Why is Homosexuality Wrong?

[QUIC]

Okay, the last page was just people "Pointing out Points" from a few pages ago. I'm a little confused.

I believe if God tells you that Homosexuality is Wrong, then it's part of his lessons/trials that he has set in place for you.
Being that between 5 and 10% of the worlds population is gay, the chances are you're going to come across one 1day. This is where God will test your Love for individuals (or thy Neighbour).

Being christian my self (and also gay), God calls me to love each person that I come in contact with equally (even if they're heterosexual and/or not loving me back). True Love / Soul Mates is for another thread, but feel free to ask.

God has a plan for all of us (including Gay people). He knew who we were and are going to be before we were born. He sets Battles/Lessons/Trials/Tests for each and every one of his children throughout life.

As you might guess, I have had a LOT of tests and trials with my life, my self, loved ones and the Church but still managed to keep my faith in Jesus - can anyone deny that God would look kindly/blessingly at that?

God calls everyone (Straight or Gay) to pass his tests and trials, it's just that some choose to call on their own concience and thoughts instead of consulting Jesus.

Hope that isn't all confusing. It came from my fingers, but for some reason - the words are not my own.

 

[Brennin]

Stoics are hot. I just can't get enough of that stoic action.

And here I didn't even get into the Stoic concept of "divine fire." Unfortunately, I can't give you what you want because I'm supposed to be dispassionate.

 

[Corey]

Stoics are hot. I just can't get enough of that stoic action.

What about Hedonists?

 

[belladonic-haze]

First, I did state it.
Second, why your objection with the use of Biblical scripture? Perhaps you should look above and note that this is a Christian forum and we may also note that religion IS a protected Constitutional Right.

OUCH. I DO respect all rights.....I did not menat it to critizise. Sorry you felt that way. I just wondered how your opnion was if you didn't had the bible. I mean, I struggle with this homosexuality sin thing in the bible. Personally I think it is discriminating. But that doesn't make me feel better to feel that way. I am also a biologists and homosexuality is a totally natural way of life........450 species or so have homosexual relations as well. The ape the bonobo is 100% bisexual. I can understand that your heart would feel different about this, if you put the Bible away and search your emotions.

I am sorry I have offended you

Love and sunshine,
Bella

 

[FSTDT]

ChristianCenturion

I stated reasons. If you choose to disagree, you are welcome to do so; however, your objection of such does not negate or invalidate my statement simply because you present it. I did, after all, state some of the basic reasons I have, I did not submit that authority be given on whether I am entitled to such.

Additionally, I am a United States citizen and as such, even if my unwillingness to support same-gender marriage were to be wholly based on personal, religious principles, my rights as a citizen makes my vote a secular issue. Regardless of how much you may prefer it to be otherwise, my protected Rights and citizen's rights coupled with the Rule by Consent our Nation is founded on makes it a wholly secular fact the opposition needs to accept. The premise that there needs to be a single or fully agreed upon reason not to support a model for marriage is a false premise and I'm not one to cater to that. Generally speaking, the citizen has chosen to deny giving marital incentives to same-gender, polygamy, incest, absurdly youthful arranged marriage, and cohabitation relationships. It is to be expected that those would object, but that doesn't validate a reason to force the citizen to cater to an ideology they by majority reject. That would be a secular reason.

You are free to hold any political opinions you wish, I have never said you couldnt.

Complex fallacy~

Excerpt:
This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."​

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem

Coupled with Non Sequitor

CC, my comment was valid.

"The same things were said about widening the gender roles and race relations. Perhaps you would be interested in explaining how homosexuality is so drastically different, and how it is so counter productive to mutual societal interaction?"

The comment in red is a factually correct statement, to serve as a parallel to the type of reasoning I saw in your post. The second statement was one of incredulity, so that if the parallel was invalid you could correct me. That being said, my comment was not ad hominem, and I'm not sure what you saw in my comment that would make it non-sequitor.

Remember, arguments are valid or invalid based on how the arguments follow the premises, not based on whether they happen to follow some logical format - that being said, some arguments are valid even if they appear to fit the form of a logical fallacy (i.e. "Friends is clearly an America's favorite sitcom, look at its ratings" is valid despite fitting the form an appeal to popularity.).

