Why is Homosexuality Wrong?

[Niels]

Because it's self-destructive. Are there other activities which are also self destructive? Of course there are. Are there heterosexuals who participate in self-destructive behavior? Yes. Humanity has a rich history of harming itself in a myriad of ways. Homosexual relationships are just one of those things.

 

[beechy]

Because it's self-destructive.

How?

 

[Niels]

How?

Physically and emotionally. A gay fellow's likely to have his heart broken if he searches for true love in the gay community, where long-term monogamous relationships are less common. Heartbreak is a source of emotional pain. Also, I presume there is more anal intercourse among gays than among heterosexual couples. Even if one is careful, there's a greater risk of disease... and I'd imagine things like toxic shock.

I'm basing this on what I see as trends in the gay community, and fully believe that heterosexuals can and do also engage in the kind of lifestyle more commonly found among homosexuals (multiple partners, cheating, emphasis of anal sex etc.) I say it's wrong for pretty much the same reason why I shouldn't go sleeping around with lots of women. The potential, not to mention probable, outcome isn't going to benefit my well-being. Sure there are exceptions... as there are exceptions to just about everything, but I'd rather draw my conclusions from what seems to happen most often.

Do I hate or dislike gay people? No. Some of my favorite entertainers are gay. But I do think homosexuality is wrong because of the likelyhood of harm to the gay person. I suspect that's why God may view it as an 'abomination', since he created/allowed us to evolve. It's another way humanity may inflict harm on God's creation.

 

[one love]

There are plenty of ways same-sex couples can raise children: sperm donation, surrogate mother, adoption, or just children from previous heterosexual relationships.

Yes, it is true, but there is no way for two men to have a child together, a woman must step into the situation.

But, how same-sex couples can produce children shouldnt matter, because you havent explained why not producing children is so wantonly immoral, or why evolution should serve as a basis for ethics.

Hold it right there. I am not saying it is an immoral act as being homosexual does not dictate holding another against their will. It is my opinion that I do not like homosexuality.

And I dont see what the reasoning is behind your consideration that same-sex couples not producing children is bad but celibate heterosexual couples are not bad.

Because with celebate hetorosexuals, they are at least able to have sexual contact with opposite sex which gives the impression that sex and sexaul relations with the member of the opposite sex is what is intended for.

The act of a male being sodomized is grotesque and disgusting.

 

[beechy]

Physically and emotionally. A gay fellow's likely to have his heart broken if he searches for true love in the gay community, where long-term monogamous relationships are less common. Heartbreak is a source of emotional pain. Also, I presume there is more anal intercourse among gays than among heterosexual couples. Even if one is careful, there's a greater risk of disease... and I'd imagine things like toxic shock.

I'm basing this on what I see as trends in the gay community, and fully believe that heterosexuals can and do also engage in the kind of lifestyle more commonly found among homosexuals (multiple partners, cheating, emphasis of anal sex etc.) I say it's wrong for pretty much the same reason why I shouldn't go sleeping around with lots of women. The potential, not to mention probable, outcome isn't going to benefit my well-being. Sure there are exceptions... as there are exceptions to just about everything, but I'd rather draw my conclusions from what seems to happen most often.

Do I hate or dislike gay people? No. Some of my favorite entertainers are gay. But I do think homosexuality is wrong because of the likelyhood of harm to the gay person. I suspect that's why God may view it as an 'abomination', since he created/allowed us to evolve. It's another way humanity may inflict harm on God's creation.

Interesting and a bit surprising (though not terribly, I suppose). However, without examining the nature of this ostensible connection between sexual orientation and "likelihood of harm," I respectfully submit that your conclusion is prematurely drawn. Don't you think it is similarly problematic to look, for example, at crime rates or poverty levels of certain ethnic groups and condemn groups with higher crime rates as bad? If you found that Mexican immigrants were significantly poorer than the white population in a given city, would you automatically conclude that those Mexicans were stupid or lazy, or might you ascribe those difference instead to language barriers, educational differences, and cultural divides?

Let's say, for sake of argument, that there is an observable "trend" away from monogamy in the gay community. What if that trend developed as a result of societal prejudices and historic persecution which made it much more practical for gays to pursue secretive, anonymous, fleeting encounters, and prevented them from developing comfortable, open, long term relationships with shared homes, assets, and children (adopted or otherwise) that mirror heterosexual marriage-type relationships? What if greater social acceptance of homosexuality over time leads to a greater variety of visible, observable long term relationships in the gay community? Mightn't that concern be lifted?

Also, most of your comments seem to be aimed at the gay male population. What health risks tied to lesbian sex leads you to believe that lesbianism is wrong?

 

[numberprophet]

The act of a male being sodomized is grotesque and disgusting.

