What value is Homosexuality to society?

[wanderingone]

But none of them are a sin.

Well it did finally daw on (most of) us that being left handed isn't a sign of the devil... but there are still idiots who try to make their left handed children write with their right hand......

and you know, those darn left handed folks... they actually want special privileges... they have things like "left handers day" and want things like sports equipment and tools made specifically for them... really why does the minority have to accomodate them? What does their lifestyle contribute to society?

 

[Zebra1552]

I would have thought that the answer to this is obvious. Someone might die (murder); someone might be injured (armed robbery); someone might be emotionally destroyed (incest); someone might be sexually abused (paedophilia); a child might die (adult violence); someone might drown (suicide); someone might be financially ruined (fraud); someone might lose a family member (drink driving) to name just a few.

You really should check the context of what you quote before you quote it. Since when is homosexuality a violent crime?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Actually, it coarsens people who view it. They view people as objects strickly for their pleasure, not as human beings. It also tends to keep some people from forming attachments to real people. The folks in the dirty pictures are so accommodating there's no reason to deal with people who have actually opinions and feelings and stuff.

Mind if I quote this the next time I'm lurking on one of the "Muslims are evil evil people!!!" threads?

Pornography objectifies, but it's neither the first nor the worst thing to do so.

 

[Krus]

What lifestyle? The fact of BEING something provides nothing in itself to society. Should heterosexuals who make a choice NOT to marry or have children have their lifestyles "invalidated" because they don't contribute anything to the fantasy "traditional" family?

Why do you speak about traditional family as a fantasy?

 

[IzzyPop]

One person who has spent a lot of time looking into this question is psychologist Dr Joe Nicolosi. He argues that kids raised by homosexuals are traumatised emotionally and socially.

Children, he argues, are profoundly affected by parental behaviour. For example, children of smokers often become smokers. “Homosexuality,” says Nicolosi, “is primarily an identity problem, not a sexual problem, and it begins in childhood. The process begins when a child realizes that the world is divided between male and female and that he is not equipped to be identified as male. His father fails to sufficiently encourage male-gender identity. Because he is not fully male-gender-identified, he is not psychologically prepared to feel heterosexual attractions. In order to be attracted to women, a male must feel sufficiently masculine. Faced with this predicament, he goes into a world of fantasy and denies the imperative of being either male or female.”http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=53224170#_edn1

The lack of a strong father figure seems to be a major factor in those who become homosexuals. Another researcher, Dr Paul Cameron, says the admittedly scant data on the subject confirms Nicolosi’s findings. These studies show that between 8% and 33% of adult respondents raised by homosexuals said they considered themselves homosexual or bisexual, far above the national (US) norm of 2% of the adult population.[ii]

The absence of role models presents other problems. How will a man raised by two men know how to relate to a woman? Or how will a man raised by two women know how to relate to men? Thus the Beatles were wrong: love is not all you need, at least when it comes to parenting. As two family experts point out: “The two most loving mothers in the world can’t be a father to a little boy. Love can’t equip mothers to teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the two most loving men can’t be a mother to a child.”[iii]

They continue, “Love does little to help a man teach a little girl how to be a woman. Can you imagine two men guiding a young girl through her first menstrual cycle or helping her through the awkwardness of picking out her first bra? Such a situation might make for a funny television sitcom but not a very good real-life situation for a young girl.”[iv]

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=53224170#_ednref1 Michael Ebert, “Joseph Nicolosi, PhD., is the Fugitive,” Focus on the Family Citizen, June 20, 1994, pp. 10-12.

[ii] Cited in Don Feder, “Dangers of Gay Parenting are Underrated,” The Boston Globe, September 27, 1993.

[iii] Glenn Stanton and Bill Maier, Marriage on Trial. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004, p. 71.

[iv] Ibid.

lol

1. Your links go nowhere.

2. Paul Cameron was kicked out of the APA for publishing lies. So anything that references him is dubious at best.

3. Nearly every study looking into children raised by homosexual parents shows that there is no quantatative difference between them and those children raised by heterosexuals.


Any other Lies for Jesus you want to spread around?

 

[Miss Elly]

At the moment government seems to be falling for the idea that anything two people desire to do between themselves is okay and that constitutes marriage. I feel strongly that that is wrong and is simply another form of slavery.

I agree!!!!! Homosexuality is perversion plain and simple. I'm not excusing any other kind of sin here, but simply stating the obvious. Evil spirits seek to damn souls to hell in any way they can. The bible says it is against nature and it is. I can't unharden your hearts to the truth, you lovers and sympathizers of homosexuality, I hope you will all repent before God destroys this nation for its stiff neck.

 

[roflcopter101]

Homosexuality is perversion plain and simple.

Why?

Evil spirits seek to damn souls to hell in any way they can.

So homosexuality is the work of the devil?

The bible says it is against nature

That's great.

and it is.

Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. - Free Online Library
Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homosexual behaviour is by no means an exclusively human phenomenon.

I can't unharden your hearts to the truth, you lovers and sympathizers of homosexuality

Your assumptions are based on the bible. The bible said that leprosy can be cured by using bird blood and incantations (LE 14:49-53).

