Why is Homosexuality Wrong?

[ChristianCenturion]

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 ...

Oh beechy, you have too much time on your hands. You almost ruined a old joke.

 

[beechy]

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'm not sure I know what a "dominating conclusion" is. An incentive I understand as being "a benefit offered to encourage people to act in certain ways". As for your ballast on boats analogy, I think what you're trying to illustrate (again, and of course, jump in if I'm wrong) is that being married to someone of the same sex might lead, for example, a woman who already distrusts men to distrust them even more (adding a 1000 pound weight to one side of the boat), perhaps to the point of being a "lesbian man-hater." I still can't relate, and don't understand the relevance of this "observation."

Let's say a man thinks that all blondes are stupid airheads, so he marries a brunette. Should we have forbidden him from marrying anything but a blonde woman, in hopes that he would come to love and respect her and that relationship would, in turn, foster his love and understanding of blondes?

Let's say a different man marries a brunette simply because he loves her. Should we have forbidden him from marrying brunettes just in case being with a brunette will add "1000 pounds to one side of his boat" and tip him into a "brunettes are better than blondes" mentality? Similarly, if a woman loves another woman, is it fair to say that we should forbid her from marrying a woman because we're worried it might tip her boat into man hating territory?

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.

I wasn't posting the domestic violence statistics to make a "men are bad" point, but rather to show that a significant number of men physically abuse women even though they're married to them, and this doesn't seem to support the idea that opposite sex marriage results in an "inherent" respect for the opposite sex. There are statistics about women abusing men in heterosexual relationships as well, and this makes the exact same point which, again, is not that men are bad because they beat women (although, of course, I don't think it is good to beat your wife), but rather that the fact that heterosexual domestic violence happens with some documented level of regularity speaks against opposite sex marriage as in and of itself fostering an "inherent" respect (insofar as I don't think beating is very respectful).

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.

But how can you conclude that one thing is bad simply because another thing is good?

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

Well, I couldn't open the first link because my server blocked it for improper content.

Your second link didn't speak to gay marriage, but rather:

For a very long period, formal amatory unions, conjugal, elective and indissoluble, between two members of the same sex were made in Europe, publicly recognised and consecrated in churches through Christian ritual.
They were never identical to heterosexual marriages – in societies in which gender differences were so significant, how could they have been? – but were often implicitly or explicitly compared to and contrasted with heterosexual marriages, and were by no means considered to come off the worse for the comparison.

Also, the same sex unions described in this article included medieval Irish and English practices . . . you consider the Irish and English to be "incidental" and "failed societies"? And what do medieval trends and sensibilities have to do with whether modern gay people should be allowed to wed?

I'm surprised you posted the third link, as it had a whole section on David and Jonathan as a homosexual couple. Do you agree with that, or was this post a mistake?

 

[beechy]

Oh beechy, you have too much time on your hands. You almost ruined a old joke.

Oh CC, newlamb was saying that anthropologists have B.A.'s, not that they are the funny punny B.S.'s.

 

[""]

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.

Best post in this entire thread. Thank you.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I'm not sure I know what a "dominating conclusion" is. An incentive I understand as being "a benefit offered to encourage people to act in certain ways". As for your ballast on boats analogy, I think what you're trying to illustrate (again, and of course, jump in if I'm wrong) is that being married to someone of the same sex might lead, for example, a woman who already distrusts men to distrust them even more (adding a 1000 pound weight to one side of the boat), perhaps to the point of being a "lesbian man-hater." I still can't relate, and don't understand the relevance of this "observation."

Let's say a man thinks that all blondes are stupid airheads, so he marries a brunette. Should we have forbidden him from marrying anything but a blonde woman, in hopes that he would come to love and respect her and that relationship would, in turn, foster his love and understanding of blondes?

Let's say a different man marries a brunette simply because he loves her. Should we have forbidden him from marrying brunettes just in case being with a brunette will add "1000 pounds to one side of his boat" and tip him into a "brunettes are better than blondes" mentality? Similarly, if a woman loves another woman, is it fair to say that we should forbid her from marrying a woman because we're worried it might tip her boat into man hating territory?

