead to (but not necessarily always deliver) jealousy, disease, emptiness. It becomes a slippery slope of indulgence if traveled too far down similar to drug use -- 'all things in moderation' is sort of a good motto we need to take from this.

Homosexuality particularly can lead down this road as it not only goes against the natural functions of the body but serves not the purpose that sex should have... Sex ought to be for warding off temptation as Paul points out and also for procreation. Homosexuality in and of itself is a temptation and some are born with this temptation, but it is not a temptation that people should engage in because of the abuse of the body (as it is said "abuse themselves with men," etc.). It goes against the natural order of our body which is not properly equipped for homosexual sense and thus becomes an inherently indulgent sexual act.

Indulgent because it uses the body in ways that it was not meant to be used to gain pleasure -- this is where many thinkers make even conclusions concerning how heterosexual sex should transpire as to avoid temptation.

NOTE: One interesting difference between Wester and Easter asceticism is the fact that it seems amongst Christians even the normal believer is called to higher amounts of moderation than the Eastern believer. Any Buddhist correct me if I am wrong but I do not think there are any principles which Buddhist devotees must follow concerning sexual activity if they have not become monks or nuns.

To put it simply: any sexual activity that goes beyond the natural functions of sex becomes an misuse of the body for the attainment of pleasure. It becomes crude attempts to find happiness through our bestial bodies as opposed to our celestial minds.

Hang on. You haven´t even explained how you arrived at your notion of „basic moral laws“ and what „turns them upside down“, so far.

Basic moral laws of the Bible first and foremost center around Love.

First, there is love for God which can be compared to a parent and child relationship and in a sense goes back to honor your mother and your father.We are obligated to love our parents who care for us because they have already done a good deed for us; morally, we ought to repay the deed through honorable action for them. By merely raising us they have felt (in the overwhelming majority of cases) a sense of love that is profound and intrinsic to character. When people have children I imagine it akin to the feeling God has for His People -- unconditional love and desire for their nurturing. Only in rare cases where through some strange means a parent has lead the child astray or abused them is this role of parent forfeited.


The Bible warns the parents against doing as much and certainly in these circumstances the inherent obligation of child to parent is severed entirely. However, there is no circumstance where God has ever unjustly severed a relationship with His People and certainly God gives man until the very end of His Days to repent; and in Orthodox and Catholic belief, until the day of judgment itself as in Catholic and Orthodox purgatories mankind has the ability to repent even then.



NOTE: You have your physical parents but the New Testament outlines that your Father is God in Heaven and in some
circumstances male clergymen and elder male Christians, and your mother is any woman Christian that you look up to, and your brothers and sisters are all other Christians. Of course, our natural parents have paid us a tremendous deed through giving us birth and life and must also be honored and loved but what is more important than one's family is the Christian Body headed by God Himself.



Second, there is love for one's neighbor and it must be unconditional and absolute. This means aiding them, helping them, being cooperative insofar as one can and caring for them even above one ownself. This applies to Christians and non-Christians. This even in the most profound sense applies to some of the most despicable characters in History and ultimately if Osama Bin Laden or Kim Jeong Il were to come to us today asking forgiveness we must grant him that, and though his deeds must certainly be punished we must also minister to his wounded soul.


Christian love and forgiveness has no boundaries.



In the New Testament it even goes forward to say that we are to take care of widows and orphans as a measure of our Faith in work -- never specifically Christian widows and orphans, but those of the entire world. Widows and orphans and the poor are always at the heart of the Christian. James even speaks of how the poor have been granted greater faith in God and righteousness than the rich as the rich focus on a purely selfish indulgence. Care for poor neighbors is a Christian duty and obligation and never is a Christian and non-Christian distinguished.



Thirdly is the shedding of the world. Christians must essentially give up what we all conceive of as worldly good and replace it with our Heavenly concepts of good. If you read James you will see a very articulate few chapters on just what it means, primarily giving up the life of luxury and all forms of riches, giving up all forms of exploitation of others, giving up the desire to lie and to further oneself. The rich are compared to flowers that wither and die in the sun whilst the poor have riches in heaven.

Luxury, avarice and greed is a form of depriving the Christian Body and your neighbors. These often cheat people out of decent lives in favor of oneself and prioritize their own personal comforts and indulgences over the needs of others. This is clearly a sin even by the most secular of standards and is even a primary tenant of the majority of world's atheists today as most modern atheists were greatly influenced by Marxist ideology.