I hope you will all repent before God destroys this nation for its stiff neck.

Frankly, I do not really care about the supposed powers of an apparently omnipresent and omnipotent deity that has not manifested itself to humanity and is no more provable to exist than unicorns and leprechauns. Please take your proselytizing somewhere else or use arguments that don't rely on an ancient book.

 

[Zebra1552]

Why?

So homosexuality is the work of the devil?

That's great.

If you don't accept the Bible as reliable, there'd be no point in answering these comments.

Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. - Free Online Library
Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homosexual behaviour is by no means an exclusively human phenomenon.

None of this makes it natural. You may wish to check the meaning of words before you use them, especially when discussing theology.

Your assumptions are based on the bible. The bible said that leprosy can be cured by using bird blood and incantations (LE 14:49-53).

What the heck are you on about? The blood and the 'incantation' isn't what 'cures' anything, it's the appeal to God made in that time using symbolism. God cured it. And if you think the 'assumptions' from the Bible don't have backing, you assume it to be unreliable and there's plenty of evidence to indicate otherwise.

Frankly, I do not really care about the supposed powers of an apparently omnipresent and omnipotent deity that has not manifested itself to humanity and is no more provable to exist than unicorns and leprechauns. Please take your proselytizing somewhere else or use arguments that don't rely on an ancient book.

Why should we not use the Bible simply because you reject its veracity? For goodness sakes, you want us to debate you with logic, then use some of it yourself.

 

[Zebra1552]

I agree!!!!! Homosexuality is perversion plain and simple. I'm not excusing any other kind of sin here, but simply stating the obvious. Evil spirits seek to damn souls to hell in any way they can. The bible says it is against nature and it is. I can't unharden your hearts to the truth, you lovers and sympathizers of homosexuality, I hope you will all repent before God destroys this nation for its stiff neck.

Oh? So where is your evidence that homosexuality is caused by these evil spirits? Where's that in the Bible? And where do you come up with the idea that it's wrong to love homosexuals? Elly, homosexuality is a natural part of living in a sinful world, and homosexuals should not be treated any differently than any other sinner. Telling people that homosexuality will cause this nation to be destroyed is really just your opinion, and it's not backed by much.

 

[ArgentBear]

You can also say that none of them are behavioral, but having sex is.
Doing, not doing, thinking, saying and not saying are all behavior patterns ----- as is having sex...

Whom one loves and builds a life with is not a behavior

 

[ArgentBear]

If you don't accept the Bible as reliable, there'd be no point in answering these comments.

it is the prejudicial interpretation of the bible that is not accepted…just as the interpretation of the bible to justify racism is not accepted

None of this makes it natural.

Actually it does make it natural. Natural as in it occurs in nature…natural as it is inborn…natural as it is natural for gays and lesbians to be gays and lesbians

What the heck are you on about?

If you don’t accept the bible as reliable there is no point in answering this comment

Why should we not use the Bible simply because you reject its veracity? For goodness sakes, you want us to debate you with logic, then use some of it yourself.

Well logic coming from those justifying prejudice and discrimination would be nice

 

[wanderingone]

Why do you speak about traditional family as a fantasy?

What about my question? Are heterosexual people who choose not to marry or to parent participating in a lifestyle that should be "invalidated"?

 

[Zebra1552]

it is the prejudicial interpretation of the bible that is not accepted…just as the interpretation of the bible to justify racism is not accepted

Who's using it to justify racism? I mean, have you seen any citations from it to back anything other than that homosexual sex is sin?

Actually it does make it natural. Natural as in it occurs in nature…natural as it is inborn…natural as it is natural for gays and lesbians to be gays and lesbians

If you're going to use the Bible to say it's not natural, it would make sense to use the Bible's definitions, no?

Well logic coming from those justifying prejudice and discrimination would be nice

Yeah, it'd be nice.

 

[roflcopter101]

None of this makes it natural. You may wish to check the meaning of words before you use them, especially when discussing theology.

Natural Definition | Definition of Natural at Dictionary.com

Natural is, according to dictionary.com, "existing in or formed by nature". Homosexuality is existing in nature, in this case animals, and therefore should be considered natural.

What the heck are you on about? The blood and the 'incantation' isn't what 'cures' anything, it's the appeal to God made in that time using symbolism. God cured it. And if you think the 'assumptions' from the Bible don't have backing, you assume it to be unreliable and there's plenty of evidence to indicate otherwise.

The problem I have is taking the literal word of the bible as truth. Miss Elly was saying that since the bible says homosexuality is wrong, it is a universal truth that homosexuality is wrong. I believe this assumption to be flawed. I have presented evidence that homosexuality is natural, and I have yet to have positive proof from her as to why the bible is right in condemning homosexuality as wrong.

Why should we not use the Bible simply because you reject its veracity? For goodness sakes, you want us to debate you with logic, then use some of it yourself.

Because it is absurdity to expect non-Christian people to conform to the Christian Bible.
Also because the question of the topic is "what value is homosexuality to society", which should not require the moral condemnation of the bible to be argued.

