Why is Homosexuality Wrong?

[FSTDT]

Druweid,

Greetings!

Hello!

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.

Consider the idea that someone can believe that God does not command homosexuality is wrong. Now, that we have two conflicting commands believed to have come from the same infallible God, who should we prefer, and why?

If neither should be preferred over the other, then what should you call these commands but arbitrary?

I presume you would not simply take it on faith to prefer one over the other, because that essentially renders all theistic judgment no better off than subjectivism.

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?

I presume you have reasons, perhaps you are looking out for your sons safety or perhaps you'd like to see the food sitting on the table not go wasted. I also presume you dont burden your son with reasonless commands, because there is a good amount of authority that would argue such commands are unethical. I also presume you dont ask your son to behave in ways simply because you like to see him obey (I couldnt imagine God would be this kind of character, who prescribes actions to inflate his ego).

Now, if you son asked you why he should obey, then I would certainly believe that you are obligated to provide an explanation. If you would reject to idea of providing any further explanation than "because I said so" to explain any of your actions, you would be hardpressed to find a reason to be displeased when your son does not obey for reasons no further explained than "because I dont want to" - that is, unless you can find a good reason to prefer your command over your sons disobediance (and we are taken full circle right back to where we started).

I say this not because I was an incredibly disobediant child, but because I am a serious moral theorist. An unexplained set of commands is no better off than an unexplained set of competing commands - neither are morally prescriptive; and a set commands with explanations like "unknown reasons" is no better off than a set commands with no explanations at all, and literally no better off than rejecting all forms of explanation for morality altogether (this would be kind of nihilism).

However, I am certain that you dont make meaningless commands, I'm certain when you command something to your child, you obviously do so to prevent something bad from happening to him, whatever it may be (or alternatively, you command him to reaffirm that more good things occur).

That being said, there are obvious reasons why a god or anyone would consider stealing and murder to be wrong - because it causes gratuitous suffering (and such people who steal and murder should be punished to prevent further gratuitous suffering).

Now, if homosexuality should be considered immoral, certainly this implies some evil is being prevented, and if so what is it? (Perhaps someone would say homosexuality is an evil in itself, but that would obviously beg the question. Perhaps homosexuality is forbidden to prevent people from suffering the wrath of God, but then that would be take us full circle right back to the beginning, and we'd have to ask why God disapproves of it in the first place.)

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.

I can see how the concern would be reasonable.

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.

What do you do when someone believes that God finds homosexuality acceptable, perhaps by taking a metaphorical interpretation to the bible or simply believing that God has changed his mind? Is that person correct, or incorrect - and how would you know?

If you have morality that has no explained reasoning behind it, then you cannot have morality by all definitions and implications of the word. You cannot bind anyone to any degree of morality without an explanation. And you cannot consider any action to be any worse or more preferable than any other action if no explanations are provided.These tenets hold regardless of whether a being is infallible or not.

 

[knightlight72]

Hi FSTDT.
I normally don't come over here, as it usually means some people get upset, but I noticed some use of logic in your post. I don't want to go over the entire post, but don't want toyu to think I'm just picking out the flaws to discredit the entire post. I just want to address a couple things for speed, and to be sure I'm not attacking you, but just a couple points of logic.

One thing mentioned was

Consider the idea that someone can believe that God does not command homosexuality is wrong. Now, that we have two conflicting commands believed to have come from the same infallible God, who should we prefer, and why?

While that does happen, the usual response it to go to the source. Example. If someone says a book on physics say the formula for speed and distance is variable, while another says it is fixed, they go back to the formula, so both can see it. The forula cannot be both fixed and variable.

The subjective view you speak of, likely stems from different views, not a subjective verse. Meaning the formula hasn't changed, but different people says it says different things. The only way to be sre who is right, is to go back to the formula, which is the bible in this case.

Various groups disagree, and that's alright. Not everyone has to like what the other does. But to say something says something just because they don't like it, well, respectfully, is not being honest.

My point being, you can say people disagree, but it cannot be used to show the original formula is wrong, or flawed.

The second point of logic was here

If you have morality that has no explained reasoning behind it, then you cannot have morality by all definitions and implications of the word. You cannot bind anyone to any degree of morality without an explanation. And you cannot consider any action to be any worse or more preferable than any other action if no explanations are provided.These tenets hold regardless of whether a being is infallible or not.

That's an opinion, and because you define it differently, doesn't mean the term is now universal. Could you explain why it is not moral if the moral law is not explained?

I'll make a comparison, is it still a law, if you didn't know it was illegal to jaywalk? What if the country you are from, there are no cars, and streets, but just dirt paths in a village. On a trip to USA, you jaywalk, and break an american law. Does that mean you didn't break it, since you didn't understand it?

