Why is Homosexuality Wrong?

[ChristianCenturion]

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?

A very, very simple answer; but in case you didn't see this addressed, you are free to review a few posts I submitted here.

That being said, the OP is placing the burden on those opposed to homosexuality and confining it to secular. To which, my simple answer would be that there is no secular reason to support it and that it is in fact counter productive to mutual societal interaction and support between the genders. In addition, forcing me to endorse such through government dictate would not only be unconstitutional, but against my protected religious beliefs. And for those that can't stand a submission of common sense, I'll qualify that with IMO.

 

[Cian]

Romans 1:25-27

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.

Adiya, and many Christians, believe God is love and that God is good. Love is present in homosexual relationships. So if God is love and if God is good than good can come from loving homosexual relationships.

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 would God want it to be a sin? Why is homosexuality not part of what's best for his people?

 

[belladonic-haze]

I know, I know, yet another homosexuality thread. But, I wanted to start one of my own, because all the other ones I read became derailed withing the first 2 pages. Hopefully, this thread can stay on topic, and people derailing my thread will be politely asked to go start their own.

That being said:
I would like to know just on what basis homosexuality is considered immoral.


Before starting this discussion, there are a few knee-jerk responses that I see over and over again, and for the sake of moving discussion along I want to just get these out of the way as soon as possible:
* "Its a choice" - so what? Actions are wrong based on their consequences and how they affect people. It doesnt matter if homosexuality is a choice or not, all that matters is the basis for considering why its wrong.

* "God says its wrong [insert bible verses here]" - why does God think its wrong? (I would appreciate if we could keep the number of bible verses quoted in this thread to a minimum, because it doesnt further the discussion in any meaningful way. All it does it lead me to ask "why does God think its wrong" over and over again.)

* "Its a perversion / its sick" - on what basis?

* "Its unnatural" - so what?

* "Its no better than pedophilia" - the reasons why pedophilia is wrong is because children cannot consent to a sexual relationship with an adult, therefore all pedophilia relationships are de facto exploitation and abuse (if someone really wants to talk about pedophilia, they can start their own thread, but please dont derail mine). Now, what are the reasons why homosexuality between consenting adults so bad?

It isn't wrong.......Nothing wrong about hetero, homo and bi sexuality......

 

[""]

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.

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

Insects are not mammals silly. Go back to biology.

 

[UberLutheran]

Thanks -- but I would have appreciated the Reader's Digest Condensed Version rather than having to go through an entire thread to pick out your responses.

You have not explained how homosexuality is counterproductive to mutual societal interaction and support between the genders: indeed, it is my observation and the observation of a great many people that the interaction of gay men and straight women is one of the most stable and productive interactions between the sexes to be found, since the sexual tension which occurs naturally between straight men and straight women does not occur between straight women and gay men.

Also, a good many straight men and gay men get along quite well together, both socially and in work environments.

The only people who could successfully argue for the application of the Deuterocanonical Laws in entirety, INCLUDING using the Leviticus 18 and 20 passages regarding homosexuality, are the Christian Reconstructionists -- and their problem (as pointed out by Paul in the Letter to the Galatians) is that they substitute works-based salvation by the Law for grace-based salvation by faith in Christ, thereby nullifing Christ's death on the Cross and His Resurrection.

A very, very simple answer; but in case you didn't see this addressed, you are free to review a few posts I submitted here.

That being said, the OP is placing the burden on those opposed to homosexuality and confining it to secular. To which, my simple answer would be that there is no secular reason to support it and that it is in fact counter productive to mutual societal interaction and support between the genders. In addition, forcing me to endorse such through government dictate would not only be unconstitutional, but against my protected religious beliefs. And for those that can't stand a submission of common sense, I'll qualify that with IMO.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Thanks -- but I would have appreciated the Reader's Digest Condensed Version rather than having to go through an entire thread to pick out your responses.

You have not explained how homosexuality is counterproductive to mutual societal interaction and support between the genders: indeed, it is my observation and the observation of a great many people that the interaction of gay men and straight women is one of the most stable and productive interactions between the sexes to be found, since the sexual tension which occurs naturally between straight men and straight women does not occur between straight women and gay men.

