Why Homosexuality Is Wrong

[Washington]

Condoms . . . are largely impotent in preventing the spread of infection (and in preventing pregnancy).

Talk is cheap. Prove it, which shouldn't be that difficult considering your confident tone.

 

[fated]

Talk is cheap. Prove it, which shouldn't be that difficult considering your confident tone.

I did those two already, you can either reject sources, search for your own, or assume that it is unimportant. I am trying to lead the world, in a way, and so your personal assurance is not of such great importance.

I used a Yahoo! search quick to check for promiscuity and condom use. Well, many professionals are certain that condoms will increase the amount of sexual activity, but some studies show that condom education does not initiate sexual activity in teenagers, though it was not consistent with another article from Britain.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...exual+promiscuity&y=Search&fr=my-myy&ei=UTF-8

Enjoy.

In Africa, it should be noted, that getting a large enough supply of condoms to people is essentially an impossible task.

 

[fated]

But not part of the post to which I replied. The idea of desire for life, standing on its own as in the post to which I replied does not require a desire to conceive the child.

And?

 

[Blayz]

Condoms, it has been shown statistically, actually lead to promiscuous sexual activity and *additionally* are largely impotent in preventing the spread of infection (and in preventing pregnancy). Call that the triple failure.

Its actually a triple fabrication. Clearly however, the answer to my question of whether you are one of those baby murdering catholics is "yes". Duly noted.

Speaking as someone that actually works in HIV research, I find the baby murdering stance of catholics like yourself so morally reprehensible that I'd be willing to believe in one of the xian doctrines if it meant the hell described therein existed, for none deserve such punishment more than you and your baby murdering ilk.

 

[Q2004]

And?

And therefore, I submit that your claim that non-matrimonial heterosexual/homosexual relationships cannot emulate the "desire for life" achievable in matrimonial, heterosexual relationships is false.

 

[fated]

And therefore, I submit that your claim that non-matrimonial heterosexual/homosexual relationships cannot emulate the "desire for life" achievable in matrimonial, heterosexual relationships is false.

And yet you admit that there is no hope that ANY homosexual couple can, itself, conceive a child in the ordinary format (sexual relations between devoted partners).

 

[fated]

Its actually a triple fabrication. Clearly however, the answer to my question of whether you are one of those baby murdering catholics is "yes". Duly noted.

Speaking as someone that actually works in HIV research, I find the baby murdering stance of catholics like yourself so morally reprehensible that I'd be willing to believe in one of the xian doctrines if it meant the hell described therein existed, for none deserve such punishment more than you and your baby murdering ilk.

Why do you believe that I would have babies killed?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Many people condemn the religious view that homosexuality is wrong and in the 21st century they feel it is a mere view of traditionally conservative religious views as opposed to true religious principle. In the end, many liberal Christians have even begun to regard homosexuality as not even necessarily a sin -- this view is very harmful to the Christian body as it utterly distorts the reality of the matter and in their effort to have "modern" Christian views they've only succeeded in making Christianity appear as a watered down religion, one subject to change and thus not subject even to the binding words of God.

Many people condemn the religious view that racial equality is wrong and in the 21st century they feel it is a mere view of traditionally conservative religious views as opposed to true religious principle. In the end, many liberal Christians have even begun to regard treating non-whites as social equals as not even necessarily a sin

 

[BigBadWlf]

The desire for life that springs from a typical marital relationship cannot be emulated by any other relationship. Can it?

Of course same sex couple want to have and in many cases do have children.

Your statement here show a true lack of knowledge and empathy on your part

 

[BigBadWlf]

Condoms, it has been shown statistically, actually lead to promiscuous sexual activity

Can you back this claim up with published studies?

and *additionally* are largely impotent in preventing the spread of infection

Does the CDC know this? and again can you back this claim up with published studies?

(and in preventing pregnancy). Call that the triple failure.

back this claim up with published studies

 

[BigBadWlf]

I am not attempting to erode the value of infertile relationships that are not based on the erroneous assumption that women are the same as men.

Quite the double standard you have there.

