Why Homosexuality Is Wrong

[EnemyPartyII]

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.

Love is not wrong. Love is not a sin.

Homosexual love is just as valid and God ordained as heterosexual love. There is NOTHING wrong with homosexuality, nor do I believe it is a sin.

 

[Bombila]

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.

In what way are 'unnecessary sexual desires', by which I assume you mean, among other things, homosexuality, harmful to society? The only harm comes from bigotry against it, and usually that harm only falls on homosexuals and their loved ones. -B



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.

I think, in places like Bangladesh and Ethiopia, not a lot of people own any kind of camera. You, not I, linked luxury and indulgence with homosexuality. - B



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.

Again you link homosexuality with luxury and indulgence. You fail to understand that homosexual relationships are more similar to heterosexual relationships than not. So there are promiscuous men and women of all orientations, and likewise there are relationships in which love and the desire for the comfort and solace of having a strong monogamous relationship, and possibly children, are the primary goal. -B


They do mention females:

[bible]Romans 1:26[/bible]




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.



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.

And why cannot a man comfort a man, or a woman comfort a woman? A homosexual person would be deceptive and self defeating by trying to go against their nature and take on a heterosexual relationship. When this happens as a result of homosexuals desperately trying to emulate what they are told is Biblically set in stone, it usually results in an unhappy marriage, where the one partner cannot find comfort in the other. -B

(reply to someone else removed -B)


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.

I cannot see how the desire of heterosexuals is less indulgent than the desire of homosexuals. If marriage and sexuality, beyond the demand that people procreate (as if we haven't done that quite enough), is designed for the partners to provide each other with comfort and solace, then why is it not giving into worldly desires if you are straight, but it is if you are gay?

It is my opinion that 'impure wants' are only those that are harmful to the individual or harmful to others. Homosexuality need not harm anyone.

 

[Skavau]

Homosexuality is a sin because of these few main reasons:

Right..

Man and woman were created to be together; woman was created to complement man and act as his companion; man and woman were put on this earth together to endure hard times together and to be fruitful and multiply (both very common themes in the Bible).

Sorry. I'm not a Christian and consequently I don't believe in what the Bible says. Your above explanation that 'woman was created to complement man and act as his companion' is something that I dispute on two grounds:

• I do not believe that either the male or female gender of humanity was created, much less by the God of Christianity.
• I do not believe that the purpose of a female is to act as a man's companion, nor do I accept that it is a by definition a good thing for a female to do.

The intent God has for human sexuality exists only in marriage. Outside of marriage, sexuality is considered a lustful and licentious, while in marriage it is sanctified, as we are to find comfort in our spouse as well as propagate mankind.

I'm not interested in the intent that this 'God' has for marriage. I don't even profess a belief in this God. This is utterly meaningless to me. It is your world view, not mine and most assuredly not a world view I have to recognise or even consider.

Sexual passions outside of this are disrespectful to our other half and dishonorable to our society. If we sleep with someone who is not our spouse and never will be our spouse we are in fact committing adultery: adultery against our spouse, adultery against their spouse (if they choose to have a spouse as opposed to staying celibate to God), and it is a transgression against each family, future and present, when immoral sexual acts are committed.

I can't help but feel that this reason is totally missing the concept of two unmarried couples having sexual intercourse.

Non-marital sexual activity in Christianity, like it is in most religions ranging from Buddhism to Hinduism to Islam, is a form of indulgence and decadence.

Your premise is meaningless to me. I am not any of the beliefs above.

To sum up, none of what you have typed is anything which can constitute an 'objective' argument. To have any meaning, an individual must at first recognise the authority of your world view. I do not, most homosexuals do not and it is totally meaningless.

 

[Skavau]

So what is the proper set of values that people should have during their life?

Whatever they like. There is no good reason that they should accept your values over what they consider their values to be.

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.

So in other words, you're saying 'Please change your opinion on morality hypothetically to appease my world view'.