 

[Cerberus~]

I'll make a comparison, is it still a law, if you didn't know it was illegal to jaywalk? What if the country you are from, there are no cars, and streets, but just dirt paths in a village. On a trip to USA, you jaywalk, and break an american law. Does that mean you didn't break it, since you didn't understand it?

The law is explained, it is technically the man's fault for not researching the law.

If a moral "law" is not explained, there is no purpose. There is no way to really know that it is wrong from an objective POV.

The subjective view you speak of, likely stems from different views, not a subjective verse. Meaning the formula hasn't changed, but different people says it says different things. The only way to be sre who is right, is to go back to the formula, which is the bible in this case.

1. The ppl that disagree with the generally accepted meanings of certain Scripture have good reason to disagree.

2. I believe in God. I do not believe God condemns homosexuality. I do not believe in the Bible. How can you objectively show homosexuality to be wrong?

 

[knightlight72]

Hi Cerebus, some good questions you have there.

The law is explained, it is technically the man's fault for not researching the law.

If a moral "law" is not explained, there is no purpose. There is no way to really know that it is wrong from an objective POV.

You'll have toi explain this one to me. I'm not sure why a law must be explained to be valid. Is this a general rule, a varified definition, or an opinion you are stating. If you tell me which of these you are using, it will help me to stay on the same subject when replying.

1. The ppl that disagree with the generally accepted meanings of certain Scripture have good reason to disagree.

Two things, you do feel they are generally accepted, which was one of my earlier points, and second, I do feel you are stating an opinion that hinges on the lack of trust in the bible. That is a direct statement against a faith. This is no longer an argument on logic, but rather faith. I'm not arguing whether you should or shouldn't follow God. I have no arguments as to that you shouldn't follow God. (I think I have a few as to why you should though.

2. I believe in God. I do not believe God condemns homosexuality. I do not believe in the Bible. How can you objectively show homosexuality to be wrong?

You have a belief system. That's fine. You do not have to believe that bible is God's word. However, since the discussion was hinging on some important points of logic, such as subjective interpretation of the bible, it should be pointed out that I was under the impression that the bible is considered Holy, and God's word. (and that the counter of it was a different reading of the same bible)

So to answer your question of how to objectively show homosexuality to be wrong, I'm going to point to the bible, which I have faith is God's word. God says it is a sin. I am not trying to point out why someone is evil, or demon possesed, or any other terms here. It was a point of logic. We are aware of what the bible says, (I assume you accept that there is a general accepted meaning to scriptures as it talks of in your post), so that isn't in disagreement.

I think our disagreement at this point is roughly more about our faiths. And, respectfully, I don't think we can agree on that. I hope that answers it, or shows my side of it.

 

[Cerberus~]

Hi Cerebus, some good questions you have there. You'll have toi explain this one to me. I'm not sure why a law must be explained to be valid. Is this a general rule, a varified definition, or an opinion you are stating. If you tell me which of these you are using, it will help me to stay on the same subject when replying.

Without purpose, there is no justification. If a law was made making it illegal to sit on a couch with red shoes on, what would be the justification for this law? Any rational thinking person would want to know why such a law was made.

It's no different with this subject. We just want to why the law was made, because much of our rejection of it is because there doesn't seem to be any justification for it.

Two things, you do feel they are generally accepted, which was one of my earlier points, and second, I do feel you are stating an opinion that hinges on the lack of trust in the bible. That is a direct statement against a faith. This is no longer an argument on logic, but rather faith. I'm not arguing whether you should or shouldn't follow God. I have no arguments as to that you shouldn't follow God. (I think I have a few as to why you should though.

It's not wise to dismiss a belief or arguement simply because it disagrees with a strongly held belief of yours. Both sides should be weighed, examined, and judged accordingly.

The ppl you are referring to would say your beliefs come from a lack of understanding of the Bible.

You have a belief system. That's fine. You do not have to believe that bible is God's word. However, since the discussion was hinging on some important points of logic, such as subjective interpretation of the bible, it should be pointed out that I was under the impression that the bible is considered Holy, and God's word. (and that the counter of it was a different reading of the same bible)

Touched on that with #1.

So to answer your question of how to objectively show homosexuality to be wrong, I'm going to point to the bible, which I have faith is God's word. God says it is a sin. I am not trying to point out why someone is evil, or demon possesed, or any other terms here. It was a point of logic. We are aware of what the bible says, (I assume you accept that there is a general accepted meaning to scriptures as it talks of in your post), so that isn't in disagreement.

Sin and wrong are two seperate things. They may coincide some of the time, but are still two seperate things.

This arguement falls apart when it is realized that you are conversing with mainly non-Christians. If we were Christian, then we'ld be the ppl I talked about in #1.

You "answered" my question the very subjective answer we keep asking you not to give. We don't care if the Bible says it's a sin, that why I've never minded concedeing that it might be a sin. I still don't care, because I am not a Christian. I go by right and wrong, not sin and sinful.

Again, is there any objective basis to think homosexuality wrong?

