WHY is homosexuality sinful?

[Tamara224]

I assumed that saeph was a female.

She is female. She never said she was homosexual though.

I am not arguing from a point of view, I'm asking for burden of proof, obviously I hit up the wrong thread.

The burden has been met. The prima facie case has been presented. The burden shifts to the opposing party to present contradictory evidence. IOW, the Bible says homosexual acts are an abomination and sinful. If you would like to rebut the verses already presented then please give it a try, the burden is now on the opposing party.

 

[HunterRose]

I don't understand why people have such a hard time with this issue. Historically homosexuality has not been accepted in the church. There is no logical reason why God would make anyone gay and there is no realiabel scientific or biblical evidence to show it either.

Historically interracial relationships have not been accepted in the church. What is your point?


And there is plenty of scientific evidence despite your refusal to actually look at it.

 

[Tamara224]

Biblically, homosexuality is NOT called a sin. The committing of homosexual ACTS is.

Well, the Bible doesn't make a distinction between homosexual acts and homosexuality. That's because there is no such thing.

A person who steals is called a thief. A person who murders is called a murderer. A person who lies is called a liar. A person who commits adultery is called an adulterer. They are known by what they do.

It is the same for homosexuality. A person who committs homosexual acts is a homosexual.

We would not call a man who had once contemplated murder, but had not acted on it, a murderer. He is not a murderer until he commits murder. In the same way, attraction to same-sex does not make a person homosexual. One is not a homosexual if one does not commit homosexual acts.

Therefore, homosexuality is condemned as a sin by the Bible just as adultery, lying, and murder are.

 

[HunterRose]

The health risks associated with homosexual practices are not spoken of very often. However, studies have shown that homosexual men have shortened life spans; are much more likely to contract STD (and AIDS); are much more prone to suicide and have pyschological disorders; and are prone to other injuries from the homosexual sex acts themselves.

The claim that homosexuals have significantly shorter life spans than heterosexuals is one of the more famous lies fabricated by Paul Cameron.

Cameron was expelled form the American Psychological Society in 1983 for ethics violations, he fabricated research data on homosexuals and then lied about the research of other scientists.
"He was misrepresenting and distorting other peoples’ psychological research and using it to sensationalize his point of view on homosexuals. He talks about homosexuals being mass murderers and child molesters and credits other people for those findings. If you read their research, they have in no way made such claims.” Natalie Porter, spokes person for APA (LA Times-8/20/1985).

Some of Cameron’s other lies:
You are 15 times more apt to be killed by a Gay than a heterosexual
Half of all murderers are homosexuals
Homosexuals perpetrate half of all child molestations Homosexuals are 5000 times as likely to have a sexual transmitted disease than heterosexuals.

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/cameron/medical.consequences.rebuttal2.txt

For some further reading:

http://www.porn-free.org/pdf/Gay_Sex_Health_Risks.pdf

http://www.missionamerica.com/homosexual.php?articlenum=16

An excerpt from the second link:

The list of medical diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of abnormal homosexual behavior is alarming: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus or HIV, human papilloma virus -- HPV or genital warts -- isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, and syphilis.​

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity.​

Men who have sex with men account for the lion's share of the increasing number of cases in America of sexually transmitted infections that are not generally spread through sexual contact.​

These diseases, with consequences that range from severe and even life-threatening to mere annoyances, include hepatitis A, giardia lamblia, entamoeba histolytica, Epstein-Barr virus, neisseria meningitides, shigellosis, salmonellosis, pediculosis, scabies and campylobacter.​

The risk of diseases is NOT the same for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals . The first article I linked to goes into some almost graphic (although in medical terms) detail about why this is the case. Basically, it boils down to the fact that human bodies were not designed for homosexual behavior. It is not natural, it is harmful.

I am not surprised to note that the article you quote does not provide any references or the claims made and no evidence to support the claims made.

It is very easy to make inflammatory and even false claims about a minority but it is within the reason to expect that if an individual is going to attack a minority is this way that evidence to support the claims made should be provided so they can be examined. The fact that no references were provided is a good indication that the individual making the claims did not wish for his claims to be examined.

 

[HunterRose]

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (Leviticus 18:22) and "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads" (Leviticus 20:13).

