Why is Homosexuality Wrong?

[butterfoot]

Adiya,


I dont care what God thinks, I want to know why he is opposed. Can you tell me why?

Would that be God telling what he thinks?

Dont single out homosexuality. All sex carries a risk. Given the fact that disease is indiscriminate about your sexuality, nothing is explained about why homosexuality is immoral, and heterosexuality is not.

Wrong not all sex carries a risk. Sex between a Married man and a Married woman who remain faithful to each other carries no risk.

Fine and dandy. There are people who believe God is exalted by homosexuality, and these people draw their conclusions from the same bible that your own mutually exclusive conclusions originate. The disagreement is irresolvable, as it renders the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality to be no different than any particular persons opinions - and that is obviously unhelpful.

It is not any Christians opinoin that is right or wrong. It is what God tells us that homosexuality is wrong.

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Leviticus 18:22[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
[/font]


-cw

 

[FSTDT]

Cameronw,

Would that be God telling what he thinks?

If someone were to say "God disapproves of boiling goats in their mothers milk", that is a factual statement. It only tells me what God thinks.

If God adds "gratuitous animal suffering is morally wrong", that would tell me why.

Wrong not all sex carries a risk. Sex between a Married man and a Married woman who remain faithful to each other carries no risk.

How is this response relevant to the fact that the risk of sex is not exclusive to homosexuality? Are you implying that married man and man who are faithful to each other carries a risk that heterosexual marriage doesnt? *sigh*

It is not any Christians opinoin that is right or wrong. It is what God tells us that homosexuality is wrong.

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Leviticus 18:22[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
[/font]

Why is it an abomination?

 

[""]

You asked

One of the reasons why I dont really care for appeal to the bible is because it doesnt tell me why.

So I told you why, as best I could, by letting God's word speak for itself.

It does tell us why, and at the very beginning of the bible.

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
- (Genesis 1:27)

It is a question of morals. Anything that goes against what God created us to be is immoral.

I don't make the rules. I just try to obey them
Also, again I point out, for those who would seek to harm somebody because of their sexual orientation, this is wrong, and you will be punished.

We were asked why the bible says homosexuality is seen as immoral, and I shared why. That's all I can do.

God is the final judge. I am not, nor do I wish to be.

John 13:34 (New International Version)

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

You will find nothing but love coming from my direction regarding this particular topic. It is wrong to hate, and that includes hating homosexuals. We cannot show anybody the love of the Heavenly Father, by spewing hatered. What I have put before you is an example of God's perfect love, and how out of that love, was created mankind, both male and female, in God's image. United, they are in the image of his perfect love for us.

GOD IS LOVE

 

[""]

(I apologize if this comes of harshly).

Me too... in advance.

Or, in the case of non-believers like myself, I would argue that God is irrelevant to morality

Non-shellfish eaters like myself, would argue that it is irrelevant to seafood chowder. What kind of sense does that make? Shrimp, lobster, and all shellfish make seafood chowder what it is. Those who eat shellfish, know that seafood chowder is delicious. Simply because I do not partake of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and that it doesn't play a major role in the big picture.

God is relevant to morality because God is the creator of morality. God is IN morality. Without God, there is only immorality.

Without shellfish in your seafood chowder, you get a bowl of strained liquid that doesn't contain much substance.

Therefore:
Your argument has no substance.
It holds no weight.
It cannot be used to back up your stance on moral behavior.

 

[Nymphalidae]

Being gay or living the Homosexual lifestyle just does not fit in the cycle of life. Lets not even look at what the bible says but rather life in general. Life begets Life. To have life you must create it in some form. The current system that works is that Man and Woman procreate. The woman gets pregnant and has child. So here starts the circle of life. It then starts all over again. Child grows up, meets someone of the opposite sex, they procreate and have child. That child grows up meets someone of same sex for relationship, they (procreate) wait no child. Circle of life ends. I hope this explains in a nutshell why homosexuality is not natural.

I guess if homosexuals aren't careful and listening to the Evolutionist pretty soon men will start having kids. I guess that would be wierd but hey evolutionist are right aren't they?



http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm

-cw

If you knew anything at all about biology, you would realize that kin selection can and does play a major role in the evolution of many species. For example, kin selection is why an entire nest of ants is willing to give up their own reproduction to help the queen and drones reproduce. Research suggests that the female relatives of gay men have more children than the female relatives of straight men. Thus, homosexuality is most likely a neutral mutation in males. It isn't any more unnatural than eusociality in insects.

