Why is homosexuality a sin?

[Plecto]

So sex between two men or women are more dangerous than other forms of sex?

But if it is just the sex that is a sin, and this it is "not so big" and equal to other sins, why is homosexuals some places banned from christianity? There are countries that homosexuality is a violation of the law and it was illegal in Norway for not so many years ago to.

 

[TooCurious]

Yes I know about the monkeys...but they don't know if the man ate the monkey (some tribes in Africa do kill and eat monkeys) or if he had sex with it.

I'm pretty sure they've debunked the "sex with monkeys" idea. However, that's not really relevent to the current discussion.

I have stated homosexuality is NOT worse then other sexual sins by any means. I have shown how damaging it can be (including sex before marriage, adultery, etc...all of those aer equally sins and equally bad for people) the facts state this for themselves. Condoms are known to break and yes now more and more teens are having oral sex thinking its not really sex and now getting STD in their mouths and throats!

The question "Is homosexuality a sin" is a question for a different thread. I don't want to derail this one.

It seems pretty clear to me ANY type of sex outside of God's plan is dangerous to our health and never affects just the two (or more) involved...sin never happens in a void in other words.

It seems pretty clear to me that promiscuous and unprotected sex is dangerous and likely to spread disease. That is the type of sex that you're addressing when you talk about STDs. Committed and monogamous couples who have blood test done before beginning sexual activity do not contribute to the spread of STDs, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

For instance in the history of AIDS...simply because a boy was born with a blood clotting problem and need blood transfusion he died because others were doing things they should not have been doing....

Like preventing people in Africa from using condoms, for instance.

And as I said countless babies and children are still dying of AIDS because of the actions of adults, both straight and gays. I am not singling out homosexuals as that sin being any worse then any others...as I pointed out before there were many other sins listed along with that one that can harm all of us. I think the evidence speaks for itself...sorry you cannot see that.

I don't know if I can state any more clearly that the behavior that causes the problems that you list is not "homosexual sex," but "irresponsible sexual practices." You seem to know already that irresponsible sexual practices are not necessarily homosexual, but you seem to be having trouble with the fact that homosexual sex practices are not necessarily irresponsible. I'm sorry you can't see that.

 

[quatona]

- AIDS and homosexuality are different topics.
- Promiscuity and homosexuality are different topics. Monogamous homosexual relationships don´t bear a greater risk of STD´s in general and AIDS in particular than monogamous heterosexual relationships.
- Activities that come with an increased risk of transferrable disease are usually not considered "sinful" just because of this, so in order to show that certain activities which come with a greater risk of being infected with STD´s make those who take part in them "sinful" you would need additional arguments.
- Being ill is not evidence for being "sinful". Not even in christianity.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

[FONT=&quot]

.. Just because you don't agree or get something doesn't automatically make it 'man made' and not of God.

This is a note worthy statement.

Man can make many mistakes in his effort to identify and understand. Man has at various times presumed that God must be this or that. But to say that man invented God is no different than saying that man invented LOGIC.

Man attempts to observe reality, he WILL make mistakes and bring false conclusion to the table of truth. But such does not mean that the very definitions of his understanding are invented and errant.

From the position of not understanding another's believes, NOTHING can be surmised of the truth of them.[/FONT]

 

[TooCurious]

- AIDS and homosexuality are different topics.
- Promiscuity and homosexuality are different topics. Monogamous homosexual relationships don´t bear a greater risk of STD´s in general and AIDS in particular than monogamous heterosexual relationships.
- Activities that come with an increased risk of transferrable disease are usually not considered "sinful" just because of this, so in order to show that certain activities which come with a greater risk of being infected with STD´s make those who take part in them "sinful" you would need additional arguments.
- Being ill is not evidence for being "sinful". Not even in christianity.

Thank you for neatly summarizing all the points that I was trying, and apparently failing, to make. Well said.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

[FONT=&quot]

- Promiscuity and homosexuality are different topics.

I hate to get involved in this squabble, but actually, for deep technical reasons, this one statement isn't really true.

It is more than apparent to gays and heterosexuals alike that the urge to "flame" that produces what was dubbed the "******" (meaning burning with passion) is much more prevalent, but not exclusive to, the homosexual.

Arguing this observation would be futile, gays don't typically argue it themselves and are often proud of it.