I think our disagreement at this point is roughly more about our faiths. And, respectfully, I don't think we can agree on that. I hope that answers it, or shows my side of it.

The disagreement has always been about faith, and will always be about faith.

 

[FSTDT]

Knightlight,

While that does happen, the usual response it to go to the source. Example. If someone says a book on physics say the formula for speed and distance is variable, while another says it is fixed, they go back to the formula, so both can see it. The forula cannot be both fixed and variable.

I agree.

Ideally that would work if we could define morality in the same terms as our physical laws. I did consider the idea of going back to the source, but I dont believe that solves the problem, as there is no single "true way" to interpret any particular holy text, nor is there is reason why we should prefer any particular holy book over any other holy book. Of course, what a command says is not a important, all that matters is the reasoning behind it.

That's an opinion, and because you define it differently, doesn't mean the term is now universal. Could you explain why it is not moral if the moral law is not explained?

Sure. First take the basic meaning of morality: it concerns itself with the distinction between good and bad behavior. However, if you do not provide a reason why any particular action is good rather than bad (and vice versa), then saying "homosexuality is good" is indistinguishable from saying "homosexuality is bad" - it would be like both statements make the same claims and that they are redundant with one another. If a command is neither good nor bad, it is amoral by definition.

So, basically, the inability to provide reasons for why homosexuality is either good or bad removes it from the moral realm - homosexuality is amoral.


Second, take the basic meaning of moral command: if a command is based on a value-judgment, it is a moral command; if a command is not based on a value-judgment, it is a amoral command.

But, lets consider the following commands: dont eat rice, dont wear blue, dont be gay, dont play baseball. Now, tell me which of those commands is morally binding without making any reference to any value-judgments. Can you do it? No, its an impossible task by definition. Given that no reasons are provided to explain why any of those commands is morally binding, how exactly are you supposed to define which commands are morally binding and which ones arent? The only real way to make the distinction is to state the value-judgment which lies under each command - but if you could do that, then the moral command would not be unexplained. (This reveals the internal logic behind a moral command: a moral command must have stated value-judgments if it is to be definitionally self-consistent, otherwise it isnt a moral command.)

So, you get a paradox where moral commands with unstated value-judgments are indistinguishable from amoral commands, but they are distinguishable from commands moral commands with stated value-judgments. To prove this point, all you have to do is ask "what value judgment is x based on".

Essentially, this means that moral command without explanation is making no reference to any value-judgments at all, making it no different than an amoral command - therefore it cannot be morally binding.

(This sounds more "lecture-y" than I intended, but its the definition of the words as we know them. Its basic Moral Theory 101.)

I'll make a comparison, is it still a law, if you didn't know it was illegal to jaywalk? What if the country you are from, there are no cars, and streets, but just dirt paths in a village. On a trip to USA, you jaywalk, and break an american law. Does that mean you didn't break it, since you didn't understand it?

It probably isnt appropriate to compare state laws with moral laws, but I'll entertain the comparison:

Is not immediately relevant whether a person understands a law. All that matters s that the reasons for a particular law can be stated. That being said, the difference between jaywalking and homosexuality is the fact that the explanation behind jaywalking can be stated (for instance, safety is the key interest behind the law. And there is possibly a fiscal interest because fewer people being hit by cars means fewer people using the monetary resources of a hospital, that comes to the immediate benefit of taxpayers and hospital patients).

In contrast, I have not seen in this thread a reason to believe that the explanation behind the immorality of homosexuality can be stated even in principle. If it cannot be explained in principle, then no reason can offered to suggest that the moral command is morally binding. I could name off a 1001 commands like "dont eat rice", then suggest that the reasoning behind the command is unknown - I'm sure you'd find that to be just silly, and I'd bet you'd feel all these commands (which make no reference to any value-judgments) cannot under any definition be called moral statements at all.

 

[knightlight72]

Without purpose, there is no justification. If a law was made making it illegal to sit on a couch with red shoes on, what would be the justification for this law? Any rational thinking person would want to know why such a law was made.

It's no different with this subject. We just want to why the law was made, because much of our rejection of it is because there doesn't seem to be any justification for it.

If that's the case, then it's really just an opinion as to you thinking it isn't a law. I have no argument against your opinion. I cannot make you believe differently. But whether you understand a law, or not, does not change a law. That is agreed?

It's not wise to dismiss a belief or arguement simply because it disagrees with a strongly held belief of yours. Both sides should be weighed, examined, and judged accordingly.

Actually, he stated that he did not believe the bible was true. We were coming from different views. He was commenting on my words, from a different view than intended of my words.

The ppl you are referring to would say your beliefs come from a lack of understanding of the Bible.

That still doesn't answer the response. I was speaking of belief in the bible, and the opposite was that the bible was not even God's word. If they don't believe it to be God's word, then what difference is it, if I don't understand the meaning. It assumes my entire faith is wrong. At that point, saying something is a sin, when compared to every bit of faith is wrong, not much left to say.