 

[FSTDT]

Adiya,

So I told you why, as best I could, by letting God's word speak for itself.

You said it was the only means to glorify God, but I find there are compelling reasons (as I noted in my post) to see that the conclusion only heterosexuality can exalt God is not an objective claim about rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. I could say the drawing the line at gender is arbitrary in the first place, just like drawing the line at other characteristics such as race or nationality. It could be that love itself is more important that the objects of that love, and that God is exalted accordingly. Does this make sense?

However, I want to take a moment to be technical, and focus on your comment "[explaing why homosexuality is wrong by] letting God's word speak for itself". I have no reason to believe that moral prescriptions provided in the bible are authoritative while the moral prescriptions that appear in any other holy texts are not (I mentioned this in post #3). How can we resolve conflict among holy texts if we dont speak in objective terms? You cant. You have to define morality according to its actual consequences and appeal to objective rationales, not according to any holy text. Its for reasons like this that non-Christians do not find bible relevant or authoritative for any kind of moral decision.

There is a good reason why, as best as I could, I tried to keep the focus of this thread away of the content of the bible, and aimed at the rationale that the bible (or any moral prescription) is based on.

It is a question of morals. Anything that goes against what God created us to be is immoral.

God is irrelevant to morality unless there is a rationale behind his moral prescriptions. If there is no rationale, his prescriptions are arbitrary, and we would only be bound to follow them for the sake of being rewarded or punished for obediance or disobediance (and this idea carries no moral component at all).

God is relevant to morality because God is the creator of morality. God is IN morality. Without God, there is only immorality.

Need the Euthyphro's Dilemma be repeated? Does God disapprove of sing because it is bad or is sin bad because God disapproves of it? On the first interpretation of the dilemma theists can provide objective reasons for not sinning, but so can atheists. On the second interpretation, theists can provide no objective reasons for not sinning so that if atheists cannot, they are no worse off than theists.

Alternatively, all it takes to reveal the objective nature of morality is to simply define what "God is the creator of morality" actually means. If God creates morality in such a way that it is equivalent to his will, then an objective basis for morality is reduced to zilch as no objective reasons can be provided for not sinning. Otherwise, if God creates morality in such a way that provides a means to deduce value judgements, then morality obviously exists apart from him, and as such objective reasons can be provided for not sinning.

Alternatively (again), you could recognize that morality has to do with the capacity to make value judgements and reason, and this can be done without the aide of God. Therefore, without God, morality is reduced down to the defining right and wrong according to a value basis - that is literally saying "morality reduces down to morality", which is a tautology; this means "morality with God" is superficially identical to "morality without God", clearly indicating a needless repitition of entities, lending to God being superfluous to the definition of morality.

I've written a lot about secular morality in the past, I could probably go on for several more pages, but I feel it would be deviated too far from the opening post.

 

[Brennin]

If you knew anything at all about biology, you would realize that kin selection can and does play a major role in the evolution of many species. For example, kin selection is why an entire nest of ants is willing to give up their own reproduction to help the queen and drones reproduce. Research suggests that the female relatives of gay men have more children than the female relatives of straight men. Thus, homosexuality is most likely a neutral mutation in males. It isn't any more unnatural than eusociality in insects.

Sociobiology, as applied to humans, is glorified haruspicy, as far as I am concerned.

 

[beechy]

Being gay or living the Homosexual lifestyle just does not fit in the cycle of life. Lets not even look at what the bible says but rather life in general. Life begets Life. To have life you must create it in some form. The current system that works is that Man and Woman procreate. The woman gets pregnant and has child. So here starts the circle of life. It then starts all over again. Child grows up, meets someone of the opposite sex, they procreate and have child. That child grows up meets someone of same sex for relationship, they (procreate) wait no child. Circle of life ends. I hope this explains in a nutshell why homosexuality is not natural.

I guess if homosexuals aren't careful and listening to the Evolutionist pretty soon men will start having kids. I guess that would be wierd but hey evolutionist are right aren't they?



http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm

-cw

Another "system that works" is adoption (people willing to adopt kids whose biological parents can't/won't care for them is quite beneficial for the "cycle of life," don't you think?), there's also in vitro fertilization (with or without a surrogate mother) which can be used in conjunction with egg and sperm banks. Do you think Louise Brown represents the end of the cycle of life? (I bet she doesn't).