The point is that this urge into burning passion is, in fact, directly related to the urge to be homosexual. That does not mean that one directly causes the other. It means that they have the same cause behind each of them.

You can only speculate as to what that cause might be in that it is very well hidden and maybe attempt to convince the world that there have been no increase in their number, but this is just politics and persuasion.

Lustfulness and homosexuality are very related. But from this, one CANNOT conclude that if a person is homosexual, their presence should not be tolerated. Much more exact and detailed issues "should" be addressed before any such condemnation can be of the Holy Spirit. But such is true for ALL condemning judgments regardless of the categorizations being attempted.

It is merely easier to lump all of these people or those people into an easily identifiable group for disposition. The Holy Spirit, that of Jesus, is VERY burdened of such simplemindedness from its host.

You are not seeking the cause of your own continued life, but rather throwing stones at anything suspicious. Calm that which causes your urge to draw conclusion, and you dispel that which causes your sin. You can take that to the "Holy Bank" ...



[/FONT]

 

[whitestar]

I'm pretty sure they've debunked the "sex with monkeys" idea. However, that's not really relevent to the current discussion.



The question "Is homosexuality a sin" is a question for a different thread. I don't want to derail this one.

What is the difference between the question of this thread "Why is homosexuality a sin" and 'Is homosexuality a sin?" I don't see how the former is going to derail the orginal question. There is no question that it is listed as a sin in the bible...which is what I thought the OP already knew.

It seems pretty clear to me that promiscuous and unprotected sex is dangerous and likely to spread disease. That is the type of sex that you're addressing when you talk about STDs. Committed and monogamous couples who have blood test done before beginning sexual activity do not contribute to the spread of STDs, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully to keep from targeting homosexuals as a bigger or worse sin...this is why I included other sexual behavior which are also listed as sins and also contribute to the spread of STD. Those that are tested as having no STD and are able to stay in one relationship are very rare and indeed very lucky. I pointed out the obvious and worse affects of any sexual relationship that is considered a sin in the bible because it does affect all of that....that includes forincation, adultery, etc...

Usually in any debate on homosexuals the other one is quick to point out the faults in the straight community...so I just went ahead and listed them...and why not? That affects us all too and are listed as sins also.

whitestar: For instance in the history of AIDS...simply because a boy was born with a blood clotting problem and need blood transfusion he died because others were doing things they should not have been doing....

Like preventing people in Africa from using condoms, for instance.

Ok you totally lost me there! What does a boy years ago that had a blood clotting problem have to do with condoms in Africa?

I don't know if I can state any more clearly that the behavior that causes the problems that you list is not "homosexual sex," but "irresponsible sexual practices." You seem to know already that irresponsible sexual practices are not necessarily homosexual, but you seem to be having trouble with the fact that homosexual sex practices are not necessarily irresponsible. I'm sorry you can't see that.

Yes I said that several times...as I will again..not following God's laws (what you call 'irresponsible sexual practices") only leads to disease, pain and sometimes death.

So far I have not seen you say anything about 'the fact homosexual sex practices are not nessarily irresponsible...which isn't the topic of this thread either anyway. The OT asked why it was a sin...I have given some real facts on the consequence of what sin can do...something in a nonbeliever can related too...I haven't began to touch on the spiritual part of this. Most nonbelievers find that too difficult to understand....not unless you have some Christian/bible background/knowledge...and frankly without the Holy Spirit the bible can sound like alot of nonsenses to people...which the bible explains this and why this happens. With the Holy Spirit in you it makes alot more sense. This is why its doubtful we will ever see eye to eye on this....though there are alot of American nonbelievers against gay marriages...its not just the Christians against it by any means.

And if I went into alot of bibical detail on why its a sin, that would involve alot of scriptures which they usually are not interested in reading. So I try to approach things on a level that they could relate to more easily. If you want to see things from God's point of view...just let me know...

God bless

 

[whitestar]

- AIDS and homosexuality are different topics.
- Promiscuity and homosexuality are different topics. Monogamous homosexual relationships don´t bear a greater risk of STD´s in general and AIDS in particular than monogamous heterosexual relationships.
- Activities that come with an increased risk of transferrable disease are usually not considered "sinful" just because of this, so in order to show that certain activities which come with a greater risk of being infected with STD´s make those who take part in them "sinful" you would need additional arguments.
- Being ill is not evidence for being "sinful". Not even in christianity.