True, but I think mayonaise is grotesque and disgusting. That hardly justifies a moral imperitive.

 

[FSTDT]

QUIC,

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".

Technically, its possible. But, I dont expect it to happen.

I know a lot about ethics and morality, and I've changed my mind on a lot of ethical decisions since I first started learning about it.

I am wholly open to the idea that homosexuality might actually be immoral, but its been 200 posts and I'm quite skeptical if the reason why people find it immoral will be explained. So far, the explanations I've seen have been that it does not conform to some abstract image of God, that homosexuals can never be happy, and that it is wrong for reasons that cannot be explained but its still wrong.



ChristianCenturion,

It is after all the immorality of the actions that make it immoral and even some heterosexual acts are deemed immoral.

What is it about the actions that is immoral?



mrkguy,

Physically and emotionally. A gay fellow's likely to have his heart broken if he searches for true love in the gay community, where long-term monogamous relationships are less common. Heartbreak is a source of emotional pain. Also, I presume there is more anal intercourse among gays than among heterosexual couples. Even if one is careful, there's a greater risk of disease... and I'd imagine things like toxic shock.

All relationships carry this risk. It isnt just homosexual couples ever have physical or emotional problems, dont you watch the Lifetime Channel?

I'm basing this on what I see as trends in the gay community, and fully believe that heterosexuals can and do also engage in the kind of lifestyle more commonly found among homosexuals (multiple partners, cheating, emphasis of anal sex etc.) I say it's wrong for pretty much the same reason why I shouldn't go sleeping around with lots of women.

So you arent offended by homosexuality, but infidelity and irresponsibility? Thats perfectly fine, but infidelity and irresponsibility isnt unique to homosexuality (make sure you arent stereotyping).

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Physically and emotionally. A gay fellow's likely to have his heart broken if he searches for true love in the gay community, where long-term monogamous relationships are less common. Heartbreak is a source of emotional pain. Also, I presume there is more anal intercourse among gays than among heterosexual couples. Even if one is careful, there's a greater risk of disease... and I'd imagine things like toxic shock.

I'm basing this on what I see as trends in the gay community, and fully believe that heterosexuals can and do also engage in the kind of lifestyle more commonly found among homosexuals (multiple partners, cheating, emphasis of anal sex etc.) I say it's wrong for pretty much the same reason why I shouldn't go sleeping around with lots of women. The potential, not to mention probable, outcome isn't going to benefit my well-being. Sure there are exceptions... as there are exceptions to just about everything, but I'd rather draw my conclusions from what seems to happen most often.

Do I hate or dislike gay people? No. Some of my favorite entertainers are gay. But I do think homosexuality is wrong because of the likelyhood of harm to the gay person. I suspect that's why God may view it as an 'abomination', since he created/allowed us to evolve. It's another way humanity may inflict harm on God's creation.

Are saying that homosexual relationships wouldn't be as bad in your eyes if they were more likely to be monogamous?

 

[Kris_J]

Homosexuality of a female or male is considered bad at the very least because the sexual preference of the individual ultimately does not lead to pro-creation. If all monogendered humans choose to be homosexuals we would be extinct.

Now, if a fully functional hermaphrodite were to be a homosexual, there is no problem there IMO.

 

[acorn_777]

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?

Are you asking why it is wrong in Gods eyes(from a Christians POV)?

Or, Are you asking why the modern church is so abrupt about this subject and lack others of the same Levitical Law?

 

[acorn_777]

Are saying that homosexual relationships wouldn't be as bad in your eyes if they were more likely to be monogamous?

The great thing about God is He always has a Way. If you truly want to become a follower of Jesus and give your lifestyle to God, then there is a Way or choice for that matter.

Heterosexuals have to deal with fantasies and temptations everytime we turn the TV on or even walk outside, go to the store. Some are single, some are married. Its all sexual. Flee from whatever causes you to sin(According to the scripture).

If you want to serve God, abstinence would possibly have to be the answer, and constant meditation on Him. Thats what we all are suppose to be doing anyhow, right.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Homosexuality of a female or male is considered bad at the very least because the sexual preference of the individual ultimately does not lead to pro-creation. If all monogendered humans choose to be homosexuals we would be extinct.

Now, if a fully functional hermaphrodite were to be a homosexual, there is no problem there IMO.

The problem with this argument is that it applies equally to celibacy, which Paul believed was preferable to marriage. From Paul's preference for celibacy, we can conclude either that not all are called to the same vocation or that the extinction of humanity is not that bad of thing.

 

[Kris_J]

The problem with this argument is that it applies equally to celibacy, which Paul believed was preferable to marriage. From Paul's preference for celibacy, we can conclude either that not all are called to the same vocation or that the extinction of humanity is not that bad of thing.