Okay fine. If we consider 'unnecessary sexual desires' and other passions harmful to society, then a lot of your argument becomes valid.

Let us step back into our own world views now. I don't see 'unnecessary sexual desires' as harmful and other passions as harmful and consequently reject your world view.

Sin is wrong. Indulgence is wrong.

Says you. And yet what you consider as 'sin', I do not.

 

[RangerJoe]

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.


More than that, few Christians seem to explain in the most coherent of terms why homosexuality is regarded as a sin and when they do so often revert to simple images of the intent of God as opposed to satiating the alternative opinion with longer, more apt explanations.
This is a simple explanation I have for the matter.


Homosexuality is a sin because of these few main reasons:


Man and woman were created to be together; woman was created to complement man and act as his companion; man and woman were put on this earth together to endure hard times together and to be fruitful and multiply (both very common themes in the Bible). The intent God has for human sexuality exists only in marriage. Outside of marriage, sexuality is considered a lustful and licentious, while in marriage it is sanctified, as we are to find comfort in our spouse as well as propagate mankind.


Sexual passions outside of this are disrespectful to our other half and dishonorable to our society. If we sleep with someone who is not our spouse and never will be our spouse we are in fact committing adultery: adultery against our spouse, adultery against their spouse (if they choose to have a spouse as opposed to staying celibate to God), and it is a transgression against each family, future and present, when immoral sexual acts are committed.



Non-marital sexual activity in Christianity, like it is in most religions ranging from Buddhism to Hinduism to Islam, is a form of indulgence and decadence. To have sex outside of the sanctified union is to engage in behavior harmful to your own family and to other families, to the community as a whole, as it creates pain in the lives of those affected. But even more than that: it is a sign of spiritual weakness.
Sexual impropriety is like drunkenness, greed, gluttony, vanity, passion for glory, passion for power, lying, cheating, pride. The soul which engages in these activities is finding their passions in their physical body, in fulfilling physical desires. These desires are temporary and fleeting and can grow into a form of addiction; these passions are divisive. They play to the most basic instincts of man.
Man is called to live a life of simplicity, enjoying the fruits of his labor and nothing more. Man is called to not possess much, to not wallow in his own luxury and power and pride.



The 21st century is difficult for the human soul as it is one where we have too much luxury, too much emphasis on personal glory and social position and have the power to submit to drunkenness, drug use, sexual indulgence and other things. But because it is a difficult and trying time for us, it does not mean we change our religion to justify the above but rather means we change ourselves.


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.


Homosexuals indeed have these feelings from birth, but there is a really glorious option for the homosexual people that has always existed. It is the outright path of the Saints. Many people through the centuries have given up their sexuality and no longer crave companionship, and instead revel in God and His Creation.


All people are called to suppress their worldly desires and only act on them in marriage; some are called to suppress them completely and pursue celibacy. It is a path that people ought to contemplate.
People who take vows of poverty, of celibacy, people who vow to never succumb to worldly passions have committed themselves to God and have been working for the alleviation of poverty across the world, providing education, health services and other charitable activities as their life calling. That is the absolute highest road that any person can take.


Even those who choose to marry ought to remember the great deeds of the Saints and recognize this path: we're called to never value riches or power, called to never give in to drunkenness or lust, to be charitable and loving of our neighbors, to be helpful. We enjoy the pleasures which God has given to us: each other, nature, our families, our companion, our friends, our arts and our God Himself.
The Christian life ought to carry the full weight of the Gospel of God and look for the profound truth therein, and as homosexuality is condemned for it being a form of sex outside of marriage and a form of sex outside of the intent God has for us.



I would like to leave you with the famous St. Isaac The Syrian quotation concerning the idea of death to the world:


"The world is the general name for all 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 their special names, we call them passions. The passions are the following: love of riches, desire for possessions, bodily pleasures from which comes sexual passion, love of honor gives rise to envy, lust for power, arrogance and pride of position, the craving to adorn oneself with luxurious clothing 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." --St. Isaac the Syrian, 7th Century

Basically, we need to be dead to the world as much as we can be, and instead live in the Body of Christ.