Leviticus says the same thing about eating shrimp, wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics, shaving, handling pigskin, wearing glasses to church and engaging in modern agriculture. Sadly Leviticus has no trouble with either slavery or murdering your disobedient child….so I am not sure using this particular book to prop up prejudice is a good idea.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Romans 1:26-27).

we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing.


The relationships are referred to as being unnatural. the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.
This passage is not a condemnation of homosexuals but of ex-gay ministries

 

[HunterRose]

people have a hard time because they want to stay in their lifestyle, and God has turned them over to the reprobate mind. I am done discussing this issue because if they value their sin more than the Word..well...so be it.

What “lifestyle” are you speaking of?

 

[HunterRose]

Actually there has been quite a bit of scripture posted here as evidence that homosexual behavior is sinful.

Problem is, people who don't want to believe it is a sin come back with things like, "That's the Old Testament, so it doesn't count" or, when New Testament verses are provided, "We don't know for sure the Bible is even God's word so why should we believe it?"

I don’t see anyone saying that.

Rather the issue seems to be why do Christians pick out one verse to condemn an entire minority while those very same Christians happily ignore neighboring verses

 

[HunterRose]

Well thanks for the anecdotal "evidence" but I think if I'm going to choose between your "word" on it and what the medical researches have said....I'll go with them.

The medical researchers have denounced Cameron’s fabricated claims time and again.

Anyway, even if it only pertained to a "niche group" of homosexual men...they are not "very similar" to the common party going hetersexual man. The myth is that homosexuals are "just like everyone else". That's not true at all. Their lifestyles are not just like a hetersexual. The promiscuity alone sets the lifestyle apart.

and your evidnece for this claim....?

 

[Tamara224]

It is very easy to make inflammatory and even false claims about a minority but it is within the reason to expect that if an individual is going to attack a minority is this way that evidence to support the claims made should be provided so they can be examined. The fact that no references were provided is a good indication that the individual making the claims did not wish for his claims to be examined.

Uh-oh, have I touched the sacred "minority" cow? Just because a group is a minority doesn't mean they automatically deserve respect or special rights. A minority of the population are murderers too... I hope we don't have murderer's rights rallies in Disneyland anytime soon.

The second article, the one I quoted, was a transcription of an interview. It's not common for people to cite to all their sources in an interview. However, it referred directly to the first article I linked. That one (the first one) had these cool things called endnotes... So, the sources for the material are actually provided but at the end, so it doesn't break up the flow of the essay. Neat, huh?

Try reading it next time before you attempt to debunk it for lack of support.

 

[HunterRose]

This is the main problem of the debate over homosexuality in this forum. Those defending the practice act as though anything their opponents say, no matter how loving, truthful and non-judgmental is calling down fire and brimstone. I didn't judge anyone. I just presented facts.

Sadly your “facts” were fabricated.

 

[HunterRose]

She is female. She never said she was homosexual though.



The burden has been met. The prima facie case has been presented. The burden shifts to the opposing party to present contradictory evidence. IOW, the Bible says homosexual acts are an abomination and sinful. If you would like to rebut the verses already presented then please give it a try, the burden is now on the opposing party.

The bible says eating shellfish is an abomination.

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10-12)


“These six things doth the LORD hate:
yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies,
and he that soweth discord among brethren.”
Proverbs 6:16-19

Who can claim innocence from all these "abominations"? Are all the sure dispensers of judgments on gay people are free from a "proud look" (are you feeling just a little superior to those horrible horrible gays?...well its an abomination) what about presenting "false witness" about homosexuals? Paul Camerons lie about the life expectancy of homosexuals …isn’t that an abomination?

 

[ebia]

Well, the Bible doesn't make a distinction between homosexual acts and homosexuality. That's because there is no such thing.

A person who steals is called a thief. A person who murders is called a murderer. A person who lies is called a liar. A person who commits adultery is called an adulterer. They are known by what they do.

It is the same for homosexuality. A person who committs homosexual acts is a homosexual.

That is not what the word homosexual means in the English language: it means someone who is sexually attacked to someone of the same sex.

Some descriptors in English are defined by what one does (like liar or murder, they are usually derivatives of a verb), others are defined by what one is (tall, black, homosexual, hungry).

We would not call a man who had once contemplated murder, but had not acted on it, a murderer. He is not a murderer until he commits murder. In the same way, attraction to same-sex does not make a person homosexual. One is not a homosexual if one does not commit homosexual acts.