As Nikkolai Ceauceasecu, former Romanian Communist dictator, eloquently said when he was just 12 years old: "How can those pigs live in palaces while others have nothing?"


Christianity begs the same moral question.



If you read Paul's letters to the Corinthians and the Romans you find it greatly rooted in abandonment of empty, worldly pursuits similar to riches -- intoxication, pride, the wrath that comes with pride, and sex outside of marriage. These are inherently immoral acts.
Intoxication leads to regrettable behavior for the intoxicated by putting them in an altered state of mind which causes them to act sometimes beyond their own control. Furthermore, it is a purely selfish endeavor and over the years the amount of resources that could be used for positive development of the society are purely wasted on selfish indulgence. It leads people to trying to satiate themselves through an indulgence which is fleeting and provides its own share of problems.



Sex outside of marriage leads to jealousy within the community, leads to confusion in the heart, leads to placing flesh above respect for the hearts and minds of other people. And just like intoxication, it is an entirely selfish pursuit that leads to no real pleasures for the person but often goads people to more indulgence, an indulgence which does not bring any reward for anyone and distracts the person from truly good pursuits. Nothing good has come out of fornication -- the human emotions of all who are connected often become confused, jealous, wrathful, possessive and often times it leads to using other people as tools. If we were to count the number of people that have lied and manipulated to gain sex it'd be rather embarrassing.



In sexual indulgence people become nothing more than their flesh and the truly good aspects of people are overlooked.
On the other hand, indulgence in love brings happiness for the people.

In the Christian, it brings forward a new kind of fulfillment -- a fulfillment in accomplishing something for others. One feels good in helping others and accepting and loving them. This is perhaps why good, Christian men and women are like brothers, sisters and mothers and fathers to us. Through their love and advice we find solace and a higher relationship. We are helped to accomplish positive things in our lives and are brought to a point of fulfilling friendship, family and community.


A person who is rich in their friends is richer than any man who counts his blessings in gold.



It is the completion of prioritizing the Holy Spirit and its' gifts above the body -- the body only brings selfish desires and dead ends whereas the Holy Spirit brings fulfillment through the non-selfish and the cultivation of the very human soul.



The essence of Christian morality can be summed up in love and shedding of selfish indulgence.


St. Isaac the Assyrian said:


"'The World' is the general name for all the passions. When we wish to call the passions by a common name, we call them the world. But when we wish to distinguish them by the special names, we call them passions. The passions are the following: love of riches, desire for possessions, bodily pleasure from which comes sexual passion, love of honor which gives rise to envy, lust for power, arrogance and pride of position, the craving to adorn oneself with luxurious clothes and vain ornaments, the itch for human glory which is a source of rancor and resentment, and physical fear. Where these passions cease to be active there the world is dead... Someone has said of the Saints that while alive they were dead; for though living in the flesh, they did not live for the flesh. See for which of these passions you are alive. Then you will know how far you are alive to the world, and how far you are dead to it."


The Saint is dead to the world and alive to the Spirit.

Cultural differences. What does that have to do with sexual orientation?

I used this to illustrate the slippery slope of human morality.

 

[quatona]

We can just go into the reasons I discuss... That is better. I will delete parts that you post which I do not feel tackle the arguments.

That´s fine with me. However, my problem was that I didn´t see any argument from you, in the first place.

That is valid -- however, misuse of our bodies is still an abuse to ourselves and negative for our society.

As long as you replace reasonable arguments by unsubstantiated negative value judgements („misuse“) I don´t see how we can get into a rational discussion.

What I was shooting for here is more along the lines of misuse of your body and sort of absorbing oneself into the sin of seemingly purposeless sexual activity.

If sex is a purposeless sexual activity for you, you are perfectly entitled not to engage in it. If the sex others have is seemingly purposeless to you the first and foremost reason is probably that you do not know what sex is for them.

What I am about to say will not please many people but it is a part of my logic that I had previously left out:

No problem with it being unpleasant, as long as it is logical.

Sex is a self-centered activity.

That´s a bold assertion. If that´s what sex is when you do it, I´d suggest you speak for yourself.

It serves a more base part of our character and does not provide us any tangible reward other than a fleeting pleasure -- a pleasure that will largely give us nothing.