 

[""]

Therefore, without God, morality is reduced down to the defining right and wrong according to a value basis - that is literally saying "morality reduces down to morality", which is a tautology; this means "morality with God" is superficially identical to "morality without God", clearly indicating a needless repitition of entities, lending to God being superfluous to the definition of morality.

Well it took me a while to get to this response. Everytime I tried, the phone rang. It was good though, as it gave me some time to think about what it was I wanted to say in response to you.

Ok so you have determined that morality must be decided on the bases of rightness and wrongness, but without God at the helm. You accept that there is a wrong and there is a right. You argue with others to present your "rightness" as opposed to their wrongness, and they do the same. I say that this makes no sense without God.

It is impossible to argue for rightness unless there is objective, absolute evil and good. So many times, non-believers will argue that there is no logic in accepting that a Creator is behind the existence of mankind, but this makes no sense to true lovers of logic. How can a conscious being come from nonconscious matter? How can a being capable of logic and reasoning come from non-living, non-logical, non-reasoning matter? If we are to consider ourselves to be capable of rational thinking, and reasoning, then we must surely believe that a ration thinking, reasonable Creator is behind life. If not, then you shouldn't even trust your own rationalizations. You cannot even trust what you believe to be right and what you believe to be wrong. How can you if you are the result of an irrational, unconscious, unreasonable blob of matter that had no more plan for your existence than a melted puddle of ice cream would have for the stick it used to rest upon?

The ability to reason and determine rightness from wrongness can only have come from a Creator, who, in creating us in His own image, knew what was best for us. Out of His knowledge of what would harm us and what would help us, He laid down the laws which we use to this very day.

 

[Cerberus~]

The ability to reason and determine rightness from wrongness can only have come from a Creator, who, in creating us in His own image, knew what was best for us. Out of His knowledge of what would harm us and what would help us, He laid down the laws which we use to this very day.

As a Deist, I believe in an all-powerful Creator of the universe. But that spot could be filled by any one of the deities believed to exist.

Just because there is a Creator, doesn't mean it's Jehovah. If you could prove that, you'ld probably be a very rich person right now.

It is a question of morals. Anything that goes against what God created us to be is immoral.

The unnatural arguement.

1. Airplanes are immoral under this reasoning. "If God wanted us to fly, He'ld have made us with wings."

2. How do you explain animals with homosexual tendencies.

3. There's no objective way of determining exactly what God created us for.

 

[Cerberus~]

Being gay or living the Homosexual lifestyle just does not fit in the cycle of life. Lets not even look at what the bible says but rather life in general. Life begets Life. To have life you must create it in some form. The current system that works is that Man and Woman procreate. The woman gets pregnant and has child. So here starts the circle of life. It then starts all over again. Child grows up, meets someone of the opposite sex, they procreate and have child. That child grows up meets someone of same sex for relationship, they (procreate) wait no child. Circle of life ends. I hope this explains in a nutshell why homosexuality is not natural.

And what about heteros that are sterile/infertile? Some ppl just can't have children, so ppl just don't want children. Lots of couples go though life never having children. Are they immoral?

Besides, a third of our 6 billion+ population is starving, and you're worried that gays are makin with the procreatin? Here's an idea, when all the children that are alive now are fed and clothed, then we talk the morality of gay not procreating.

Not to mention, you completely neglect to mention to possibilty that homosexuality is an evolutionary tool.

 

[biochemrex]

According to the new rules, opinion without support of "evidence' from approved sources are not allowed so it is very difficult if not outright impossible to address this question.
On the matter of Right and Wrong, it is always a matter of opinion and while "evidence" may be dug up to support the position, Evicence is merely that which convinces and the evidence that convinces one side of the dispute will be ruled as invalid by the other side.
I would like to see a resolution to this so controversial dispute, but I do not think that argument based on alleged evidence will do anything other than to furthur polarise the vasious sides.
What I propose as more productive is calling for personal and honest opinion - no evidence required for why you think it is or is not.
In my impartial observations I have found many personal reasons. A person who has homosexual leanings may be ashamed of them and so attack anyone who promotes them because he fears that he will be led into temptation. I have personally encountered such people and have often read of them.
On the other hand I know plenty of people who think homosexual practice is so bizarre as to be beyong comprehension, yet they are all in favour of it being encouraged since the more men who turned homosexual the more women who would not eb able to find a partner and so their value would go up. And I know of many women who despair that all the best men are either married or homosexual and they hate homosexuals because they are in competition with them.
Such reasons are not based on evidence so what point is their demanding evidence in this debate? In my experience evidence has very little compelling power over issues whiich peoople care about. They will only accept evidence if it supports what they have already decied to beleive.
But if this battle of the scientists and the Theologians goes on it will have only one ending - total war and I do not want to see that. If we forget about evidence and come clean about our feelings, perhaps we can come to a peaceful solution? Keith

 

[QUIC]

Do I believe homosexuality is wrong? sure. That's what I read in the bible. That doesn't mean that I hate homosexuals. Any more than I hate an adulterer (I'd have to hate myself for my past) a liar (Ditto) or any other form of sin the bible describes.