Sin and wrong are two seperate things. They may coincide some of the time, but are still two seperate things.

This arguement falls apart when it is realized that you are conversing with mainly non-Christians. If we were Christian, then we'ld be the ppl I talked about in #1.

My argument was about logic. then it went to my belief systems. Either way, the argument is still the same. I'm not defending why an athiest whould feel homosexuality is wrong. I'm stating the earlier argument used was a logical fallacy, and that my beliefs on why it is wrong is based on sin.

I understand you're argument, but I'm not trying to say why an athiest should feel homosexuality is wrong.

You "answered" my question the very subjective answer we keep asking you not to give. We don't care if the Bible says it's a sin, that why I've never minded concedeing that it might be a sin. I still don't care, because I am not a Christian. I go by right and wrong, not sin and sinful.

I understand you don't want to hear it, but I'm not trying to make that my argument. And I never did, I'm only arguing a logical fallacy.

Again, is there any objective basis to think homosexuality wrong?



The disagreement has always been about faith, and will always be about faith.

Hey, I'm still waiting for someone to explain just because they don't have an explanation, then it's not a law.

 

[knightlight72]

Sure. First take the basic meaning of morality: it concerns itself with the distinction between good and bad behavior. However, if you do not provide a reason why any particular action is good rather than bad (and vice versa), then saying "homosexuality is good" is indistinguishable from saying "homosexuality is bad" - it would be like both statements make the same claims and that they are redundant with one another. If a command is neither good nor bad, it is amoral by definition.

So, basically, the inability to provide reasons for why homosexuality is either good or bad removes it from the moral realm - homosexuality is amoral.

You're using a false premise. You're stating that if you don't have an explanation, it's the same as saying homosexuality is bad, or homosexuality is good. But the problem with that, is you were using that to defend why a law can't be moral. God has in fact stated it is bad. You're stating an opinion that without explanation, it doesn't matter that God said it was bad.

Second, take the basic meaning of moral command: if a command is based on a value-judgment, it is a moral command; if a command is not based on a value-judgment, it is a amoral command.

But God said it was wrong. That means bad, and therefore it is a moral command.

But, lets consider the following commands: dont eat rice, dont wear blue, dont be gay, dont play baseball. Now, tell me which of those commands is morally binding without making any reference to any value-judgments. Can you do it? No, its an impossible task by definition.

Well, if given no values, can't be done. Considering that I am given values by God, let's step back and do that again. Is there a command against rice, wearing blue, playing baseball? Is there a command against homosexuality?

You're working under the premise that we have no values to use, but we do.

Given that no reasons are provided to explain why any of those commands is morally binding, how exactly are you supposed to define which commands are morally binding and which ones arent? The only real way to make the distinction is to state the value-judgment which lies under each command - but if you could do that, then the moral command would not be unexplained. (This reveals the internal logic behind a moral command: a moral command must have stated value-judgments if it is to be definitionally self-consistent, otherwise it isnt a moral command.)

You're defending your point by restating it, not giving the explanation. (that's almost ironic, considering your point was a lack of explanation in moral law)

So, you get a paradox where moral commands with unstated value-judgments are indistinguishable from amoral commands, but they are distinguishable from commands moral commands with stated value-judgments. To prove this point, all you have to do is ask "what value judgment is x based on".

Essentially, this means that moral command without explanation is making no reference to any value-judgments at all, making it no different than an amoral command - therefore it cannot be morally binding.

(This sounds more "lecture-y" than I intended, but its the definition of the words as we know them. Its basic Moral Theory 101.)

I do not feel that simply stating a moral command without explanation makes it no different than an amoral command.

It probably isnt appropriate to compare state laws with moral laws, but I'll entertain the comparison:

Is not immediately relevant whether a person understands a law. All that matters s that the reasons for a particular law can be stated. That being said, the difference between jaywalking and homosexuality is the fact that the explanation behind jaywalking can be stated (for instance, safety is the key interest behind the law. And there is possibly a fiscal interest because fewer people being hit by cars means fewer people using the monetary resources of a hospital, that comes to the immediate benefit of taxpayers and hospital patients).

In contrast, I have not seen in this thread a reason to believe that the explanation behind the immorality of homosexuality can be stated even in principle. If it cannot be explained in principle, then no reason can offered to suggest that the moral command is morally binding. I could name off a 1001 commands like "dont eat rice", then suggest that the reasoning behind the command is unknown - I'm sure you'd find that to be just silly, and I'd bet you'd feel all these commands (which make no reference to any value-judgments) cannot under any definition be called moral statements at all.

All that is needed is one explanation. God said so. I understand this differs from your beliefs. But considering the source you're citing here to say it doesn't have an explanation, that's all that we are talking about.

So that's a false statement to say it's not under any definition a moral statement.