I wasn't posting the domestic violence statistics to make a "men are bad" point, but rather to show that a significant number of men physically abuse women even though they're married to them, and this doesn't seem to support the idea that opposite sex marriage results in an "inherent" respect for the opposite sex. There are statistics about women abusing men in heterosexual relationships as well, and this makes the exact same point which, again, is not that men are bad because they beat women (although, of course, I don't think it is good to beat your wife), but rather that the fact that heterosexual domestic violence happens with some documented level of regularity speaks against opposite sex marriage as in and of itself fostering an "inherent" respect (insofar as I don't think beating is very respectful).

You seem to have not followed my illustration regarding a part can influence but is subjective to other factors. That's OK though.

But how can you conclude that one thing is bad simply because another thing is good?

Well, I couldn't open the first link because my server blocked it for improper content.

Your second link didn't speak to gay marriage, but rather:

Also, the same sex unions described in this article included medieval Irish and English practices . . . you consider the Irish and English to be "incidental" and "failed societies"? And what do medieval trends and sensibilities have to do with whether modern gay people should be allowed to wed?

More tributary questioning I am not interested in entertaining. Pass.

I'm surprised you posted the third link, as it had a whole section on David and Jonathan as a homosexual couple. Do you agree with that, or was this post a mistake?

The David and Jonathan or the historical secular similar assertions are unfounded or slanderous statements which are to be expected from such sites. If I were to exclude all such material, I would not be able to provide a link for your request. Your proclivity to suggest the content is reflective of my view is simply an opportunistic attempt I have come to expect during our conversations. I gave no such indication and am once again disappointed by the attempt. We have discussed such issues in the past and despite your claim, the disconnect or lack of productive fruit during these communications only leads me to leave you with your compounding questions unanswered.
IOW - No, it wasn't a "mistake" and no, I don't agree with the site.

 

[beechy]

You seem to have not followed my illustration regarding a part can influence but is subjective to other factors. That's OK though.

More tributary questioning I am not interested in entertaining. Pass.

The David and Jonathan or the historical secular similar assertions are unfounded or slanderous statements which are to be expected from such sites. If I were to exclude all such material, I would not be able to provide a link for your request. Your proclivity to suggest the content is reflective of my view is simply an opportunistic attempt I have come to expect during our conversations. I gave no such indication and am once again disappointed by the attempt. We have discussed such issues in the past and despite your claim, the disconnect or lack of productive fruit during these communications only leads me to leave you with your compounding questions unanswered.
IOW - No, it wasn't a "mistake" and no, I don't agree with the site.

A part can influence but is subjective to other factors. I understand what that means. I don't understand why that should inform anyone's opinion about whether two women or two men who love each other should not be permitted to marry given a fear that this will somehow, possibly, subjective to other factors, foster loathing or misunderstanding of the opposite sex. As for the rest of your post, I agree that we seem to be having disconnects (as we often do, since we don't agree on this issue), especially with respect to the three links you posted without any context. How am I to know which parts of those links you are submitting in ostensible support of your point, and which parts I am to disregard?

 

[Nymphalidae]

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.

Dispassionate AND inscrutable. I bet that really makes the undergrads swoon.

 

[Brennin]

Dispassionate AND inscrutable. I bet that really makes the undergrads swoon.

Absolutely. You should see the evaluations I get:

"You're a Roman god."

"Can I have your love child?"

"I wish you were my TA for human sexuality."

Not to mention all the player-hating I am subjected to from my male students.

It's quite the burden.

 

[Nymphalidae]

Absolutely. You should see the evaluations I get:

"You're a Roman god."

"Can I have your love child?"

"I wish you were my TA for human sexuality."

Not to mention all the player-hating I am subjected to from my male students.

It's quite the burden.

I think we're going to have to use the scientific method to determine whether Brennin is, in fact, a stud. It should be an easy enough hypothesis to falsify

 

[Brennin]

I think we're going to have to use the scientific method to determine whether Brennin is, in fact, a stud. It should be an easy enough hypothesis to falsify

That would require field work, my dear.

 

[Nymphalidae]

That would require field work, my dear.