Also, a good many straight men and gay men get along quite well together, both socially and in work environments.

Opinion noted, but not shared.

The only people who could successfully argue for the application of the Deuterocanonical Laws in entirety, INCLUDING using the Leviticus 18 and 20 passages regarding homosexuality, are the Christian Reconstructionists -- and their problem (as pointed out by Paul in the Letter to the Galatians) is that they substitute works-based salvation by the Law for grace-based salvation by faith in Christ, thereby nullifing Christ's death on the Cross and His Resurrection.

Cute, however it is ignoring that sexual immorality is always condemned, not your forced-out-of-context deflection of one earns their way to heaven.
However, given that we have Grace and that we have faith, this does not indicate that works are to be rejected or neglected.
You may wish to save those empty spiritual rebuttals for the younger and naive.
BTW - the Bible is much bigger and addressing the subject than your implied selected references. You also error in your dismissal of Deuteronomy in that it was Deuteronomy that Jesus referenced in rebuking the Devil.

James 2:14-26
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.


18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. 25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

 

[belladonic-haze]

CC, maybe you should not quote the bible, but tell what is in your heart and mind and soul...

Tell in your own words how you see it....without the use of the bible.

 

[FSTDT]

seekingpurity,

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.

I'm sorry, but this is just silly. There are plenty of "unnatural" things in the world that are clearly not immoral, such as vegetarianism, eating meat, men raising children, women in combat, pesticides, genetically modifying food, vaccinations, etc.

I think in this sense, it shows that you have not properly defined the word "unnatural", nor explained how you conclude something being unnatural automatically makes it immoral in the first place. I have a book in my lap that explain several different senses of the word:

1) it could mean "supernatural" or "paranormal", but clearly you arent talking about that, as homosexuality is consistent with the laws of physics

2) it could not existing outside of the human species, but you clearly cannot be implying anything like that since homosexuality occurs elsewhere in the animal kingdom (particularly among primate)

3) it could mean artificial, but then again other things are artificial such as modern medicine or the formation of governments, but no one ever says they are bad for being created by humans. (And keep in mind, there are plenty of naturally occurring things which are bad, such as tornadoes, diseases, cancer, or being hunted and killed by a tiger.)

4) it could mean very uncommon, but there are certain things which are less common than homosexuality, such as being a brain surgeon or a sky diver, but no one says these things are bad for that reason.

In short, the remark that something is bad because it is unnatural just doesnt make any sense. And dont forget, saying "its bad because its unnatural" is an invocation of the naturalistic fallacy, the criticism doesnt have any logical connection to morality either.

And, you are wrong to say that no good can come out of homosexuality. Lots of good things can come out of it, such as the happiness of two individuals (unlike stealing and adultery, the happiness of these individuals does not come at the suffering of any other people). If this isnt "good" to you, then what is?

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.

What makes homosexuality so very bad for people that it ought to be considered immoral?

That has been my interest in this thread since the beginning. But, it doesnt look like there is an explanation, it seems like the prohibition is arbitrary.




LittleNipper,

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.

You have a chauvenistic and outdated view of relationships if you believe that all women are submissive, all men are dominant, and that there can be nothing to change this scheme.

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.

Do you seriously believe that all heterosexual relationships are successful, whereas no homosexual relationships can be successful? And if you believe that homosexuals can never have happy relationships, then what else could I tell you except that you are simply factually incorrect.

There are plenty of healthy thriving homosexual relationships, and plenty of shattered and miserable heterosexual relationships. The success of your relationship is clearly not confined its sexual orientation, but probably has a great deal to do with whether the individuals mutually respect one another.


ChristianCenturion,

That being said, the OP is placing the burden on those opposed to homosexuality and confining it to secular.

The opening post suggests that if you say something is immoral, then certainly there is a good reason to believe that something is immoral. So, what are the reasons? If you cannot say why something is immoral, then such moral prescriptions are arbitrary.

Certainly you would agree that is reasonable, and that the "secular burden" is not unfair or unnecessary, dont you?

it is in fact counter productive to mutual societal interaction and support between the genders.