You are talking about one of the most intense and close forms of human interaction and communication here. I personally don´t know many other ways of sharing time with another person that can be as rewarding for each and both and have as long lasting effects on them.

In fact, the more one focuses on indulgence in sexual activity the more one travels down a useless path and a path that can lead to (but not necessarily always deliver) jealousy, disease, emptiness.

I see how it leads down this path for someone whose preconceptions about sex are similarly negative to yours.

It becomes a slippery slope of indulgence if traveled too far down similar to drug use -- 'all things in moderation' is sort of a good motto we need to take from this.

That is not bad advice – however, it is not what you are trying to establish here, and it doesn´t help your case of singling out sex, and on top particular forms of sex.
The same argument can be made for sports (but it doesn´t help establishing that sports is selfish and leads down a useless path, and it certainly doesn´t help establishing that football is more likely to lead down that road than basketball).

Homosexuality particularly can lead down this road as it not only goes against the natural functions of the body but serves not the purpose that sex should have...

Now we are getting somewhere. So far you tried to tell me that sex is generally selfish and pointless (without supporting this claim rationally). Hopefully now you will reveal from which ideal of sex you are working – I mean, you didn´t intend to devaluate sex in general, did you? Since your approach was to single out certain forms of sex as negative, I would have expected you to show us how sex can be a good thing.

Sex ought to be for warding off temptation as Paul points out and also for procreation.

To be straight-forward: I couldn´t care less what this Paul character felt was the purpose of sex.
I see quite different purposes in having sex, and I think your attitude towards sex is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sex, to me, is at least about the other person as it is about me, and even more so, it is about an intense encounter that brings two people very close. You may not value this purpose high, but simply ignoring it as a purpose that others see in sex (and instead rambling about it being necessarily selfish, pointless and of only short-term gratification) is a bit disingenious.

Homosexuality in and of itself is a temptation and some are born with this temptation, but it is not a temptation that people should engage in because of the abuse of the body (as it is said "abuse themselves with men," etc.).

You still haven´t brought up anything that helps your point that it is „abuse“ of the body.
Even if I followed your premise that there are purposes that are required to make sex an optimal occupation, I wouldn´t see how not matching these purposes makes it „abuse“.

I tend to think that the best way of having a meal is cooking yourself and celebrating the meal with close friends, taking ourselves a lot of time, and appreciating every aspect of it. I do not see how this ideal makes eating a sandwich at the fridge door „abuse“, though.

It goes against the natural order of our body which is not properly equipped for homosexual sense and thus becomes an inherently indulgent sexual act.

Quite apparently it is properly enough equipped for those who enjoy it.
I fail to see how applying this rationale (that we should only do those things that our bodies are perfectly equipped for) consistently would make any sense, anyways. Plus I don´t see you postulating such consistently.

Indulgent because it uses the body in ways that it was not meant to be used to gain pleasure -- this is where many thinkers make even conclusions concerning how heterosexual sex should transpire as to avoid temptation.

„Meant to“ by whom? Are you trying to preach to me again?
But even if assuming there were some creator entity who „meant“ things to be used in a particular way, I would conclude from the fact that I can do something that it is one of the things that this entity „meant“ me to be able to do.

To put it simply: any sexual activity that goes beyond the natural functions of sex becomes an misuse of the body for the attainment of pleasure. It becomes crude attempts to find happiness through our bestial bodies as opposed to our celestial minds.

[FONT=&quot]Yes, you keep repeating this creed time and again in different wordings. It´s not like I haven´t understood it – it´s more like I would like to see a rational argument, for a change.
I´ll leave the rest of your post unanswered because it is relevant only for Christians, anyway.
[/FONT]

 

[cantata]

I agree with quatona that it's an impoverished view of sex which regards it as purposeless, selfish, and/or (solely) bestial.

 

[Verv]

Quatona, I am a little offended at the way you've treated my posts. It seems like you really do not even desire to discuss it with civility or try to understand my point of view but simply dismiss it all as illogical and and attribut eit all to my 'negative view of sex.

Sex is necessary for the majority of humans -- it is a beautiful thing within marriage as it consummates a loving relationship but treating it as if it should be treated as a major source of pleasure in your life is wrong. Just like how beer is good with friends it shouldn't really go to a point where you consider it a major reason for living.

When sex is treated like some path to pleasure and fulfillment it will inevitably result in the disappointment and a whole lot of other negative things that go with it. I spoke of this but you did not bother to reply to it.