In my experience field work is hot and sweaty.

 

[Brennin]

In my experience field work is hot and sweaty.

Especially in Florida. The humidity here is dreadful.

 

[Mad A. Hatter]

I like to look at it this way. If someone tells me that homosexuality is a sin I respond, "And thanks to original sin, so is BEING BORN." or " Homosexuality may be a sin, but God says selling my daughter into slavery isn't! (Exodus 21:7 )". God has many unreasonable, illogical commands in his scripture and dogmas. Get used to it.

 

[Cerberus~]

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.

The Bible doesn't appear to have made things much better. Not to mention all of it's contributions to human suffering.

Why should I believe the Bible is more correct than my sence of right and wrong when it reflects the morals of ppl who lived 2000 years ago.

 

[FSTDT]

So, have we figured out why homosexuality is wrong yet? Or figured out what, if any, its negative societal consequences are?

 

[Nymphalidae]

Especially in Florida. The humidity here is dreadful.

I can't imagine it being any worse than Missouri. So, have we sufficiently derailed this thread?

 

[FSTDT]

I can't imagine it being any worse than Missouri. So, have we sufficiently derailed this thread?

Quite

Now, we shall un-derail (or re-rail? supra-rail?) the thread again

 

[Druweid]

This is a debate which, I have no doubt, will never have a conclusion that is satisfactory to everyone. While I can certainly appreciate the desire for explanations and evidence beyond and apart from that which is taken on faith, ultimately, and in this instance, it's counterproductive.

The first and foremost evidence that homosexuality is wrong under Christian doctrine is that it is a direct violation of God's will. The Bible is very clear on this, and such, there is no way to logically dispute it. To seek explanations other than "it's God's will" is not so much looking for reasons, as it is looking for reasons that can be more easily disputed (not to say this is your motivation, it is however, an inevitable outcome).

In any case, your secondary question has been (paraphrased) "Why has God declared homosexuality an abomination?" Because he can.

Allow me a slight digression. Within the Christian faith, God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, creator of all that is seen and unseen, the Alpha and the Omega. We as a people, even in our wisest, deepest, most intelligent and most profound moments could nary be better than three year old children before the omniscience of God. Now, do you honestly believe that a parent should be required to give a three year old child the full, logical explanation as to why he/she can or cannot do certain things?

So, as best as I can see, there is, nor will there ever be, a suitable explanation for a great many people. God declared it, because he can. He gave no obvious reason for it, again, because he can.

And for what it's worth, none of this has anything to do with what I personally believe, other than believing it is wrong to try and change a religious doctrine to suit the personal beliefs of a person or any size group of people.

Respectfully,
Druweid

 

[FSTDT]

Druweid,

The first and foremost evidence that homosexuality is wrong under Christian doctrine is that it is a direct violation of God's will. The Bible is very clear on this, and such, there is no way to logically dispute it. To seek explanations other than "it's God's will" is not so much looking for reasons, as it is looking for reasons that can be more easily disputed (not to say this is your motivation, it is however, an inevitable outcome).

Its actually based on the idea that moral prescriptions should not be arbitrary, and that if a particular prescription has no reasons behind it then it has no binding moral component behind it.

Its also based on the idea that when people say "God's will", that does nothing but shift the burden of defending morality off of your own shoulders and onto the back of a beind which probably does not exist. So, in an attempt to force people not to evade moral responsibilities, I ask them for God's reasons. However, I see that many people still give a cold shoulder when it comes to explaining God's reasons - many people will insist that he does have reasons, but that they for some reason cannot be explained (this is functionally no different than saying something is wrong "just because").

I dont believe asking for the rationale behind God's will is the same thing as looking for more easily disputed reasons. Because, among other reasons, asking for God's will prevents the discussion from ultimately winding down into a needless "God agrees with me" "no, God agrees with ME!" kind of subjectivism.

]In any case, your secondary question has been (paraphrased) "Why has God declared homosexuality an abomination?" Because he can.

It has already be established that God can do such a thing. But, the real question is on what basis is his command grounded on?