I'm very careful never to commit a logical a fallacy.

I also shouldn't have to point out Amendment XV and XIX; whereas, I'm at a loss to see the Amendment for sexual practices.

You are correct, you do not have to point our constitutional amendments, because doing so would be tantamount red herring, and I think you know that already.

As to the differences of a marriage between a man and wife and that of same gender; common sense would tell that a mixed gender marriage has an inherent incentive to respect and value the opposite sex, thereby having a tendency of extending the same to others; whereas there is not inherent incentive with same gender marriage. A lesbian man-hater (or anti-social to men) has no reason or environmental encouragement to respect or value the opposite sex. The same would apply to male same-gender marriages.

CC, people do not become lesbians and gays because they hate the opposite sex - and I think you already know that as well.

Even still, the number of heterosexual marriages that are abusive and unhappy should tell you immediately that "inherent incentive to respect and value the opposite sex" is a factually incorrect statement.

In addition, man and wife marriage is time tested and universally accepted while same-gender marriage has only the incidental and those are from failed societies.

This is just silliness. From SFGate.com - Scientists Counter Bush View:

The primary organization representing American anthropologists criticized President Bush's proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage Thursday and gave a failing grade to the president's understanding of human cultures.

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution," said the executive board of the 11,000-member American Anthropological Association.

Bush has cast the union between male and female as the only proper form of marriage, or what he called in his State of the Union address "one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization."

American anthropologists say he's wrong.

"Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies," the association's statement said, adding that the executive board "strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."

The statement was proposed by Dan Segal, a professor of anthropology and history from Pitzer College in Claremont (Los Angeles County), who called Bush's conception of the history of marriage "patently false."

"If he were to take even the first semester of anthropology, he would know that's not true," said Segal, a member of the anthropological association's Executive Committee.

CC, I think you need to pull yourself out of the ideological hole you're in. If you want to talk about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, please talk about in terms of morality, and avoid those "gays hate the opposite sex" zingers.

 

[beechy]

As to the differences of a marriage between a man and wife and that of same gender; common sense would tell that a mixed gender marriage has an inherent incentive to respect and value the opposite sex, thereby having a tendency of extending the same to others; whereas there is not inherent incentive with same gender marriage. A lesbian man-hater (or anti-social to men) has no reason or environmental encouragement to respect or value the opposite sex. The same would apply to male same-gender marriages. In addition, man and wife marriage is time tested and universally accepted while same-gender marriage has only the incidental and those are from failed societies.

It took me a little while to try and figure out what you're alleging here but I think it's this: When a man and a woman marry each other, they learn to love and understand the opposite sex in general. When two women or two men marry each other, however, they don't have an "incentive" to learn to love and and understand the opposite sex in general, as is demonstrated by "lesbian man-haters". If I've got that paraphrase wrong, CC, please let me know.

I'll preliminarily address what I think your contention is, however, by saying that I completely and totally can't relate to this "common sense" "reasoning," and don't understand why you assign a causal relationship between opposite sex marriage and respect for the opposite gender.

I, as you know, am a woman involved in a same sex relationship with another woman. I don't hate men at all. I have loved and respected many men in my life. My love and respect for men in general has nothing to do with who I come home to at night. I'm with my partner because I love her, not because I hate men. If a man is white and he marries a white woman, does that mean he then has no "incentive" to love and respect black people and he therefore won't? My ability to love and respect others is not circumscribed by their likeness to the person I choose to partner up with.

I also take issue with the idea that being with someone of the opposite sex somehow "inherently" infuses you with respect for the gender. Especially in light of statistics indicating that "nearly 1/3 of American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives," such that "in the U.S., every 9 seconds a woman is physically abused by her husband." This, of course, is not to say that all men beat their wives, but rather to make the point that a significant number of individuals in heterosexual relationships don't seem to be developing an "inherent" respect for the opposite gender simply by virtue of their intimate relationship with someone of that gender.

As for the case against gay marriage being made on the basis that opposite sex marriage is "time tested" and "universally accepted," I'm not sure I follow. No one here is arguing against opposite sex marriage, so its "universal acceptance" which has been "tested [by] time" remains intact. Finally, what "incidental" "failed societies" are you referring to with respect to gay marriage?