This is factually incorrect. One can be homosexual without committing homosexual acts, and one can commit same-sex sexual acts without being homosexual.

 

[Tamara224]

The claim that homosexuals have significantly shorter life spans than heterosexuals is one of the more famous lies fabricated by Paul Cameron.

Cameron was expelled form the American Psychological Society in 1983 for ethics violations, he fabricated research data on homosexuals and then lied about the research of other scientists.
"He was misrepresenting and distorting other peoples’ psychological research and using it to sensationalize his point of view on homosexuals. He talks about homosexuals being mass murderers and child molesters and credits other people for those findings. If you read their research, they have in no way made such claims.” Natalie Porter, spokes person for APA (LA Times-8/20/1985).

Some of Cameron’s other lies:
You are 15 times more apt to be killed by a Gay than a heterosexual
Half of all murderers are homosexuals
Homosexuals perpetrate half of all child molestations Homosexuals are 5000 times as likely to have a sexual transmitted disease than heterosexuals.

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/cameron/medical.consequences.rebuttal2.txt

Okay, sorry, I wasn't going to respond to this part before, but I can't help it.

Are you kidding me?! You have the pluck to question the sources of the articles I linked to and then you cite what you did? An 'essay' (for lack of a better word) "prepared by Quan Young, a student in GLSU at the University of Florida" and his friends who didn't like a recent visit from Cameron.

So, they quote a bunch of hearsay from the LA Times and other people saying bad things about Cameron, but have no sources except the LA Times.

Basically, some smear tactics. "Cameron's linkage of homosexuality to pedophelia is dubiuos". 'Dubious'... is that the best they can do? As if this Cameron guy was the first and only one to link homosexuality with pedophelia. All I see in your link are peole who have disagreed with Cameron's conclusions. Oh my goodness, really? Someone disagreed with him? Another person having a differing opinion is hardly "proof" that he was wrong.

Is that the best you can do? You can't find anyone more respected? Someone actually published, for example? You can't find a medical journal article that would rebut the article I cited?

Pu-lease.

 

[Tamara224]

That is not what the word homosexual means in the English language: it means someone who is sexually attacked to someone of the same sex.

Some descriptors in English are defined by what one does (like liar or murder, they are usually derivatives of a verb), others are defined by what one is (tall, black, homosexual, hungry).


This is factually incorrect. One can be homosexual without committing homosexual acts, and one can commit same-sex sexual acts without being homosexual.

That stuff is only true if you accept and presume the modern liberal twisting of definitions and the liberal ideas of the nature of homosexuality. When I looked up the word 'homosexuality' in the dictionary it gave two definitions: one being orientation, the other being acts. One must first accept the idea that homosexuality is genetic or natural or not a choice (i.e. orientation) before one can say that committing homosexual acts does not make one homosexual, etc.

The 'orientation' view of homosexuality is not a Biblical view.

Homosexuality is a sin the same way any other sin is a sin. It's what one does that makes one a sinner. Homosexuality is not a special category of sin.

 

[ebia]

doesn't the fact that God calls it an abomination enough?

Firstly, its rather interesting that the word translated abomination in this case is one used in the bible pretty much exclusively for ritual sins, which points to the fact that what is being condemned is ritual/temple prostitution.

WHY question His word?

Because Jesus' teaching is strongly that we need to understand why things are wrong and act accordingly, not just follow a set of rules, because if one just follows the rules one will not be able to abide by the principles.

If one treats the bible as set of rules to follow, Jesus might just as well not have bothered becoming incarnate, but just left us with the OT. Christianity is founded on the idea that God wants more from us than that.

 

[vernodey]

Personally, I've never heard any good arguments why homosexuality would be sinful, that's why I just don't believe it is.


I don't think it's really an answer, because no one knows for sure if God said anything like that or not. All we have is a record that a long time ago, someone believed that God is against it, and decided to write about it.

Um, Star, this is is a Christians only section; are you sure you fit in, not believing in plenary inspiration of holy scripture and all?

 

[HunterRose]

Uh-oh, have I touched the sacred "minority" cow? Just because a group is a minority doesn't mean they automatically deserve respect or special rights. A minority of the population are murderers too... I hope we don't have murderer's rights rallies in Disneyland anytime soon.