On the one hand you wish to use infertility to justify your personal prejudice against an entire minority…but at the same time you don’t want infertility to be used against the group you belong to

 

[BigBadWlf]

I refuse to link to planned parenthood, but they show the efficacy of condoms for preventing pregnancy at 85%, which is, far from effective.

I'll get to the others if I have the time. That's a pretty quick jump to "you're lying" by the way. Have you no interest in what is true, or only pressing your own agenda?

Well here is what planned parenthood has to say about condoms:

In a 1987–91 study of couples in which one partner had HIV, all 123 couples who used condoms every time for four years prevented transmission of HIV. In 122 couples who did not use condoms every time, 12 partners became infected.Alberto Saracco, et al, "Man-To-Woman Transmission of HIV: Longitudinal Study of 343 Steady Partners of Infected Men," Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, Raven Press. Ltd., New York: 1993, 6, pp. 497-502.

So much for your claim about the spread of disease
As for you claims about pregnancy and 85%. If one goes digging one finds it is not the condom that fails it is lack of education about their use. Their studies show that couple using a condom as birth control experience pregnancy because they misused or inappropriate used the condom, IE putting the condom on after intercourse has started and the big one…not using a condom every time they had intercourse.

 

[BigBadWlf]

So, two men in a homosexual situation could rightly have the hope of having sexual relations and bearing a child?

Exactly the same hope as an infertile heterosexual couple

 

[BigBadWlf]

I did those two already, you can either reject sources, search for your own, or assume that it is unimportant. I am trying to lead the world, in a way, and so your personal assurance is not of such great importance.

I used a Yahoo! search quick to check for promiscuity and condom use. Well, many professionals are certain that condoms will increase the amount of sexual activity, but some studies show that condom education does not initiate sexual activity in teenagers, though it was not consistent with another article from Britain.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...exual+promiscuity&y=Search&fr=my-myy&ei=UTF-8

Enjoy.

In Africa, it should be noted, that getting a large enough supply of condoms to people is essentially an impossible task.

So in other words you can’t back up your claim : “Condoms, it has been shown statistically, actually lead to promiscuous sexual activity”

 

[BigBadWlf]

infection prevention
http://www.rbc.org/bible_study/answers_to_tough_questions/answers/30981.aspx

Other sources refused to cite statistics, making various restrictions on why or why not as to the efficacy of the condom. Such as 98-100% effective when used consistently and properly. Consistently and properly is actually a rare circumstance, which you can see by perusing the statistics on the planned parenthood website. These other sources are not saying that one should have sex, but only that if you do you should use condoms to prevent disease. This leads us to the first point, right?

And is anyone supposed that this religious site isn’t completely honest in its presentation of the research of Dr. Weller.

They manage to leave out Dr. Weller’s conclusion that “results should be viewed tentatively due to design limitations in the original studies.”

And when Dr. Weller did her own study on the effectiveness of condoms in reducing the risk of HIV…did RBC report on that? well no they didn’t…I wonder why….could it have to do with her conclusions: “Consistent use of condoms provides protection from HIV” and that protection is 100% The Effectiveness of Condoms in Reducing Heterosexual Transmission of HIV Karen R. Davis, Susan C. Weller
Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 31, No. 6

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Homosexuality can never be condoned because it is giving in to sexual desires. The only sex which is appropriate is within a marriage and of course, homosexuality can never be done within a marriage as man and woman were put on this Earth to be together as companions and to multiply on this Earth.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuals being married and/or monogomous

 

[quatona]

Homosexuality is a sin because of these few main reasons:

I would have been more interested in seeing arguments as promised in the thread title:

Why homosexuality is Wrong

(emphases added)

 

[Bombila]

You won't see those arguments, quatona, because the injunctions against homosexuality in the Bible are vague and interpretable in various ways, and the injunction that marriage/sexual relations are only for the purpose of bearing children is barely there at all.

The second part is entirely patriarchal in nature, designed to aid heterosexual men in assuring that children borne by a particular woman are their own, and not some other man's, in a time when there was no easy method of knowing for sure.

Given that many OT figures had more than one wife, and also often had concubines and female slaves, all of whom were expected to bear children for the patriarch, the concept of marriage now pushed by the religious establishment is not even Biblical.

Some will of course refer to NT exhortations to cleave to one partner, but if they were honest, they would recognize that, unless God changed his mind, NT values regarding marriage only represent a shift in the morality of men.