Are you confirming that sexual encounters between two hermaphrodites is a homosexual act too?

Is monosexual & a hermaphrodite combination a homosexual act according to the Bible too?

 

[FSTDT]

Kris_J,

Homosexuality of a female or male is considered bad at the very least because the sexual preference of the individual ultimately does not lead to pro-creation.

So it wouldnt be bad if homosexuals simply procreated? Through, perhaps, the use of surrogate mothers, sperm donors, adoption, or previous heterosexual relationships?

If you dont feel that relationships between heterosexual but voluntarily childless couples and couples simply too old to reproduce is just as immoral as homosexuality, then I dont believe that lack of procreation is the reason why people disapprove of homosexuality.

Besides, celibate heterosexuals are less likely to reproduce than homosexuals, but no one ever marches on the streets of Washington protesting celibate people and asexuals - so, I find further reason to suspect that people dont really care that much about whether someone procreates.


Acorn,

Are you asking why it is wrong in Gods eyes(from a Christians POV)?

Or, Are you asking why the modern church is so abrupt about this subject and lack others of the same Levitical Law?

Yes to the first question, no to the second.

 

[Kris_J]

So it wouldnt be bad if homosexuals simply procreated? Through, perhaps, the use of surrogate mothers, sperm donors, adoption, or previous heterosexual relationships?

If you dont feel that relationships between heterosexual but voluntarily childless couples and couples simply too old to reproduce is just as immoral as homosexuality, then I dont believe that lack of procreation is the reason why people disapprove of homosexuality.

Besides, celibate heterosexuals are less likely to reproduce than homosexuals, but no one ever marches on the streets of Washington protesting celibate people and asexuals - so, I find further reason to suspect that people dont really care that much about whether some1one procreates.

We all know that marching down the street in protest is not a clear indication of what is moral or immoral.

If heterosexuals all decide that they want to be celibate yet do not want to be cloned or be surrogates to clones/IVF, that is also "immoral" in the sense that they choose to allow the extinction of the human race. Selfishness.

 

[FSTDT]

We all know that marching down the street in protest is not a clear indication of what is moral or immoral.

I think you missed my point. I was explaining that people are willing to protest gay couples, yet they do not protest heterosexual couples who are (in a functional sense of not procreating) indistinguishable - this clearly indicates that the people protesting do not actually that non-procreating people are bad, they feel that homosexuality is bad.

If heterosexuals all decide that they want to be celibate yet do not want to be cloned or be surrogates to clones/IVF, that is also "immoral" in the sense that they choose to allow the extinction of the human race. Selfishness.

You think people celibate people want the extinction of the human race???

I dont know what else to tell you, but thats not what they want at all (if they did want the extinction of the human race, you'd think they'd be killing everyone in sight rather than choosing not to date around).

 

[Kris_J]

I think you missed my point. I was explaining that people are willing to protest gay couples, yet they do not protest heterosexual couples who are (in a functional sense of not procreating) indistinguishable - this clearly indicates that the people protesting do not actually that non-procreating people are bad, they feel that homosexuality is bad.

I for one am not talking about how people feel or appealing to numbers to prop up an argument. Why should your ad-populum be paid any attention?

You think people celibate people want the extinction of the human race???
I dont know what else to tell you, but thats not what they want at all (if they did want the extinction of the human race, you'd think they'd be killing everyone in sight rather than choosing not to date around).

I am talking about condoning social trends rather than actions of specific individuals & that morality is the mechanism that regulates the social trends. Put it this way: the collateral damage of a social trend towards celibacy is extinction. Is it moral to step on/continue along such a path according to our social conscience?

 

[belladonic-haze]

True, but I think mayonaise is grotesque and disgusting. That hardly justifies a moral imperitive.

Sorry, but that is too funny!!

 

[belladonic-haze]

Homosexuality of a female or male is considered bad at the very least because the sexual preference of the individual ultimately does not lead to pro-creation.

Well I am barren, so making love with my hubs is bad....because we don't procreated?????

If all monogendered humans choose to be homosexuals we would be extinct

Now that is the most strangest thing I have read until now.........you don't choose to be homosexual, like no-one chooses to be heterosexual

Now, if a fully functional hermaphrodite were to be a homosexual, there is no problem there IMO.

Well, snails are the luckest animals in the world

 

[Ledifni]

On what basis?

Do two negative charges, or two positive charges, ever attract each other?
I don't think so. Somethings are just the way they are. Positive charge attract a negative charge.
It's as simple as that.

That doesn't strike me as especially simple. I am at a loss to understand how the morality of homosexual relations is defined by particle physics.