The second article, the one I quoted, was a transcription of an interview. It's not common for people to cite to all their sources in an interview. However, it referred directly to the first article I linked. That one (the first one) had these cool things called endnotes... So, the sources for the material are actually provided but at the end, so it doesn't break up the flow of the essay. Neat, huh?

Try reading it next time before you attempt to debunk it for lack of support.

Yes homosexuals are a minority. Why does that bother you? If you are addressing the issue as you claim, in a “loving, truthful and non-judgmental” way then you shouldn’t be bothered by the fact that they are a minority.




But you didn’t quote the article with “nifty” endnotes now did you.

Well let’s take a look see at the claims of this other article….

Note all quotes taken directly form The Health Risks of Gay Sex JOHN R. DIGGS
http://www.porn-free.org/pdf/Gay_Sex_Health_Risks.pdf

Rotello's perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5
5. Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978]

The Bell and Weinberg study is often misused to create the alleged promiscuity of the homosexual community. The Bell/Weinberg study was an important study, is well accepted and for what it was. However, Bell and Weinberg themselves indicate that the study is absolutely not generalizeable to the population of homosexuals at large. Further Bell and Weinberg state that their research on homosexuals is not in any way comparable to heterosexual statistics.

While Bell and Weinberg did a survey of heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, they didn't include the heterosexual data. For example, while they claim that one homosexual respondent claims to have had sex with over 10,000 people, and a large percentage of their sample claim to have had sex with over 500 people, there is no correlative data on the heterosexual sample. For all the reader knows, the heterosexual sample may have had a greater number of sexual partners than the homosexual sample. Without this control group, we cannot generalize their sample to the population at large, because we do not know that their population represents national norms since we have no heterosexual control group. It is possible that the heterosexual statistics were equally high, and could have shown that the data does not represent promiscuity specifically among gays, but of the sexually active single person in San Francisco in the 1970's. Further the sampling of the homosexuals in the study was not random.

Bell and Weinberg used Kinsey 2-6 for their inclusion of homosexual population. Their sample does not represent only homosexual persons, but also includes bisexual persons.
A significant problem noted by Bell and Weinberg, still relating to the heterosexual sample, is that it did not represent a true control group. Apart from the fact that the homosexual sample was not random and the heterosexual sample was, the homosexual samples were taken from the following places: singles bars (22%), gay baths (9%), public places (=guys hanging out in parks to find sex partners; 6%), private bars (=sex clubs; 5%), personal contacts (people that the bar people, public place people, bath house people, etc, knew personally and referred; 23%), public advertising + organizations + mailing lists (29%). The heterosexual sample, on the other hand, were people in residential areas, admittedly including married people. These two samples are not parallel, and even if they had included the heterosexual data, they would not be comparable. In order for this data to be generalizable, they would have had to go to heterosexual singles bars, sex clubs, bookstores, etc, to get their population.
Having presented the Bell and Weinberg study, Diggs fail to explore alternative evidence. A comparison of two population studies of rates of sexual behavior indicates that homosexual and heterosexual rates may be quite similar, if not reversed from the stereotype. A similar study finds very different results than what Diggs tires to present as representative of the homosexual population at large.
Of interest on this topic:
Billy, J.O. The sexual behavior of men in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives 1993 (25): 52-60. was a study that found a mean number of homosexual sexual partners at 4.2 per lifetime while a second study Fay, 1989(Fay, R. Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. Science 1989 (243): 338-348) found a mean number of heterosexual sexual partners at 7.3 per lifetime.

By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.6

6. Leon McKusick, et al., "Reported Changes in the Sexual Behavior of Men at Risk for AIDS, San Francisco, 1982-84 — the AIDS Behavioral Research Project," Public Health Reports, 100(6): 622-629, p. 625, Table 1 (November- December 1985). In 1982 respondents reported an average of 4.7 new partners in the prior month; in 1984, respondents reported an average of 2.5 new partners in the prior month.