 

[FSTDT]

You're using a false premise. You're stating that if you don't have an explanation, it's the same as saying homosexuality is bad, or homosexuality is good. But the problem with that, is you were using that to defend why a law can't be moral. God has in fact stated it is bad. You're stating an opinion that without explanation, it doesn't matter that God said it was bad.

No, I'm saying if there are no reasons provided to suggest something is either good or bad, then it is neither - making it amoral. That isnt an opinion, thats reciting the definition of the word "amoral".

If God states something is bad but offers no reasons why it is bad as opposed to good, then his command is amoral. By definition.

But God said it was wrong. That means bad, and therefore it is a moral command.

Returning back to the very first post in this thread, why does God say its bad? Please tell me why God has declared homosexuality immoral.

Well, if given no values, can't be done. Considering that I am given values by God, let's step back and do that again. Is there a command against rice, wearing blue, playing baseball? Is there a command against homosexuality?

You're working under the premise that we have no values to use, but we do.

There is a mixup in terminology. You are using the words "command" and "value" to be identical - however, my use of the words is very very precise and structured, as it is plainly obvious in my post.

I say that there are plenty of commands that can made, however if these commands are made without their corresponding value-judgments then these commands are amoral. There is nothing tricky about this, its the basic meaning of the words. I cant imagine what reason you would have to disagree.

All that is needed is one explanation. God said so.

Fine. My God and my Bible says homosexuality is moral. Why should I believe your God over mine?

 

[QUIC]

Does everybody still think that this "Debate" is interesting / enspiring? every single avenue has been exhausted here (and elsewhere) and I don't really know if there's any progress being made.

On either side of the debate, no matter which one you support - is there any way at all that you're going to be convinced of the other side? My spider sences tell me "No".

Is there no other way to discuss this without being a debate, and include a slight chance of changing someone's view?

 

[Bevlina]

*Mod Hat On*


Please remember to give evidence or citations per Forum Rules when posting in this thread.
Thankyou.


*Mod Hat Off*

 

[knightlight72]

No, I'm saying if there are no reasons provided to suggest something is either good or bad, then it is neither - making it amoral. That isnt an opinion, thats reciting the definition of the word "amoral".

I understand what you are saying, but I am and have disagreed with this premise. I am under the impression, you feel that morals need definition. I do not. If you could show me a dictionary that backs up the use of this tem, I'll retract my earlier statements. But at this point, I am stating the same response as before. This seems to be only an opinion.

If God states something is bad but offers no reasons why it is bad as opposed to good, then his command is amoral. By definition.

The definition for amoral states that it is something without morals. Something that doesn't care whether it is moral or not. Amoral by definition does not mean when the explanation is not included.

1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral -- W. S. Thompson> b : lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>
2 : being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals <amoral customs>

Returning back to the very first post in this thread, why does God say its bad? Please tell me why God has declared homosexuality immoral.

I understand your issue. And I appreciate the trying to get back on track. However, I am not in discussion about this. I understand your values, and you understand mine, (or at least the direction taken from). I responded to your post on the logical points given.

There is a mixup in terminology. You are using the words "command" and "value" to be identical - however, my use of the words is very very precise and structured, as it is plainly obvious in my post.

I say that there are plenty of commands that can made, however if these commands are made without their corresponding value-judgments then these commands are amoral. There is nothing tricky about this, its the basic meaning of the words. I cant imagine what reason you would have to disagree.

I used the dictionary to show that I am disagreeing with it on the basis that the way you are using the term is in error.

[/quote=FSTDT]Fine. My God and my Bible says homosexuality is moral. Why should I believe your God over mine?[/QUOTE]That's not in dispute for me FSTDT. I am stating it was the logical points used in the earlier post. I think if you want to discuss why my God is different than your god, another place is in order.

I understand that sometimes when people feel their ideas are attacked, they are being attacked. This is not the case. I'm not attacking you. I am pointing out a couple flaws used in logic. Your belief system differs from mine, and cannot be solved through discussing logic points.

 

[Cerberus~]

If that's the case, then it's really just an opinion as to you thinking it isn't a law. I have no argument against your opinion. I cannot make you believe differently. But whether you understand a law, or not, does not change a law. That is agreed?

Agreed.

That still doesn't answer the response. I was speaking of belief in the bible, and the opposite was that the bible was not even God's word. If they don't believe it to be God's word, then what difference is it, if I don't understand the meaning. It assumes my entire faith is wrong. At that point, saying something is a sin, when compared to every bit of faith is wrong, not much left to say.

I was talking about Christians who believe in the Bible, but disagree with your interpretation of it. If they were not Christians, they probably wouldn't care much about it's interpretation, like me.

My argument was about logic. then it went to my belief systems. Either way, the argument is still the same. I'm not defending why an athiest whould feel homosexuality is wrong. I'm stating the earlier argument used was a logical fallacy, and that my beliefs on why it is wrong is based on sin.