 

[Verv]

jmverville:

First, you know very well we have heard all this before, many, many times, to the point of being very tired of refuting these Biblical claims.

So what is the proper set of values that people should have during their life? Just pretend all of the above comes from the basis that we desire to be the most efficient and well grounded society morally, thinking that unnecessary sexual desires and other passions are harmful to the society as a whole.

Secondly, a huge portion of humanity is not living in luxury and decadence, and homosexuality is still practiced everywhere on the globe, regardless of how poverty stricken and powerless the people may be.

Luxury has nothing to do with homosexuality; that is a separate form of sin.

Furthermore, luxury is relative. There are people who still enjoy more wealth than their relative neighbors.

80 years ago having a camera would be considered wealth and luxury, but now it is considered standard. The same relativity applies to everywhere.

Thirdly, no one has ever managed to come up with a valid reason for any god to make such a foolish rule up in the first place. Men and women marry and have or don't have children, same sex couples also have children, often their own and sometimes adopted, and same sex couples are just as successful at finding comfort and solace in each other.

They are not foolish: they are about attaining spiritual strength and steadfastness, about the individual becoming less self centered and a boon to all of society by giving up worldly pleasures.

Universally people view true strength as giving up that which others cannot live without and still finding happiness; happiness should never be dependent on possessions or passionate indulgence. Any attempt to make it this way is erroneous.

These religious injunctions against homosexuality, aimed almost entirely at males, for some reason, are just an echo of bigoted, fearful, repressed early religious taboos, and should be tossed with the OT injunctions against shellfish and mixed fibre cloth.

They do mention females:

[bible]Romans 1:26[/bible]

That's a fine world you live in... all by yourself. Question: Does it make any difference that the "pinnacle of love" can be thwarted by insurmountable physical barriers like, say, infertility?

No, it doesn't thwart it. Sex exists both for procreation and for comfort between man and wife. Others who do not need the comfort do not marry.

I am sterile, a genetic defect. Am I allowed to have sex with my wife?

Is someone more normal than me allowed to have sex after their partner has gone past menopause?

What about a woman that has had a hysterectomy?

EDIT: As an aside Fated, are you one of those baby murdering catholics that denies the efficacy of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV?

Yes, all that above, you are allowed, as it goes back to the notion of women and men acting as comforters for each other in this fashion and that being an acceptable sexual activity.

You waste your time in trying to specify God's rational in his design. If your entire argument is "God said so in the Bible, so there," then say that. Don't get into the "men and women are complementary, god says sex outside marriage is bad, blah blah blah."

Your point is "God says so," so that's all you need to say.

Well, the Bible is a bit more lengthy, and so the explanation is significantly more lengthy than 'God said so.'

The morality of the issue goes back to attaining true happiness through independence from worldly desires.

As they say in Buddhism: desires create suffering.

Many people condemn the religious view that racial equality is wrong and in the 21st century they feel it is a mere view of traditionally conservative religious views as opposed to true religious principle. In the end, many liberal Christians have even begun to regard treating non-whites as social equals as not even necessarily a sin

There is no basis for racial discrimination in the Bible.

It is said we would all one day be descendants of Abraham:

[bible]Genesis 18:18[/bible]

[bible]Genesis 22:18[/bible]

[bible]Isaiah 56:7[/bible]

[bible]Daniel 6:25[/bible]

And the NT?

[bible]Luke 24:47[/bible]

[bible]Matthew 24:14[/bible]

[bible]Mark 13:10[/bible]

[bible]Romans 1:5[/bible]

Everywhere it is said that all the peoples shall come to God. Not just some.

There is no room for race.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuals being married and/or monogomous

I would have been more interested in seeing arguments as promised in the thread title:


(emphases added)

Sin is wrong. Indulgence is wrong.

Indulgence is basically giving into worldly desires.

Desire brings pain when the desire cannot be filled; the path to true happiness is the destruction of desires and emptying of the body of impure wants.

That is pretty non-religious yet it is the root of Christian and Godly thought on the issue.

 

[stan1980]

Jm, be honest with yourself, and ask yourself this question... why do you care so much?