 

[belladonic-haze]

It took me a little while to try and figure out what you're alleging here but I think it's this: When a man and a woman marry each other, they learn to love and understand the opposite sex in general. When two women or two men marry each other, however, they don't have an "incentive" to learn to love and and understand the opposite sex in general, as is demonstrated by "lesbian man-haters". If I've got that paraphrase wrong, CC, please let me know.

I'll preliminarily address what I think your contention is, however, by saying that I completely and totally can't relate to this "common sense" "reasoning," and don't understand why you assign a causal relationship between opposite sex marriage and respect for the opposite gender.

I, as you know, am a woman involved in a same sex relationship with another woman. I don't hate men at all. I have loved and respected many men in my life. My love and respect for men in general has nothing to do with who I come home to at night. I'm with my partner because I love her, not because I hate men. If a man is white and he marries a white woman, does that mean he then has no "incentive" to love and respect black people and he therefore won't? My ability to love and respect others is not circumscribed by their likeness to the person I choose to partner up with.

I also take issue with the idea that being with someone of the opposite sex somehow "inherently" infuses you with respect for the gender. Especially in light of statistics indicating that "nearly 1/3 of American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives," such that "in the U.S., every 9 seconds a woman is physically abused by her husband." This, of course, is not to say that all men beat their wives, but rather to make the point that a significant number of individuals in heterosexual relationships don't seem to be developing an "inherent" respect for the opposite gender simply by virtue of their intimate relationship with someone of that gender.

As for the case against gay marriage being made on the basis that opposite sex marriage is "time tested" and "universally accepted," I'm not sure I follow. No one here is arguing against opposite sex marriage, so its "universal acceptance" which has been "tested [by] time" remains intact. Finally, what "incidental" "failed societies" are you referring to with respect to gay marriage?

 

[Liger14]

Probably the Roman empire.They killed themselves of,thosse men marrying each other.
I still dunno why people question this.God is very clear on it,I dunno why you're arguing about it.

 

[Brennin]

This is just silliness. From SFGate.com - Scientists Counter Bush View:

Anthropologists are not scientists.

 

[belladonic-haze]

Anthropologists are not scientists.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

OUCH. I DO respect all rights.....I did not menat it to critizise. Sorry you felt that way. I just wondered how your opnion was if you didn't had the bible. I mean, I struggle with this homosexuality sin thing in the bible. Personally I think it is discriminating. But that doesn't make me feel better to feel that way. I am also a biologists and homosexuality is a totally natural way of life........450 species or so have homosexual relations as well. The ape the bonobo is 100% bisexual. I can understand that your heart would feel different about this, if you put the Bible away and search your emotions.

I am sorry I have offended you

Love and sunshine,
Bella

No need to apologize.
I stated my view with and without Biblical reference. I see nothing good from practicing homosexuality. Same genders can love, respect, admire, care, etc. for each other and not have the sexual content and adding the sexual content creates the problems that exist that some insist the remaining society are responsible for. The duplicity in advocates claiming that others can't comprehend same genders 'loving' one another is only realized when the inverse is rejected by those advocates. IOW - they deny that 'loving' another of a different gender is possible. They get exposed by their own argument.

It would be no different than a stove, within proper boundaries, it is a benefit. But outside those boundaries and placing one's hand on the burner only to blame the manufacturer is simply ignorance or arrogance. IMO.

As a biologist, you should also know that cannibalism, territorial dominance, procreative dominance (i.e. what would be rape if it were human and/or harems), etc. are also a "totally natural way of life". Claiming an action moral because of beasts driven by instinct are doing something and people project human characteristics to it is hardly the route you want to go there.

 

[LittleNipper]

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

I agree with GOD that women and men have mutual and equally beneficial but different roles. Inferior is in the mind of people with a complex. It always seems greener on the otherside.

 

[belladonic-haze]

As a biologist, you should also know that cannibalism, territorial dominance, procreative dominance (i.e. what would be rape if it were human and/or harems), etc. are also a "totally natural way of life". Claiming an action moral because of beasts driven by instinct are doing something and people project human characteristics to it is hardly the route you want to go there.

Cannibalism happens hardly...yes it happens, but mostly under certain circumstances, caused by human interferance.