 

[Zebra1552]

Natural Definition | Definition of Natural at Dictionary.com

Natural is, according to dictionary.com, "existing in or formed by nature". Homosexuality is existing in nature, in this case animals, and therefore should be considered natural.

I really don't care what your dictionary tells you, as it's English and doesn't have Bible definitions in mind, and that is where the verse is found and that is what is being discussed, not science. If you're not prepared to use the terms of theologians while discussing theological morality, then don't discuss it or criticize it.

The problem I have is taking the literal word of the bible as truth. Miss Elly was saying that since the bible says homosexuality is wrong, it is a universal truth that homosexuality is wrong. I believe this assumption to be flawed. I have presented evidence that homosexuality is natural, and I have yet to have positive proof from her as to why the bible is right in condemning homosexuality as wrong.

You have presented no such evidence, as you are imposing your own terms on her argument. You would do well to not make such straw men arguments. The Bible is truth, and the Bible is reliable. Those are my assertions, as I am sure they are Elly's. In places the Bible is literal, in places it is not. With the verse she has in mind, Romans 1:26-27, it is literal.

Because it is absurdity to expect non-Christian people to conform to the Christian Bible.

You may wish, then, to see my other comments to other users in this thread, as I do not disagree with you. However, I also have a problem when non-Christians attempt to tell me what the Bible does and does not say, especially when they are not learned in such things.

Also because the question of the topic is "what value is homosexuality to society", which should not require the moral condemnation of the bible to be argued.

Using it to comment that it is sin is fully relevant to whether or not homosexuality is of value to society; however, only in the Christian sense. So it is perfectly relevant, though not overarching to the broad topic at hand. As you can see, I've already responded to Elly. I doubt you and I disagree on much worth discussing in this thread.

 

[Zebra1552]

Whom one loves and builds a life with is not a behavior

Your dictionary disagrees with you, as romance is an action or reaction and a manner in which one behaves.
n. 1. The manner in which one behaves. 2. 1. The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli. 2. One of these actions or reactions: "a hormone . . . known to directly control sex-specific reproductive and parenting behaviors in a wide variety of vertebrates" (Thomas Maugh II). 3. The manner in which something functions or operates: the faulty behavior of a computer program; the behavior of dying stars.

 

[David Brider]

You can also say that none of them are behavioral, but having sex is.
Doing, not doing, thinking, saying and not saying are all behavior patterns ----- as is having sex...

And - as I've pointed out before - homosexuality per se isn't the same as having sex. It's not a behavour pattern. It's just a state of being likely to be attracted to people of the same gender as oneself.

David.

 

[roflcopter101]

I really don't care what your dictionary tells you, as it's English and doesn't have Bible definitions in mind, and that is where the verse is found and that is what is being discussed, not science. If you're not prepared to use the terms of theologians while discussing theological morality, then don't discuss it or criticize it.

I was under the impression that when Miss Elly referred to homosexuality being "against nature", it was in reference to the more commonly accepted definition of the term rather than a theological one.

You have presented no such evidence, as you are imposing your own terms on her argument. You would do well to not make such straw men arguments.

Again, I was under the impression that she was using biblical references to comment on real life issues when such comments were (again, in my understanding) contrary to reality.

The Bible is truth, and the Bible is reliable.

The Bible may be truthful in some of its representations of historical occurrences, but its seeming departure from reality (Noah's Ark, resurrection, parting waters) are contrary to reality and undermine its credibility. It is also a book of opinion and impositions: do not eat shellfish or pork, homosexuality is uncool, God is the only God, God exists. To cite the Bible as a manual of ideal personal views for on politics, opinion, and society for EVERYONE because "you'll go to hell if you don't" is unreasonable without arguments relevant to the modern day, non-Christians, or practical life.

You may wish, then, to see my other comments to other users in this thread, as I do not disagree with you. However, I also have a problem when non-Christians attempt to tell me what the Bible does and does not say, especially when they are not learned in such things.

I'm alright with that.

Using it to comment that it is sin is fully relevant to whether or not homosexuality is of value to society; however, only in the Christian sense. So it is perfectly relevant, though not overarching to the broad topic at hand. As you can see, I've already responded to Elly. I doubt you and I disagree on much worth discussing in this thread.

I see Miss Elly's points as warnings not only to Christians, but to non-Christians as well, and the implied threat of God destroying our country for our moral differences struck me as offensive but not limited to Christians, meriting a response back from me. However, I agree that in comparison to this thread's topic, it is but trifling. Back on track.

 

[marksman007]

Well it did finally daw on (most of) us that being left handed isn't a sign of the devil... but there are still idiots who try to make their left handed children write with their right hand......

Evidence please.

and you know, those darn left handed folks... they actually want special privileges... they have things like "left handers day" and want things like sports equipment and tools made specifically for them... really why does the minority have to accomodate them? What does their lifestyle contribute to society?

Speaking as a left hander, your comment is ridiculous, supercilious, trite and completely untrue.

 

[marksman007]

Natural is, according to dictionary.com, "existing in or formed by nature". Homosexuality is existing in nature, in this case animals, and therefore should be considered natural.

It notes that "homosexual scientist Simon LeVay" stated that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."

In addition, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote:

"Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[5]"