Actually we can become 'ill' from our own sins...and this is a perfect example of that. And ReluctantProphet is right...lust and homosexuality go hand in hand. Promiscuity can and does affect both gay and straights...

STD are a consequenceof this kind of behavior but not always because that person sinned....an unfaithful spouse can infect the faithful one...which she or he would be innocent of any wrong doing. Many innocents are currently dying from the sins of a few...and I doubt the dying could care less if the person was straight or gay that caused it...as I keep saying homosexuality is not a greater sin...but it is a sin like many others listed.

 

[The_Saint]

God says, "When I see two men having sex, one gets changed into a girl."

This way, there will be lots of girls in Heaven and Hell. Also, God wants to have more girls than boys so that there's enough for all.


God also said, "Sex is the least of all sins."

God stated, "Anyone in an orgie is cut off. Anyone who has sex with 2 or more people is cut off. Anyone who does an 'around the world' is cut off.

So, here we have the Sex Ruling's of God.

Now, you might wonder, if sex is the least of all sins, there's a few that could cause you to burn in Hell. That's right. That's when it stops being simple sex and becomes pure lust.

So, learn the difference between the two and you'll do just fine.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

God says, "When I see two men having sex, one gets changed into a girl."

This way, there will be lots of girls in Heaven and Hell. Also, God wants to have more girls than boys so that there's enough for all.


God also said, "Sex is the least of all sins."

God stated, "Anyone in an orgie is cut off. Anyone who has sex with 2 or more people is cut off. Anyone who does an 'around the world' is cut off.

So, here we have the Sex Ruling's of God.

Now, you might wonder, if sex is the least of all sins, there's a few that could cause you to burn in Hell. That's right. That's when it stops being simple sex and becomes pure lust.

So, learn the difference between the two and you'll do just fine.

I would RE-E-E-E-ALY like to know where you are getting these "God says" statements.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

So you are saying that people that are gay are just born with a burden that hetrosexuals don't have? A burden they don't choose to have, a burden few can get rid of?

No...I say that they can control their actions just like all humans. Attraction is attraction...but nothing prevents them from not acting on it. Plus, hello, God Himself is willing to help, but you actually have to go to Him and trust Him.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

So sex between two men or women are more dangerous than other forms of sex?

But if it is just the sex that is a sin, and this it is "not so big" and equal to other sins, why is homosexuals some places banned from christianity? There are countries that homosexuality is a violation of the law and it was illegal in Norway for not so many years ago to.

It's sin. Sin is dangerous because it leads to death...spiritual definitely and eventually physically.

 

[quatona]

[FONT=&quot]I hate to get involved in this squabble,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Nevermind. In the absence of freewill there is no reason to feel bad about doing things you hate.

but actually, for deep technical reasons, this one statement isn't really true.

Then I´m sure you will show those deep technical reasons.

It is more than apparent to gays and heterosexuals alike that the urge to "flame" that produces what was dubbed the "******" (meaning burning with passion) is much more prevalent, but not exclusive to, the homosexual.

And?
Overeating is much more prevalent with white societies - will that lead you to speak about "white" persons, while actually you mean to adress the problem of overeating?

Arguing this observation would be futile, gays don't typically argue it themselves and are often proud of it.

And? You have established a correlation. Now we would need something that allows us to conclude some sort of causality in order to talk about"homosexuality" whilst in fact the issue at hand is "promiscuity".

The point is that this urge into burning passion is, in fact, directly related to the urge to be homosexual.

And - other than simply claiming this - can you also substantiate this assumption?

That does not mean that one directly causes the other. It means that they have the same cause behind each of them.

And this cause would be which? (Please give me a profound substantiation for this analysis along with it.)
Besides, if indeed promiscuity and homosexuality would have a common cause, it would be reasonable to talk about this cause instead of equivocating its various effects.
STD´s and children have a common cause, too. Last time I checked we didn´t say "children" when actually meaning "STDs".

You can only speculate as to what that cause might be in that it is very well hidden and maybe attempt to convince the world that there have been no increase in their number, but this is just politics and persuasion.

Actually, this sentence leads me to assume that this entire "common cause" talk is merely a speculation on your part.

Lustfulness and homosexuality are very related.

You just need to show the innate relation, and we can get talking.