By living a life free of all indulgences and worldly passions we can do more to help each other and do more to find inner happiness. Happiness that does not crumble with our wealth or power, happiness that does not decay with our aging body; happiness that does not even leave us when we are weak and persecuted, on our last legs standing against the world -- but a happiness that grows with each day we live, a happiness that is defined by our experiences and our relationship with our God that leads us down a glorious road so that even if we find ourselves in a prison cell or starving or sick, because our body is nothing but our vehicle we still have our Everything.

All I hear is "BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE STRAWMAN BIBLE"

How about this?

Stay out of other people's bedrooms. They aren't hurting you in there and they Gheys arent the end of human existance. Don't want them to marry? Don't let them marry in your church. But don't deny them the same rights as any other human being on a governmental level.

 

[RangerJoe]

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.

*Sets fire to the straw man*

 

[EnemyPartyII]

All I hear is "BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE STRAWMAN BIBLE"

How about this?

Stay out of other people's bedrooms. They aren't hurting you in there and they Gheys arent the end of human existance. Don't want them to marry? Don't let them marry in your church. But don't deny them the same rights as any other human being on a governmental level.

if only.

But for some reason, there are some people out there who think that their way is the ONLY way, and that if they are repressed about sex, everyone else should be too.

Take for example, the thread that in all seriousness claims that anal and oral sex between married couples is sinful. Some people just can't stand anyone being different. But rather than considering the possibility that this fear of the unknown and unusual might be their own problem, they will hijack the Bible to claim self righteousness and sanctimony when they are telling other freely consenting adults what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

 

[Corey]

Many people condemn the religious view that homosexuality is wrong ...

I was gonna quote the whole thing...and write some replies to each point. Then I thought...why bother.

The author of the OP whined in the the General Political Discussion board that some meanies point out his fallacies in his "arguments" and use those fallacies "to tear him down." I paraphrase of course as the author actually said "tear others down," but it's clear what he meant.

Literally speaking, none of the points in the OP has much in the way of logical truth value. A few words changes here and there would help, but all-in-all the OP relies on the assumption that the god expressed in it is objectively real, which cannot be reliable shown. In a pluralistic society with multiple religions, you cannot make public policy based on religious motives.

 

[RangerJoe]

if only.

But for some reason, there are some people out there who think that their way is the ONLY way, and that if they are repressed about sex, everyone else should be too.

Take for example, the thread that in all seriousness claims that anal and oral sex between married couples is sinful. Some people just can't stand anyone being different. But rather than considering the possibility that this fear of the unknown and unusual might be their own problem, they will hijack the Bible to claim self righteousness and sanctimony when they are telling other freely consenting adults what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

I think they are just jealous that they can't participate in all the fun.

I am in full support of a World Wide [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Day. Either self inflicted or otherwise. Would make the world a better place, m'thinks.

 

[Corey]

Homosexual relations are gravely sinful *in part* because they create a distorted view of the proper use of sexual faculties. Homosexual acts are therefore sinful in a way similar to that of contraception. Thus, two people have sex simply for pleasure, ignoring the possibility of becoming pregnant. This does not always turn out as they would like. The life giving aspect of proper marriage adds to its strength, as it is the only relationship in which the pinnacle of love (depicted by the question "Will you have my baby?") is expected and achievable within the marital embrace.

Fated...you really need to read the actual word of god. It's called nature. If you did then you would see the sex is fun even when not fertile. That clearly means sex just ain't for reproducin'. Moreover, marriage (today, but not earlier) is about life partners and being together. That may or may not include children depending on the proclivities and preferences of the dyad.

Oh...and for fun fact reference: in the past, marriage was more about property.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I was gonna quote the whole thing...and write some replies to each point. Then I thought...why bother.

The author of the OP whined in the the General Political Discussion board that some meanies point out his fallacies in his "arguments" and use those fallacies "to tear him down." I paraphrase of course as the author actually said "tear others down," but it's clear what he meant.