Rape doesn't happen in nature, but the opinions differ about that. I talked to my therapist about it and we both agree and she is specialized in rape. Violent forms of intercourse happens. In some species that is normal because the change of getting off spring is so much higher. In Nature it happens for one reason only, to create offspring. Rape among humans isn't about sex.

Polygamy....yep, but why do you think so many people are unfaithful in marriage . Just kidding. Some cultures still have polygamy and if the wives agree with this life style, there is nothing wrong with that.

Humans are mammals, animals.....and we differ a lot, yet not a lot.....

 

[BarbB]

OUCH. I DO respect all rights.....I did not menat it to critizise. Sorry you felt that way. I just wondered how your opnion was if you didn't had the bible. I mean, I struggle with this homosexuality sin thing in the bible. Personally I think it is discriminating. But that doesn't make me feel better to feel that way. I am also a biologists and homosexuality is a totally natural way of life........450 species or so have homosexual relations as well. The ape the bonobo is 100% bisexual. I can understand that your heart would feel different about this, if you put the Bible away and search your emotions.

I am sorry I have offended you

Love and sunshine,
Bella

If you put the Bible away and search your emotions, then you are no better than the Hebrews in Judges who "did what was right in their own eyes" and they suffered for it. The Bible is what teaches us the truth about this fallen world.

 

[BarbB]

True enough - it's a B.A. isn't it, not a B.S.?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

ChristianCenturion


You are free to hold any political opinions you wish, I have never said you couldnt.


CC, my comment was valid.

"The same things were said about widening the gender roles and race relations. Perhaps you would be interested in explaining how homosexuality is so drastically different, and how it is so counter productive to mutual societal interaction?"

The comment in red is a factually correct statement, to serve as a parallel to the type of reasoning I saw in your post. The second statement was one of incredulity, so that if the parallel was invalid you could correct me. That being said, my comment was not ad hominem, and I'm not sure what you saw in my comment that would make it non-sequitor.

I saw it as implying something was invalid because what is perceived as similar positions were held by an easier criticized group. I did not emphasize the attack, I was pointing to the invalid invalidation (as I interpreted being implied).

The non sequitor is the fact race and gender identity is not the same as sexual practice identity. If you would like to over-generalize the legal principles that broad, then you may as well advocate in social security being age discrimination.

Remember, arguments are valid or invalid based on how the arguments follow the premises, not based on whether they happen to follow some logical format - that being said, some arguments are valid even if they appear to fit the form of a logical fallacy (i.e. "Friends is clearly an America's favorite sitcom, look at its ratings" is valid despite fitting the form an appeal to popularity.).

I'm very careful never to commit a logical a fallacy.

Well, we can agree with this at least.

You are correct, you do not have to point our constitutional amendments, because doing so would be tantamount red herring, and I think you know that already.

You asked for the mundane, I returned the same for the answer. Sorry, but you can't bring up a non sequitor only to claim red herring for the answer and still be trying to communicate sincerely in my view.

CC, people do not become lesbians and gays because they hate the opposite sex - and I think you already know that as well.

Even still, the number of heterosexual marriages that are abusive and unhappy should tell you immediately that "inherent incentive to respect and value the opposite sex" is a factually incorrect statement.

I didn't deny that heterosexual marriages had issues, but the deviant human behavior of the statistical vast majority does not necessarily reflect the qualities of any inherent incentive. One could easily have an addition of counter-productive incentives to do the deviant and maintain the beneficial composition while still having the non-beneficial outcome. My opined examples would be increase in pornography, no-fault divorce, decrease in good role models, etc.
You also make this statement with ignoring any or all destructive or violent behavior in the 'other' group.

This is just silliness. From SFGate.com - Scientists Counter Bush View:


CC, I think you need to pull yourself out of the ideological hole you're in. If you want to talk about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, please talk about in terms of morality, and avoid those "gays hate the opposite sex" zingers.

The irony of you lecturing someone to pull oneself out of an ideological hole just made my day. The implied denial that same-gender relations is ideology-free is something I, until now, didn't expect from you. Any humor I see in that aside, honestly, I'm somewhat disappointed.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

If you put the Bible away and search your emotions, then you are no better than the Hebrews in Judges who "did what was right in their own eyes" and they suffered for it. The Bible is what teaches us the truth about this fallen world.