So you know of no objective reason to think homosexuality wrong?

Hey, I'm still waiting for someone to explain just because they don't have an explanation, then it's not a law.

I never said it wasn't a law. Just an unjustified law. A law that can not be justified, should not be obeyed.

Without justification, would you obey the law against sitting on a couch with red shoes on?

 

[knightlight72]

I was talking about Christians who believe in the Bible, but disagree with your interpretation of it. If they were not Christians, they probably wouldn't care much about it's interpretation, like me.

It was stated earlier about going back to the source to clarify. This is not exactly rocket science. It says it is sinful. It does not say some flowery words about humans and deflowering the genetalia with the superflous procedure for irrespective sexuality. (yes that last sentence is difficult to read or make sense of. The counter to that is that the verses on homosexuality are not difficult, or worded poorly.)

So you know of no objective reason to think homosexuality wrong?

Again, not what I said, nor my point. I like to stay on the point until it is resolved. Bringing in additional factors confuses many, including myself.

I never said it wasn't a law. Just an unjustified law. A law that can not be justified, should not be obeyed.

Without justification, would you obey the law against sitting on a couch with red shoes on?

Actually, the comment was directed more to FSTDT, since that is where it began. But several replied to my reply about logical laws, and as such, that is what I continued to make sure that was my point, and where it began for me.

Although with the way your question is phrased, my response is to point out, it is justified. Considering the source of this, (God), has a reason for all things, there is justification.

As to your question, if God said it was a law, yes, I would say it should be obeyed. (but that is a given, considering I follow Jesus)

 

[Cerberus~]

It was stated earlier about going back to the source to clarify. This is not exactly rocket science. It says it is sinful. It does not say some flowery words about humans and deflowering the genetalia with the superflous procedure for irrespective sexuality. (yes that last sentence is difficult to read or make sense of. The counter to that is that the verses on homosexuality are not difficult, or worded poorly.)

It's not this simple. You can not take one verse and apply it at face value. You have to keep in mind the context or other verses, the context of the society it was written in. They also take issue with the translations of certain words from their original Greek and Hebrew forms.

Again, not what I said, nor my point. I like to stay on the point until it is resolved. Bringing in additional factors confuses many, including myself.

An objective reason why homosexuality is wrong is the very point of this entire thread and arguement.

Although with the way your question is phrased, my response is to point out, it is justified. Considering the source of this, (God), has a reason for all things, there is justification.

The source is not God. The source is an ancient book written and edited by men. It must be taken on faith that this Bible was God inspired and still exists in the way God wants it too, as it can not be proved on any level. It's a theory that you can't prove.

You aren't getting it...we don't think the laws in the Bible actually came from God, and there is no way you can prove it. So stop claiming it.

As to your question, if God said it was a law, yes, I would say it should be obeyed. (but that is a given, considering I follow Jesus)

If this law was written in a Book thousands of years ago and there was no way to actually tell if it really was really said by God, would you still say yes?

 

[knightlight72]

It's not this simple. You can not take one verse and apply it at face value. You have to keep in mind the context or other verses, the context of the society it was written in. They also take issue with the translations of certain words from their original Greek and Hebrew forms.

I am aware of what the context, and the usage of it from that time period. I also do use a hebrew, and greek bible in my studies.

Further, there are plenty of far more credited professionals that study the bible all their life that are in agreement on the meaning. It's easy to say I'm wrong. It's tough to tell the professionals they are wrong.

An objective reason why homosexuality is wrong is the very point of this entire thread and arguement.

The thread yes, my posts, no. I specifically responded to points of logic, to which others responded to my response on logic. While you may have wanted to discuss the thread, the questions posted did respond to my points on logic, and although some tried to ask me other questions, I did try to keep a focus on what I was saying/said.

The source is not God. The source is an ancient book written and edited by men. It must be taken on faith that this Bible was God inspired and still exists in the way God wants it too, as it can not be proved on any level. It's a theory that you can't prove.

You aren't getting it...we don't think the laws in the Bible actually came from God, and there is no way you can prove it. So stop claiming it.

While I understand your beliefs differ, that doesn't mean I cannot base my answers, or responses on the generally accepted beliefs. In other words, I'm not trying to prove God is correct. It was with the wording of your question. You said without justification, there is no value to the law. Since we're discussing why the law of christians says homosexuality is a sin, I'm explaining why a christian says it is justified. Simply put, christians follow it, because it is justified. You feel it is not justified, and therefore not followed. You do not have to follow this, since you made a choice to not follow God. It makes sense as to why we follow our own beliefs.

If this law was written in a Book thousands of years ago and there was no way to actually tell if it really was really said by God, would you still say yes?

At this point, should I point out that's not my argument?

 

[belladonic-haze]

Okay, I am going to say this one more time; There is nothing wrong with heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. You love who you love and it is about the love and the expression of love...NOT the gender of the one you love...