Blatant lie. The survey participants were not “average” in any way but rather “The sample consisted of men recruited as they left bath-houses and bars, men who had not used bars or baths for meeting sexual partners for 2 months prior to the November 1983 survey, and men in committed primary relationships with another man.” Unsurprisingly Diggs did not include information about men in the survey who were in ‘committed primary relationships’

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=3934697&dopt=Citation

That is likely true, according to data obtained in a 2000 survey in Australia that tracked whether men who had sex with men were associated with the gay community. Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.10

10. Paul Van de Ven, et al., "Facts & Figures: 2000 Male Out Survey," p. 20 & Table 20, monograph published by National Centre in HIV Social Research Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of New South Wales, February 2001

Here Diggs actively lies in what he presents as “facts” No where does Van de Ven say anything of the sort….in fact the study itself contradicts Diggs premise
From the Van de Ven study:
“Almost three quarters of the older men had either 1 (28.5%)or between 2-10 (44.9%) partners. Of heterosexual men (37.9%) had had between 2 and 10 female partners ever. The older heterosexual men (including those 40-49 years of age) were likely to have had more female partners in their lifetime than their younger counterparts, particularly so when compared with those under 30 years.”

A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55.13

Hoover, et al., Figure 3
Hoover, et al., "Estimating the 1978-1990 and Future Spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Subgroups of Homosexual Men," American Journal of Epidemiology, 134(10): 1190-1205, p. 1203 (1991).

Another blatant lie and one someone claiming to be a doctor should be ashamed of.

The Hoover study estimates that a 20 year who has already been exposed to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 will have a 50% chance of seroconverting by age 55.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/10/1190
as you can plainly see the study is not addressing risk of contraction of HIV by anyone but rather an examination of the potential of an individual already infected with HIV to convert form HIV to AIDS.

A study done in Baltimore and reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that gay men contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals.16

16. Catherine Hutchinson, et al., "Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics," Archives of Internal Medicine, 151: 511-516, p. 513 (1991).

Not true.
At no time does Hutchinson make this claim.
“Medical records of 341 patients with syphilis seen at a health department sexually transmitted disease clinic were reviewed to assess membership in high-risk subgroups and interactions with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. When compared with the entire clinic population, patients with syphilis tended to be older and were more likely to acknowledge intravenous drug use, more often had a history of syphilis…Half of the men with syphilis and one third of the women fell into one or more of these high-risk subgroups.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2001134&dopt=Citation


would you like me to continue?

 

[ebia]

That stuff is only true if you accept and presume the modern liberal twisting of definitions and the liberal ideas of the nature of homosexuality.

The word only exists in that context - it's a modern word.

When I looked up the word 'homosexuality' in the dictionary it gave two definitions: one being orientation, the other being acts.

The OED doesn't, but even if one accepts that homosexuality can refer to the acts that doesn't mean it accuately refers to those who commit the acts - English is funny like that.

One must first accept the idea that homosexuality is genetic or natural or not a choice (i.e. orientation) before one can say that committing homosexual acts does not make one homosexual, etc.

The word is defined to mean the orientation. One can argue that the word refers to something that doesn't exist if one wants to, but that's the definition of the word.

The 'orientation' view of homosexuality is not a Biblical view.

Maybe, maybe not, but then the word homosexual doesn't appear in the bible either, because the bible wasn't written in modern English. Bible translators don't get to (re)define English words.

If you want a phrase that accurately translates leviticus one had better stick with "men who lie with men". If one whats a phrase that accurately translates Paul one will have to guess what he meant, and/or do what he did and make up a new word.

 

[ebia]

Um, Star, this is is a Christians only section; are you sure you fit in, not believing in plenary inspiration of holy scripture and all?

One does not have to subscribe to any particular doctine of inspiration to be a Christian, generally, or for the purposes of CF.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Firstly, its rather interesting that the word translated abomination in this case is one used in the bible pretty much exclusively for ritual sins, which points to the fact that what is being condemned is ritual/temple prostitution.


Because Jesus' teaching is strongly that we need to understand why things are wrong and act accordingly, not just follow a set of rules, because if one just follows the rules one will not be able to abide by the principles.

If one treats the bible as set of rules to follow, Jesus might just as well not have bothered becoming incarnate, but just left us with the OT. Christianity is founded on the idea that God wants more from us than that.

Abomination isn't just applied to rituals, but in the proper context it's like commiting such a horrid sin. Let me give an example, when you do something bad people state "oh man he's going to kill you"..does that mean the person is going to kill the other? Nope. Just stating the degree of that action. That's just liberal world play, and yes Jesus wanted the sinners to come to him, but they also wanted him to stop sinning. The liberals seem to only like one side of Jesus, not his entirety.