This is what I did when I read the above...


Can you add that to your "Stacked Deck" ? haha

My opinion see's that the "Ick" factor has a lot of truth. Though it does work 2 ways (in a lot of cases). A lot of gay people are just as "Icked" by Heterosexual Intimacy or the thoughts of Heterosexual *ntercourse.

That doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Nymphalidae]

Sociobiology, as applied to humans, is glorified haruspicy, as far as I am concerned.

You and me, baby, ain't nothin' but mammals.

 

[seekingpurity047]

Romans 1:25-27



25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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.

It's unnatural, taht's WHY God condemns homosexuality. Same thing goes with other sins, such as adultery, pornography, stealing. It's immoral becuase no good can come out of it, it is altogether evil. There are no excuses for sin. But homosexuals can be forgiven, should they repent.

Romans 3:23

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Homosexuality = a sin because God wants it to be a sin, He knows what's best for His people, and homosexuality isn't a part of that. It's not an unforgivable sin, however.

A lot of people refuse to see it that way, which is why I no longer classify myself as a fundie, but a conservative. Like, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but I also believe that these people can turn away from their sin by the power of God.

Thank you,

Randy

 

[Cerberus~]

Homosexuality = a sin because God wants it to be a sin, He knows what's best for His people, and homosexuality isn't a part of that. It's not an unforgivable sin, however.

Why?

It's like a merry-go-round.

 

[LittleNipper]

Why?

It's like a merry-go-round.

Because the husband is to be the head of his wife, just like Christ is the head of HIS Church. (Ephesians 5:23) With homosexuality there are either 2 wives or 2 husbands and no head. The other facter is that the joining of 2 men and 2 women cannot become as one. You always have two equals struggling to maintain the identity of each INDIVIDUALS. (Genesis 2:24 )

 

[Corey]

Because the husband is to be the head of his wife...

So you think women are inferior to men? Or rather...you agree with Paul that women are inferior to men?

 

[UberLutheran]

Well, hehe, with the standards you foreordained, it will be pretty difficult for me to answer this! I am a Christian who does agree with the fundie view on this issue.

I'm sorry to do this to you, but as a Christian, I cannot separate out the Bible from this discussion. I use the Bible for instruction on these types of moral issues. And I do believe what God says in Leviticus 18:22. That is, God says, "Do not lie with a man as with a woman: It is an abomination."

Many, MANY abominations are listed in Deuteronomy and Leviticus -- which have to do with things which routinely done and taken for grated by Christian and non-Christian alike.

Yet, this (and the other Leviticus quotation, and the Deuteronomy quotation) are the only verses usually cited from these books.

So -- why don't the other 612 Laws count, as well? St. Paul says that if we are trying to attain salvation by observing some of the Laws, but not all, we make the work of Christ in vain; and to break one law is to break the entire Law. (Galatians 1-4).

So, why is this one law quoted exclusively, and all the other laws conveniently ignored?

 

[UberLutheran]

lol I double-dog dippity doo-da dare you try!

Well, I double-dog dippity doo-da, zippit-e-a dare you!

I would do the dance routine for this, but frankly, I'm aFred Astaires...

And now, back to the topic at hand...

[UberLutheran cannot resist finishing songs from Broadway musicals once someone gives him the opening line...]

lol, the OP asking for a logical reason instead of a biblical response is stacking the deck?
wait, nevermind... I know your answer.


ok. good to know. thanks.


Begging the Question
The answer is he doesn't speak against it. (see lev18:22)


And he can be all this and more while still finding nothing wrong with homosexual acts.
Which he btw has no problem with anyway. (see Romans 1)


no it's not. false assertion heard and rejected.


slippery slope falacy


I agree.


no actually he expects excuses and expects us to ignore him because we're sinners remember?


why because you can't answer it?
Try to put a logical argument together as to why God would have a problem with homosexuality now.
I double-dog dippity doo-da dare you try!