BTW: I also had explained earlier that it is abuse of the body because it is using parts of it in ways that can be harmful. Sodomy can cause damage to people and naturally distend somebody. It is a filthy practice. And even though such risks do not exist with lesbians it still ties in with elevating physical pleasure to such a high point in your life and abandoning the natural order of things.

 

[TheManeki]

BTW: I also had explained earlier that it is abuse of the body because it is using parts of it in ways that can be harmful. Sodomy can cause damage to people and naturally distend somebody. It is a filthy practice. And even though such risks do not exist with lesbians it still ties in with elevating physical pleasure to such a high point in your life and abandoning the natural order of things.

I'm sure someone has mentioned this before, but I'll just reiterate.

Vaginal heterosexual sex can be harmful if not done properly. Anal sex can be harmful if not done properly. I'm sure it's possible for oral sex to also be harmful if not done properly, but something tells me it's the easiest of the three to do properly.

There. One fewer reason to dislike homosexual sex. It looks like we just keep coming back to the "ick factor" here. And my best advice for dealing with that feeling is to simply not watch.

 

[Maren]

Quatona, I am a little offended at the way you've treated my posts. It seems like you really do not even desire to discuss it with civility or try to understand my point of view but simply dismiss it all as illogical and and attribut eit all to my 'negative view of sex.

You are making assumptions in your arguments that most here do not accept as valid. And it appears you have no evidence that we should accept your assumptions as true, instead they are just your beliefs that you have not questioned or tried to support. Because of this, most of us see your arguments as illogical.

Sex is necessary for the majority of humans --

Yet this seemingly contradicts your claim that sex is only for selfish reasons. So, it appears you think that only homosexual sex is selfish and unnecessary. This is one reason your arguments come off as illogical.

it is a beautiful thing within marriage as it consummates a loving relationship but treating it as if it should be treated as a major source of pleasure in your life is wrong.

So why is it only a beautiful think in a heterosexual committed relationship? Do you not believe that it cannot be just as beautiful in a homosexual committed relationship? If you don't, there are people here that will tell you it can be just as beautiful, and as important, in a homosexual relationship as in a heterosexual relationship. Again, your preconceived notions are getting in the way of logic.

Just like how beer is good with friends it shouldn't really go to a point where you consider it a major reason for living.

Yet you seem to believe that homosexuals can't "enjoy beer with friends" without it becoming "a major reason for living"? That you even bring this up shows that you are not being logical.

If we were discussing promiscuity (either in heterosexuals or homosexuals), then this would make sense. In trying to discuss homosexuality, however; it does not work but only makes it appear that you believe that homosexuals are incapable of loving others.

When sex is treated like some path to pleasure and fulfillment it will inevitably result in the disappointment and a whole lot of other negative things that go with it. I spoke of this but you did not bother to reply to it.

Because it doesn't apply in a debate of homosexual vs. heterosexual. Homosexual sex does not mean "sex is treated like some path to pleasure", just as it does not in heterosexuality. No one here is attempting to claim promiscuity is good.

BTW: I also had explained earlier that it is abuse of the body because it is using parts of it in ways that can be harmful. Sodomy can cause damage to people and naturally distend somebody.

You need to be very careful with this argument because heterosexuality carries risks as well. There is a risk to women in heterosexual sex of tearing, abrasions, infection, etc. And that isn't counting things like HPV or other STDs.

It is a filthy practice.

Sorry, this is nothing more than your personal opinion. Honestly, I think straight sex is pretty filthy, despite the fact I enjoy it greatly. But when I start thinking of the various bodily fluids, the wet sheets, etc. it is rather gross. And have you every heard a conversation between young girls that have just learned what sex really is, and how gross they think it is that some guy is going to stick his thing in them? This is not objective, just your personal opinion that gay sex is gross.

And even though such risks do not exist with lesbians it still ties in with elevating physical pleasure to such a high point in your life and abandoning the natural order of things.

See, and this again shows you arguing from your predetermined position and not from logic. If you truly thought that risks were a determining faction in sexual morality, then you would not be saying "but" when it comes to lesbians. And again, you are making the illogical assumption that two women cannot truly love each other but only do it for pleasure. Which, as I think about it, ties into a conversation on another thread about "lesbian bed death". If lesbians were in it just for the sex and pleasure, why do they have sex less often than heterosexual couples?