Literally speaking, none of the points in the OP has much in the way of logical truth value. A few words changes here and there would help, but all-in-all the OP relies on the assumption that the god expressed in it is objectively real, which cannot be reliable shown. In a pluralistic society with multiple religions, you cannot make public policy based on religious motives.

and further, that the Judeo-Christian God is the actual verbatim author of the Bible passages that have been enterpreted to condemn homosexuality, and that those condemnations remain today, without considering tht they may merely be artifacts of the patriarchal, bronze age semi nomadic society that produced them.

God is about loving, accepting, and thinking about other people's needs and feelings. God does not care what mutually consenting adults do to each other.

 

[Corey]

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.

You are:

1) honestly mistaken because you've read nothing but bold-faced liars

2) don't understand statistics

or

3) a bold-faced liar.

 

[TheManeki]

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.

It seems to me that the only "danger" to Christianity is really to the Biblical literalism practiced by fundamentalists. Literalism is caught in a trap of its own making -- it declared that the Bible is inerrant and unchanging, and the Bible hates homosexual sex. Now adherents of literalism are finding themselves defending an increasingly untenable belief, but they have to -- they've set themselves up to believe that anything that challenges any aspect of their interpretation, no matter how small, could shatter everything. It's kinda like those people who insist that they never make a mistake, but when confronted with evidence of a mistake will get really defensive and hostile about it.

The worst thing about literalism is how deceptively easy it seems. Just take the words at face value, no need to do the hard work of learning about the context, translations, and stuff like that. Wonder if that's the main reason literalism has caught on so well in the 150 or so years the interpretation's been around. Unfortunately, literalism does take a lot of work -- maybe even more than the time-honored contextual Bible study -- because adherents have to resort to all kinds of complicated rationalizations to justify their beliefs. For example:

Man and woman were created to be together; woman was created to complement man and act as his companion; man and woman were put on this earth together to endure hard times together and to be fruitful and multiply (both very common themes in the Bible).

This justification is a good example of how literalism isn't really all that literal at all, despite what its adherents say. Literalists focus on the fact that Eve was female, and interpret this as some kind of divine mandate that marriage only consists of one man and one woman. But there's no passage that actually literally defines marriage.

For a minute, let's assume that Adam and Eve actually existed, instead of having the beginning of Genesis being allegorical. If there were only two people in the world, they'd have to be opposite genders in order to continue the human race. But now there are so many people that we are not in danger of dying out due to a decline in birth rates; indeed, we have fulfilled the divine mandate to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

Instead, I think that people who want to study the beginning of Genesis as a guide to marriage should look at Genesis 2:18, which says that it is not good for man to be alone. This is key -- we need a spouse -- or, to use the archaic word "helpmeet" -- because it is not good to be alone. One would think this would trump gender. If you cannot truly connect with someone of the opposite sex but you can with someone of the same sex, why should you be forced to be alone?

The intent God has for human sexuality exists only in marriage. Outside of marriage, sexuality is considered a lustful and licentious, while in marriage it is sanctified, as we are to find comfort in our spouse...

I can agree with this. So we need to go ahead and remove these silly bans on same-sex marriage. It seems kinda hypocritical to me for people to condemn homosexuality as adultery for occurring outside of marriage, yet deny people the means to get married -- especially when so many want to.

[Note: I'm gonna snip out parts of the OP because they're just variations on the above themes of "homosexuality is bad because I think marriage is only between a man and woman" and "homosexual sex is bad because the people who do it aren't married", points I've discussed above.]

But because it is a difficult and trying time for us, it does not mean we change our religion to justify the above but rather means we change ourselves.

Yeah. Heaven forbid we actually study the Bible on our own and think for ourselves. We should just keep on mindlessly repeating the same tired old arguments condemning homosexuality that were fed to us, no matter how flawed those arguments may be.