Homosexuality was prevalent in many early religions. The Hindu god Samba seduced mortal men, Zeus had relations with Ganymede, and homosexuality was considered only a mild transgression in Buddhism.
Male homosexuality was common among the Aztecs.
Hammurabi, who wrote Mesopotamia’s legal codes, had male lovers.
The Celts, Aristotle wrote, not only accepted same-sex relationships, they held them in the highest regard.
St. Boniface wrote in the year 744 that many men had a gay double life in England.
Many Native American tribes accepted homosexuals (and still do). If a young boy exhibited effeminate characteristics growing up, he would be allowed to dress as a woman, be raised as a female, and would later be allowed to marry a male. In these tribes, homosexuals are considered a third gender. Navajos call them “Two Spirit”—a person with both male and female spirits.

​

Accepting Homosexuality

by Jesse Davis
​

I feel that now is the time to take a completely different look at Homosexuality! With modern science suspecting the causes of same-sex orientation to be genetic, it is time to dispel the myths of choice. The medical professionals that I have spoken to say that it is just a matter of time until the results are published. Over and over I have heard the same statement from Gays. "Why would anyone want to choose to be Gay on purpose?" This statement is followed by other reasons such as: "It is such a lonely life!" or "Who would choose to live outside of society and be so hated?"
​

IT IS NOT A CHOICE

When people are born a certain way through no choice of their own -- such as race, or looks, or handicaps -- should they be penalized by society? Is that fair?... I think not. An innocent child of six years of age knows nothing of sex. Nothing about his orientation is based on his knowledge of sex. His puppy love "crushes" are based on the same kinds of little immature feelings that all children feel at that age. They are directed toward the same sex, but the child has no way of understanding the "WHY" of the situation.

It is time to rethink this entire issue. People should be aware of their children and their differences. If you think your child might be gay, get him or her into some counseling. It is a very frightening and lonely time for kids, and they need all the help they can get. How would you like to be upside down and backwards?

There need to be counselors on school campuses. This is the age that these kids have to come to grips with this situation for the first time. I have watched, with some dismay, the attempts at this sort of counseling being initiated by gay support groups at the High School level. They are immediately misunderstood. Groups spring up right away to protest.

These protests are fueled by fear and misunderstanding. Perhaps the people doing the protesting think that these groups are formed to promote promiscuous behavior. This is not the point. Perhaps they think that this is an attempt to recruit straight kids and teach them to be gay. This is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE! Perhaps they think that this is an attempt to promote gay rights. This is certainly not the purpose! Perhaps they think this is a way to unite Gays so that they can promote militant causes. This is not the reason!...

WHAT IS THE POINT? WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO DO?... These support and counseling groups are actually formed to help kids, who discover that they are gay, to cope with a hostile life.

They need someone to talk to. Someone who will understand what they are going through. They need to tell their parents that they are gay. They do not know how to do this. The counselors can help them explain things to their parents. They can help the parents cope with this painful and stress-filled fact. They can help the kids stay in school. They can encourage them to avoid irresponsible behavior. A gay child is so alone in the world that they need help in just getting through every day in a normal manner. They already have problems, believe me. The other guys in school have already noticed that they are different. They are reviled and harassed.

In my son's case, they threw him against lockers in the hall. They threw food at him during lunch time, along with lots of insulting verbal abuse... For a young man of sixteen, this is pretty hard to handle. My son never said a word to me about this.

How could he?... I didn't even know that he was gay. He tried going to the counselors at his school. They weren't too eager to talk to him because they did not even want to acknowledge that they had a gay kid in the school. He spent a lot of time crying. He just went out to the parking lot and sat in his car and cried. When the school authorities discovered him there, he was told to return to class and was given detention. By December he felt so out-of-place that he asked if he could change schools. We agreed, and he enrolled in the local public school. It didn't take long for the people at the new school to figure out that he was gay and it started all over again. He finally did home-study for the rest of the year. He then took an equivalency test, passed, and that was the end of High School. He was lucky, as he had parents who loved him, even though we rejected his homosexuality.

Other kids are not as fortunate. Some of them are thrown out of the house. Most are rejected by home and school. All of them have emotional problems. The suicide rate for homosexual male teens is the highest rate of all suicides. The whole world is against them. Where can they go? Perform a mental exercise and just imagine one of your very own children living through this scenario. I don't think any of us would wish this on one of our favorite young people. Can you imagine if every time your child walked out of the house everyone treated him, or her, as if they were unwanted and unwelcome? The looks they receive are full of derision, and the treatment they receive is unkind and demeaning. This is not what anyone would want for their child.

It is time for people to accept that these kids deserve to live a life of acceptance in society just like everyone else. They are a part of the human race, just like everyone else. They are different from the "norm," but so are people of different races and creeds different from each other. So are people who are blind, or have other handicaps, different from the "norm." So are people with Down's syndrome, and other defects, different from this "norm." Are they all supposed to be second class citizens?