 

[quatona]

Quatona, I am a little offended at the way you've treated my posts. It seems like you really do not even desire to discuss it with civility or try to understand my point of view but simply dismiss it all as illogical and and attribut eit all to my 'negative view of sex.

I think I put a lot of effort in replying with civility. However, if you are making the attempt to picture that which is very valuable to many persons as disgusting, inherently harmful, selfish etc. you better be prepared to face decisive objections. As long as I don´t call the things you do "unnatural", "selfish", "harmful", "filthy", "sinful" and such, I think I have by far not reached the level of offensiveness that your posts display. You dish out deliberately, and being offended for your points being contradicted and criticized does not really go together well with that.
In fact, I have said that I understand your point of view.
I am, of course, investigating the plausibility of your claims, and I am looking for something in your posts that may make your approach more than a description and rationalization of your personal preferences. I am looking for something that can be discussed, and blanket value calls based on circular reasoning can´t be discussed.
I haven´t been saying that you were illogical; I have been saying that your line of reasoning is not based on logical reasoning. Your premise is identical with your conclusion.

You have given your opinion about sex as being "selfish", purposeless and only short term gratifying. You are the one who has given his negative view on sex. Please don´t blame that on me.

Sex is necessary for the majority of humans -- it is a beautiful thing within marriage as it consummates a loving relationship but treating it as if it should be treated as a major source of pleasure in your life is wrong. Just like how beer is good with friends it shouldn't really go to a point where you consider it a major reason for living.

Blanket "should" statements. I might even agree with some, but that doesn´t make them a good argument.
On another note (and I have told you that before): It doesn´t help your case, unless you insinuate that engaging in homosexual behaviour implies that you have to treat it as a major source of pleasure in your life.

When sex is treated like some path to pleasure and fulfillment it will inevitably result in the disappointment and a whole lot of other negative things that go with it. I spoke of this but you did not bother to reply to it.

Well, did you support it with rational arguments? I didn´t see them - all I have seen were blanket assertions.

BTW: I also had explained earlier that it is abuse of the body because it is using parts of it in ways that can be harmful.

And have replied that we permanently use our bodies in ways that can be harmful, without earning us the reproach of abusing it. Climbing mountains can be harmful, eating can be harmful, sleeping can be harmful. Everything can be harmful. Life is a constant risk.
Everyone can decide which risks to take or not, what precautions to make or not, and how to approach certain activities so that the positive results outweigh the negative ones. Sex is no different, neither is sex between persons of the same gender. People find it worthwhile to be as close and intimitate to each other as can be, and your personal preferences and dislikes are noted as such, but beyond that they are completely irrelevant.

Sodomy can cause damage to people and naturally distend somebody.

So what damage are you thinking of? Diseases? Shaking hands can cause damage, too.

It is a filthy practice.

This your feeling about it is being done justice by the fact that nobody expects, demands or urges you into this "filthy practice".
"It is icky" is not an argument. It is a personal blanket judgement call, which you are perfectly entitled to, but which isn´t a basis for a rational argument or discussion.

And even though such risks do not exist with lesbians it still ties in with elevating physical pleasure to such a high point in your life and abandoning the natural order of things.

Blanket judgement call. Not a basis for rational discussion.

If you want to discuss the first thing I would like to see:
Some sort of rational reason that causes you to single out homosexuality as necessarily "elevating physical pleasure to such a high point in your life" any more than heterosexuality.
Next thing I would like to see: a meaningful definition of "natural order of things" that doesn´t come down to "my god thinks so, too".

 

[Tenka]

No... I do not think you have read everything that I wrote. I explained how homosexuality goes against the natural order of things, the way things were intended to be, and on personal and social levels is a harm.

You have not shown how secular society suffers by tolerating homosexuality.
All you did was make vague references to declining moral standards, (religious standards) and say it "Goes against the natural order" explain why we should be concerned. You give your posts far too much credit.

Again, Bible says gays are bad, but that is no reason for secular society to care.

The problem for secular society is a collective slipping towards more loose moral views which bring a collective collapse of societal structure. It loses the cultural ties and bonds which bring it together. However, I do not worry about secular society but rather Christian society where we now have Churches like the Anglican Church even nominate amongst themselves homosexual Bishops. That is an apostasy as much as electing a drunkard, an adulterer or a wrathful, shallow person to such a position.