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?

 

[UberLutheran]

My reply was not intended to be "cute" in any way, despite your denigrating comments to the contrary. I was absolutely, dead-on serious. We are either saved by grace, through faith; or we are saved through works -- and works will always come from faith but works are NOT what save us. Period.

One more thing: in the future, please try to address your comments to the post in question without stooping to personal attacks such as "You may wish to save those empty spiritual rebuttals for the younger and naive."

Opinion noted, but not shared.

Cute, however it is ignoring that sexual immorality is always condemned, not your forced-out-of-context deflection of one earns their way to heaven.
However, given that we have Grace and that we have faith, this does not indicate that works are to be rejected or neglected.
You may wish to save those empty spiritual rebuttals for the younger and naive.
BTW - the Bible is much bigger and addressing the subject than your implied selected references. You also error in your dismissal of Deuteronomy in that it was Deuteronomy that Jesus referenced in rebuking the Devil.

James 2:14-26
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.


18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. 25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

CC, maybe you should not quote the bible, but tell what is in your heart and mind and soul...

Tell in your own words how you see it....without the use of the bible.

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.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

ChristianCenturion,

The opening post suggests that if you say something is immoral, then certainly there is a good reason to believe that something is immoral. So, what are the reasons? If you cannot say why something is immoral, then such moral prescriptions are arbitrary.

Certainly you would agree that is reasonable, and that the "secular burden" is not unfair or unnecessary, dont you?

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.

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?

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


I'm sure I don't have to detail the difference between gender and racial definitions; if so, m-w.com can explain it better than my paraphrasing. 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.

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.

As an insight to my tendencies, if I'm to be faced with redundant and basic 'busying' tactics, I would suggest that you request such from someone other than me. I tend to leave those requests... unfulfilled and that tends to annoy some as if somehow it wasn't a "request".

Thanks.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

My reply was not intended to be "cute" in any way, despite your denigrating comments to the contrary. I was absolutely, dead-on serious. We are either saved by grace, through faith; or we are saved through works -- and works will always come from faith but works are NOT what save us. Period.

Perhaps you misunderstood the scripture, because your comments here do not address what was said. I had already agreed with your diversionary subject of being saved by works.

One more thing: in the future, please try to address your comments to the post in question without stooping to personal attacks such as "You may wish to save those empty spiritual rebuttals for the younger and naive."

It was a suggestion to help communications between us. I too may see the presenting of worldly reasoning concerning spiritual matters or misrepresentation of Christian doctrine as an insult to God and a danger to those that have not matured. I see the same misuse often from advocates for practicing homosexuality and other sexual immoralities and it tends to become tired.
Edit to add: If my assumptions of your familiarity with scripture and the issues were mistaken, then I apologize.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The whole argument is a moot point though... As a christian, we Derive our morality from God. Therfore, if God speaks of something such as homosexuality as immoral and wrong, then to us, it is.

It's the same thing as sleeping around. From the secular sense, no big deal, right? you ain't married, who you hurting? But from God's perspective, it's wrong.

 

[Brennin]

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

Why, are you flirting with me? (I can't say I blame you, I am quite a catch)

 

[Cerberus~]

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.

How many times are you not going to answer the question? Can you back up your assertions with any numbers, examples, statistics, anything?

So far, all this thread has confirmed the right-wing Christian position on homosexuality is completely arbitrary.

 

[Nymphalidae]

Why, are you flirting with me? (I can't say I blame you, I am quite a catch)

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

 

[ChristianCenturion]

How many times are you not going to answer the question? Can you back up your assertions with any numbers, examples, statistics, anything?

So far, all this thread has confirmed the right-wing Christian position on homosexuality is completely arbitrary.

That would be your "opinion".

 

[Nymphalidae]

Insects are not mammals silly. Go back to biology.

I think you missed my point.

 

[Cerberus~]

That would be your "opinion".

I meant to include that.

And should I take you silence to my first question as a 'no', then?

 

[""]

I think you missed my point.

Oh I got your point. I just don't happen to agree with it.