I guess you are really lucky if you are fortunate enough to be born one of the lucky ones who gets to be one of these "normal people." And may God have mercy on you if you are not... People around the world have been giving a lot of lip service to the word PEACE. They also talk about BROTHERLY LOVE, and wouldn't it be great if everyone practiced it. Gosh, there wouldn't be any WARS. It's time to practice what we preach!... At least give these people a chance to live their lives without hostility.

Gay people do live on the same planet with the rest of us, and before these people are gay adults, they are gay kids. Instead of pretending that they don't exist, let's give them some mainstream guidelines just like we give all of our other children. God created all of us equal in His eyes. We need to live under the same rules and regulations if we are supposed to be chaste before marriage. And isn't that what God teaches, and all parents, and all of society really want to happen?...

Unfortunately this is not what really does happen!... That is obvious! All you have to do is look at the history of statistics to see that this doesn't happen the way that we want it to. But we teach our children as if we expect them to behave as we teach them. We don't just say, "Oh well, you are going to do wrong anyway, so why bother?" No! We don't say that to our kids! We teach them with all the sincerity, and hope in our hearts, that they will behave themselves as we want them to, and postpone sex until marriage. We try to enforce this by monitoring their friends, their time, and anything else we can control. Then we hope and pray for the best.

We need to give these same guidelines to gay kids. We need to realize and accept the fact that they are going to date and keep company with members of their same sex just like heterosexual kids do with the opposite sex. When they find the right person, they are going to commit to a lasting relationship, just like all the other young people in the world. This is the way it should be. It's what all people of average background and standard behavior do. They should not be abandoned to a moral garbage dump of -- YOU ARE GAY -- so it doesn't matter what "you people" do. You are going to hell. So just be promiscuous anyway and hide under a rock. Because no one wants to know that you are here anyway. If we handled all of our children in the same manner that we treat our gay children, I would hate to see what a sorry mess our world would be.

Let's do something realistic about these kids. Let's discover them at an earlier age when we can help them cope with their differences. Let us get counseling for them so that they can embark on living a regular life just like everyone else. Next face the fact that they do not CHOOSE to be Gay, nor can they do anything to change the fact. Then let's help them live their lives in a responsible way just like everyone else.
​

Let's teach ALL of our children that promiscuous behavior results in all manner of unwanted consequences, from unwanted teenage pregnancies, to a variety of venereal diseases including AIDS. The realities of immoral and irresponsible behavior are devastatingly tragic. Also to be taken into consideration are: loss of innocence, loss of self-respect, and a loss of moral values. This is certainly enough reason for any parent to give their child all of the guidance and proper upbringing, that they are humanly capable of.

This article is excerpted from:
A Mother Looks at the Gay Child by Jesse Davis.
​

 

[GODSCHILD333]

it seems like you are questioning GOD, sometimes it is best to trust GOD of
why he set this up( about homosexuality) and to tell you the truth i can see why. you are talking to christians, anything that is asked we will go back to the scriptures because the word is already written, it can't be changed , GOD
said if he lies heaven and earth shall pass away. Why are you curious about
homosexuality is this a question within yourself? are you afraid to ask GOD?
surely he'll show up and show out for you, look at AIDS,HIV,HEPATITIS, SYPHLIS,and ask yourself, couldn't this been avoided if we avoid sexual relations outside of marriage? especially homosexuality where half of the population are secretly dying from this transmitted disease. Believe you me GOD knew what he was doing when he addressed this in the old testament.

 

[GODSCHILD333]

to belladonic, you are talking about homosexuality is okay, then you speak about celtics,aztecs,and hindu's and what they did, please don't get offensive, but in christian terms-who cares? on this chatboard you are talking to jesus christ's followers, we all have the same opinion about homosexuality.
it would have been different if you asked a question about it according to how GOD feels about it, but honey you are debating the issue, which is the wrong site to talk and argue over issues that we know are an abomination. there is nothing wrong with you obtaining your opinion, but on this website you'll be
turning red all day about your feelings toward homosexuality.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Okay, I am going to say this one more time; There is nothing wrong with heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. You love who you love and it is about the love and the expression of love...NOT the gender of the one you love...


(...snip)

OK, I will explain something to make it clear. I can love a man, men, woman, women, child, etc. and it doesn't require me to have sexual activities with any or all of those. Thus, I am not a homosexual or bisexual simply because I "love" a member of that gender(s). It is after all the immorality of the actions that make it immoral and even some heterosexual acts are deemed immoral. Homosexuality is not that "special" situation where nothing can address it and your over-generalization of "love" is self-evident. I am not persuaded by the sophistry.

Romans 1:32
Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Instead of further testing Grace, perhaps some would benefit in being thankful for the grace they have received this far. We have all at one point deserved death, yet some insist on holding onto it as their inheritance.
Repent.