Allow me a slight digression. Within the Christian faith, God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, creator of all that is seen and unseen, the Alpha and the Omega. We as a people, even in our wisest, deepest, most intelligent and most profound moments could nary be better than three year old children before the omniscience of God. Now, do you honestly believe that a parent should be required to give a three year old child the full, logical explanation as to why he/she can or cannot do certain things?

This doesnt do any good at all. Because, not only does it mean that no rational explanations for gods actions can be provided for anything, but it means that the will of God can never be known (unless, of course, you can provide a reason for why one particular claim about God's will should be preferred over any competing claim about God's will - do you see how this only takes us back to where we started).

If morality can never be defended with actual reasons beyong "God's unknown reasons", then morality breaks down at the rational level. There is no more perfect way to level morality on par with subjectivism and relativism than to claim that morality has commands for which no explanation can be offered to ground them.

 

[Druweid]

Greetings!

Its actually based on the idea that moral prescriptions should not be arbitrary, and that if a particular prescription has no reasons behind it then it has no binding moral component behind it.

Simply stating "It's God's will," establishes that it is not arbitrary. And at no point did I mean to imply there was no reason behind it, only that God has chosen to not reveal the reasons. Christians take it on faith that whatever the reason must be, it is infallible.

Its also based on the idea that when people say "God's will", that does nothing but shift the burden of defending morality off of your own shoulders and onto the back of a beind which probably does not exist. So, in an attempt to force people not to evade moral responsibilities, I ask them for God's reasons.

Let me go back to that three year old child theory. Except now, it's my six year old son. I've asked him to return home from playing by 7:00pm, and didn't happen to give him a reason. When he tells his friends he has to leave because it is time, does he now have to explain to them why he has to go other than because I require it? Is my son now trying to shift the burden of responsibility off of his own shoulders because he cannot adequately explain to his friends why he has to go?

And declaring it involves "...a being which probably does not exist" does not further this discussion, it hinders it. Whether you or I believe God exists is inconsequential. For Christians, He is as real as to them as you are, and in understanding Christian morals, that must be taken into consideration.

However, I see that many people still give a cold shoulder when it comes to explaining God's reasons - many people will insist that he does have reasons, but that they for some reason cannot be explained (this is functionally no different than saying something is wrong "just because").

You are absolutely correct. As in my previous example, when my son departs from his friends and they ask him why, he tells them "Because my Dad told me so." No further explanation should be required.

I dont believe asking for the rationale behind God's will is the same thing as looking for more easily disputed reasons...

Perhaps not directly, and likely not with you. Let's just say I've seen it happen often enough that I choose to remain wary, and chose to share that concern with you.

...Because, among other reasons, asking for God's will prevents the discussion from ultimately winding down into a needless "God agrees with me" "no, God agrees with ME!" kind of subjectivism.

I can understand your intent, and would tend to agree. Again, however, it is part of the Christian faith that God is under no obligation to provide his reasons, and that they are accepted as infallible at face value.

It has already be established that God can do such a thing. But, the real question is on what basis is his command grounded on?

Quite simply, his omniscience.

This doesnt do any good at all. Because, not only does it mean that no rational explanations for gods actions can be provided for anything, but it means that the will of God can never be known (unless, of course, you can provide a reason for why one particular claim about God's will should be preferred over any competing claim about God's will - do you see how this only takes us back to where we started).

Absolutely! I understand quite well. That's the thing about faith, though, it's making a decision in the absence of provable fact. If every moral decision could be made with solid reason and precise logic, there would be no place in this world for faith, or even spirituality. We'd all just have to be smart.

If morality can never be defended with actual reasons beyong "God's unknown reasons", then morality breaks down at the rational level. There is no more perfect way to level morality on par with subjectivism and relativism than to claim that morality has commands for which no explanation can be offered to ground them.

The explanation that grounds the reasoning still stands. It may not be entirely suitable for you or me, it is entirely sufficient for the Christians: God commanded it. He is way smarter than us. We don't know why, but we know He must be right. He has to be.

Quite simply, I believe that Christian morality and Atheistic morality are two entirely different things, and you may be looking for more common ground between the two than actually exists.

Kindest regards,
-- Druweid