Homosexuals indeed have these feelings from birth, but there is a really glorious option for the homosexual people that has always existed. It is the outright path of the Saints. Many people through the centuries have given up their sexuality and no longer crave companionship, and instead revel in God and His Creation.

Wow. Kudos to you for admitting that homosexuality isn't a choice. You've got potential.

All people are called to suppress their worldly desires and only act on them in marriage; some are called to suppress them completely and pursue celibacy. It is a path that people ought to contemplate.
People who take vows of poverty, of celibacy, people who vow to never succumb to worldly passions have committed themselves to God and have been working for the alleviation of poverty across the world, providing education, health services and other charitable activities as their life calling. That is the absolute highest road that any person can take.

But not all people are called to celibacy. Even the apostle Paul knew this -- he wrote that it is better to marry than to be celibate and burn with passion. (I Cor. 7:9). If someone wishes to have sex, it doesn't sound like they would be a good candidate for celibacy -- they'd be distracted by their sex drive. On the other hand, if they could satisfy their desires with a spouse they could concentrate better on doing God's work and be more effective. This was Paul's point, yet for some odd reason some Christians oppose same-sex marriage.

Something I've never understood -- because nobody's been able to answer me -- is exactly what it is about same-sex marriage that some people think is so offensive to God? As I've explained above, there is no definition of marriage as 1 man and 1 woman only, so that can't be it. Plus, if homosexuals were allowed to marry each other, it would no longer be adultery, since adultery can only occur if the people having sex are not married to each other.

Granted, a lot of Christians appear to find homosexuality icky. And I can understand that -- it's strange to them, and it's easy to not like something that is so different. But instead of trying to actually get to be friends with gay people and learning that they're actually not boogeymen (and boogeywomen), it seems many Christians just want to run away and attribute their hangups to God instead. Very sad.

 

[stan1980]

You are:

1) honestly mistaken because you've read nothing but bold-faced liars

2) don't understand statistics

or

3) a bold-faced liar.

Probably 4) high as a kite

 

[Aeris]

There is no basis for racial discrimination in the Bible.

Though theres apparently basis for other forms of discrimination according to your beliefs? What happened to trying to be like Jesus? Is that not the main message of christianity? Besides that how do homosexuality even affect you? What business is it of yours if two consenting adults want to have a relationship?

 

[ElephantsAreAwesome]

Homosexuality is wrong and immoral. God has stated that clearly in the Bible. To ignore this fact is to be ignorant of His teachings.

 

[stan1980]

Homosexuality is wrong and immoral. God has stated that clearly in the Bible. To ignore this fact is to be ignorant of His teachings.

Have you ever thought of worshipping me instead? I'm a much nicer guy than your god sounds.

 

[levi501]

A God that condemns homosexuality is inconsistent with a fair and loving God.
Fundies have chosen which God they believe in and it's not one I care to meet.

 

[TheManeki]

There is no basis for racial discrimination in the Bible.

It may be very easy for you to say now that "there is no basis for racial discrimination in the Bible" and think those that believed it were stupid bigots, but you may want to take the beam out of your eye before you complain about the splinter in theirs.

Fifty years or so ago there was an interpretation of the Bible that taught non-whites were inferior, and that it was a sin for people to marry outside their race. In fact, it wasn't even legal for people to marry outside their race.

Now there's an interpretation of the Bible that teaches homosexuals are inferior, and that it is a sin for two people of the same sex to marry. In fact, two people of the same sex who want to get married can't.

Fortunately, reality won out in the first case. There is no evidence that whites are superior to other races, and no evidence that interracial marriages cause harm, and people who believe otherwise are justifiably called bigots.

In the second case, there is no evidence that a monogamous homosexual relationship has any negative effects, and no evidence that allowing two people of the same sex to marry would cause any negative effects. Hopefully, reality will win out against this new crop of bigots.

 

[Corey]

Homosexuality is wrong and immoral. God has stated that clearly in the Bible. To ignore this fact is to be ignorant of His teachings.

Prove your biblegod is real.