Oh when the truth is told, it is a beautiful thing.
I enjoyed that insight newlamb.

 

[beechy]

True enough - it's a B.A. isn't it, not a B.S.?

Depends on the degree granting university. Generally speaking, B.A. vs. B.S. is not a very substantive distinction these days. UC Berkeley's College of Letters and Sciences, which houses its world renowed programs in biology and physics, only awards B.A. (as opposed to B.S.) undergraduate degrees. This includes degrees which meet the prerequisites for medical school. That said, anthropology often characterizes itself as a social science, like political science, although there is a branch of anthropology, often called something like "biological anthropology" which typically concerns itself with evolutionary studies. The subject matter of the SFGate article referenced in the prior post seems to be in the realm of the social sciences, however, so I don't see what the problem is. Do you just think that social scientists shouldn't be called "scientists" without qualification? I suppose that's fair, insofar as people might make an assumption before reading it that the article will be about the physical, biological, or other "hard" sciences ...

 

[BarbB]

Oh when the truth is told, it is a beautiful thing.
I enjoyed that insight newlamb.

Thanks, CC. I credit Judges with my conversion experience. I did what was right in my own eyes for 53 years - it was awful! Now I do what is right by my God! Life has improved considerably!

 

[ChristianCenturion]

It took me a little while to try and figure out what you're alleging here but I think it's this: When a man and a woman marry each other, they learn to love and understand the opposite sex in general. When two women or two men marry each other, however, they don't have an "incentive" to learn to love and and understand the opposite sex in general, as is demonstrated by "lesbian man-haters". If I've got that paraphrase wrong, CC, please let me know.

That is close enough.

I'll preliminarily address what I think your contention is, however, by saying that I completely and totally can't relate to this "common sense" "reasoning," and don't understand why you assign a causal relationship between opposite sex marriage and respect for the opposite gender.

I, as you know, am a woman involved in a same sex relationship with another woman. I don't hate men at all. I have loved and respected many men in my life. My love and respect for men in general has nothing to do with who I come home to at night. I'm with my partner because I love her, not because I hate men. If a man is white and he marries a white woman, does that mean he then has no "incentive" to love and respect black people and he therefore won't? My ability to love and respect others is not circumscribed by their likeness to the person I choose to partner up with.

I believe you are confusing my use of incentive with a dominating conclusion. It is influence, one that can be effective ineffective or outweighed by other factors. I can place 50 pounds of ballast on one side of a small boat and it could tip the boat; place an opposing 1000 pounds on the other side or the same 50 pound weight on a ship and you will have different results.

I also take issue with the idea that being with someone of the opposite sex somehow "inherently" infuses you with respect for the gender. Especially in light of statistics indicating that "nearly 1/3 of American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives," such that "in the U.S., every 9 seconds a woman is physically abused by her husband." This, of course, is not to say that all men beat their wives, but rather to make the point that a significant number of individuals in heterosexual relationships don't seem to be developing an "inherent" respect for the opposite gender simply by virtue of their intimate relationship with someone of that gender.

I can't say that I view your use of statistics regarding a very large population involving the other 90%-99.5% of the population (albeit, nobody really knows the correct number) while ignoring the compared model as objective. I will refrain from posting the obligatory same-gender statistics dealing with deviant and violent behavior. Mainly because sexual orientation is seldom a criteria for classification and that your citation doesn't negate what was presented by me.

As for the case against gay marriage being made on the basis that opposite sex marriage is "time tested" and "universally accepted," I'm not sure I follow. No one here is arguing against opposite sex marriage, so its "universal acceptance" which has been "tested [by] time" remains intact.

It is a compare/contrast observation. Since same-gender relationship is being reviewed in its acceptability and it has nothing to warrant praise by itself, a comparison or contrast is required to come to a verdict.

Finally, what "incidental" "failed societies" are you referring to with respect to gay marriage?

The usual that I am assuming you are familiar with.

Moderators: Due to the questionable content and tributary pages of certain sites, the gossip and essay based credibility and if the provided links below are unacceptable for a Christian forum, I am more than happy to remove some or all.
http://www.androphile.org/preview/Culture/Greece/greece.htm
http://www.othersheep.org/bkrvw-Friend.htm
http://users.bigpond.net.au/bstone/lovers1.htm