I have a solution: assign Jesus Christ into every position.You will be free from the corrupting influence of a flawed, human sinner which you guys tell me is everyone.

 

[Bombila]

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..

I can't argue with this because it is a religious prohibition with no more common sense behind it than insisting women wear hats in church. - B.

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.

You seem to think that you have established that homosexuality is damaging to the person and to society, but you have not, and all objective evidence points to homosexuality having no negative effects at all so long as, individually, it is practiced safely, and socially, it is not persecuted or prosecuted. - B

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.

This is just nonsensical, as now you are saying religious prohibition = natural, when there is very little connection between the two. What is natural about cutting off the skin at the end of the male sexual organ, for example? -B

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.

Conflating bestiality with homosexuality is heinous. Animals by their very nature are not able to intelligently consent to sex with humans. Your example of animals and women is senseless. In such a case, the human takes advantage of and manipulates the animals reproductive instincts - this is not consent, but exploitation. - B

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.

Nonsense, and animal 'consent' addressed above. - B

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.

You are only referring to your own standards as to what is moral behaviour, which are so confused by your religious notions that you are looking to the most repressive religious societies in the world in order to find some virtue in your 'slippery slope' argument. - B

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).

Pointless military comparison and off topic snark at the Air Force. - B

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.


Yet you dictate to us about homosexuality being bad, immoral, unnatural, offensive to civilization. At least you claim in the purple paragraph not to wish to legislate against homosexuals. - B



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.

There is no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality goes against any 'natural' order. It is not more unusual in the human population than red-headedness - a human trait which has also resulted in persecution in quite a few societies in the past.

Furthermore, homosexual activity may not result in children, any more than most sexual acts by heterosexuals produce children, but homosexuals are as capable of procreation as the rest of us, and do so when they desire children, which many do.

You are quite young, so I must guess that you know few or no mature committed same sex couples (male or female), else you'd have observed that many of them have children. - B

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.

Your arguments are entirely religion based, and full of false assumptions regarding nature, homosexuality, consent, and procreation. You have only repeated the same flawed material in your subsequent posts. Again I urge you to set aside, for a moment, your argument from Christian religious prohibition, and examine your motive for rejecting homosexuals intellectually. You would be far more honest if you simply admit that Christian taboo is the only real reason for your stance. - Bombila

 

[cantata]

I'm bisexual! That means I'll sleep with anyone, doesn't it? Gosh, can you imagine how highly I've elevated the importance of physical pleasure in my life?!

*goes back to making origami animals, writing her essay on the ontological argument for the existence of God, drawing, singing in chapel, reading about psychology, spending time with her friends and family, looking out of the window, listening to music, sending emails to her loved ones...*

 

[quatona]

I'm bisexual! That means I'll sleep with anyone, doesn't it? Gosh, can you imagine how highly I've elevated the importance of physical pleasure in my life?!

Out of interest: Do those bisexual persons who therefore do it all the time at least take breaks for proper meals, or are you eating and drinking more like on the fly without interrupting that which you have elevated as the top priority in your lives?
Is sleeping alone a legitimate option, or is it irreconcilable with being bisexual?

 

[selfinflikted]

jmverville,

It's obvious from this thread and others that you have a distaste for homosexuality. That's all fine and dandy, as you've given your reasons for said distaste and they mostly include personal likes/dislikes and the bible. I just have one simple question for you: Since the majority of your rationale revolves around scripture and what god allegedly wants, what do you propose to do about it in a secular society? In other words, how would you go about enforcing biblical principles and upholding biblical "law" in a nation that neither recognises nor endorses one particular religion over another?

 

[cantata]

Out of interest: Do those bisexual persons who therefore do it all the time at least take breaks for proper meals, or are you eating and drinking more like on the fly without interrupting that which you have elevated as the top priority in your lives?

You should see who I have under my desk!

Is sleeping alone a legitimate option, or is it irreconcilable with being bisexual?

Oh, most of us haven't spent a night alone since we were about fifteen. I have to tell you, it's a busy schedule. And the amount of money I spend on batteries for when I absolutely cannot be naked with someone (y'know, like in tutorials and lectures and stuff) is absolutely ridiculous. Honestly, it's as expensive as an addiction, even if it doesn't count as one!

 

[Tenka]

You should see who I have under my desk!

pixorban