But from this, one CANNOT conclude that if a person is homosexual, their presence should not be tolerated.

I would not even conclude such, if promiscuity (which again is not the same as "lustfulness") and homosexuality had a causal connection.

Much more exact and detailed issues "should" be addressed before any such condemnation can be of the Holy Spirit. But such is true for ALL condemning judgments regardless of the categorizations being attempted.

Actually, I was not talking about holy spirits and such at all.
I was merely pointing out a logical inconsistency in a particular argumentation. A fallacy, a misconclusion.

It is merely easier to lump all of these people or those people into an easily identifiable group for disposition. The Holy Spirit, that of Jesus, is VERY burdened of such simplemindedness from its host.

Then, at least in this case, the "Holy Spirit, that of Jesus" is in agreement with me.

You are not seeking the cause of your own continued life, but rather throwing stones at anything suspicious.

I beg your pardon? Are you talking about me?

Calm that which causes your urge to draw conclusion, and you dispel that which causes your sin. You can take that to the "Holy Bank" ...

I´m afraid you have lost me completely here.
I have no idea how that adresses my statement "promiscuity and homosexuality are two different topics" or even shows it wrong. I haven´t been the one who drew conclusions, I merely pointed out how certain argumentations/conclusions were invalid.
[/FONT]

 

[quatona]

Actually we can become 'ill' from our own sins...and this is a perfect example of that.

If indeed we can become ill from our own sins (which does neither mean that each sin causes us disease, nor that disease is evidence for being sinful), this doesn´t allow the conclusion that a particular disease is evidence for the action that causes it to be sinful.
Reverse conclusions can be tricky.

And ReluctantProphet is right...lust and homosexuality go hand in hand. Promiscuity can and does affect both gay and straights...

This paragraph strikes me as mildly self-contradictory.

STD are a consequenceof this kind of behavior but not always because that person sinned....an unfaithful spouse can infect the faithful one...which she or he would be innocent of any wrong doing. Many innocents are currently dying from the sins of a few...and I doubt the dying could care less if the person was straight or gay that caused it...as I keep saying homosexuality is not a greater sin...but it is a sin like many others listed.

Ok, so much for your beliefs and axioms.

 

[The_Saint]

I would RE-E-E-E-ALY like to know where you are getting these "God says" statements.

Well, either I'm directly quoting God from our conversation of August 1991, or His warnings I've received directly from God to keep from sinning, and I memorized them.

I got a whole bunch of them!

God says, "Anyone who charters a boat is cut off."

I had wanted to get a bunch of guys together, about 5 of us, and charter a boat at $100 apiece.

God's warning killed the whole thing.

God told me, in conversation, "Not everybody gets a warning."

If you're not getting warnings, check your standing with God and Jesus.

 

[*Starlight*]

I don't think that homosexuality is a sin, because I don't see any reasons for it to be a sin...

If you don't have any self control, and this goes for all humans, then you have an issue. If a heterosexual has to have sex all the time....then do they not have an issue and self control problems? Same w/ the homosexual.

It's not about sex and self control... It's about loving romantic relationships. What makes a loving homosexual relationship worse than a loving heterosexual relationship, so that a homosexual MUST (in your opinion) avoid any romantic relationships?

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

People don't choose to be a homosexual...

Some people disagree.

 

[quatona]

Bottomline: Homosexuality is a sin because it´s a sin.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

I don't think that homosexuality is a sin, because I don't see any reasons for it to be a sin...



It's not about sex and self control... It's about loving romantic relationships. What makes a loving homosexual relationship worse than a loving heterosexual relationship, so that a homosexual MUST (in your opinion) avoid any romantic relationships?

Just because you don't 'see' any reasons doesn't mean it isn't. God has clearly expressed His opinion on it.

Because God doesn't will romantic relationships btwn like genders...it is sin in His eyes...an abomination...and most romantic relationships eventually lead to sex...bottom line.

 

[*Starlight*]

Just because you don't 'see' any reasons doesn't mean it isn't. God has clearly expressed His opinion on it.

Because God doesn't will romantic relationships btwn like genders...it is sin in His eyes...an abomination...and most romantic relationships eventually lead to sex...bottom line.

Hi Sorry, I think you misunderstood me... What makes homosexual sex so bad that it's better for a person not to have any romantic relationships in their whole life, than to have a homosexual relationship and sex?