Yet Another "Gay" Thread

[TheGMan]

Well it seems to be where the battle lines are drawn at the moment. Anyway...

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who takes the position that homosexuality is immoral and that God takes a rather dim view of it. My queston is pithy... "Why?"

I'm presuming that a wise and loving God wouldn't just wake up one day and think "I know, I'll make homosexuality an abomination for the heck of it." I'm not really interested in the exegesis on this one. I'm prepared to accept that, for instance, arsenokoites means 'male homosexual'. Personally, I'm of the opinion that you have to do some violence to etymology to make it mean anything else. But my question is, why does it say what it does on the matter.

What I am interested in is an extra-Biblical corroboration of the position that homosexuality is immoral.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

What I am interested in is an extra-Biblical corroboration of the position that homosexuality is immoral.

No such animal exists.
None,zip,nada.

 

[Toboe]

Well it seems to be where the battle lines are drawn at the moment. Anyway...

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who takes the position that homosexuality is immoral and that God takes a rather dim view of it. My queston is pithy... "Why?"

I'm presuming that a wise and loving God wouldn't just wake up one day and think "I know, I'll make homosexuality an abomination for the heck of it." I'm not really interested in the exegesis on this one. I'm prepared to accept that, for instance, arsenokoites means 'male homosexual'. Personally, I'm of the opinion that you have to do some violence to etymology to make it mean anything else. But my question is, why does it say what it does on the matter.

What I am interested in is an extra-Biblical corroboration of the position that homosexuality is immoral.

The onlything I can really think that might be true is that pagans at the time embrased homosexuality and the bible authors wanted to make a clear difference between the two. But I'm probably wrong.

 

[Helo]

The onlything I can really think that might be true is that pagans at the time embrased homosexuality and the bible authors wanted to make a clear difference between the two. But I'm probably wrong.

Ancient Pagans made no real distinction between hetero and homosexuality. The Romans actually believed that a man was un-manly if he didnt take male-lovers as well as a wife

Extra biblical indicators that homosexuality is immoral....there arent any.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

Oh well, there the.... um... the...

Oh, how about the...uh...um...

Or how about the... er... um..

Okay, nevermind

 

[reina23]

Oh well, there the.... um... the...

Oh, how about the...uh...um...

Or how about the... er... um..

Okay, nevermind

hahaha nice

 

[levi501]

because it's gross.

 

[jayem]

The OT is full of laws and admonitions that make little sense today and are hard to fathom. I'm especially fond of Exodus 21:20-21:


"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall surely be punished.

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." (ASV)



So, if you beat your slave and he/she dies immediately, you'll be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two (probably in agony--given the state of medical care 3000 years ago) you get a pass, because the slave is your property. Makes sense to me.

These all just reflect the customs and cultural taboos of the times.

 

[outlaw]

Well it seems to be where the battle lines are drawn at the moment. Anyway...

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who takes the position that homosexuality is immoral and that God takes a rather dim view of it. My queston is pithy... "Why?"

I'm presuming that a wise and loving God wouldn't just wake up one day and think "I know, I'll make homosexuality an abomination for the heck of it." I'm not really interested in the exegesis on this one. I'm prepared to accept that, for instance, arsenokoites means 'male homosexual'. Personally, I'm of the opinion that you have to do some violence to etymology to make it mean anything else.

No violence is necessary…just honesty.

But my question is, why does it say what it does on the matter.

What I am interested in is an extra-Biblical corroboration of the position that homosexuality is immoral.

No such thing.



This topic ahs been tackles before, several times before



The best the anti-gay crowd can come up with is homosexuality is bad because gays get AIDS (ignoring everyone else who gets IADS in the process) or links to sites that blatantly lie about gays and lesbians (they have shorter lifespans, they molest children, they do not enter into monogamous relationships, its all a choice and other such bunk)

 

[FSTDT]

Well it seems to be where the battle lines are drawn at the moment. Anyway...

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who takes the position that homosexuality is immoral and that God takes a rather dim view of it. My queston is pithy... "Why?"

Its impossible that such a wise and omniscient God can make moral commands that have no reason or explanation, so its very likely that the prohibitions against homosexuality have nothing to do with God whatsoever. The condemnation of homosexuality is clearly a man-made prescription with no further explanation at all.

 

[TheGMan]

First off, thanks everyone for your responses. It seems unfair to draw conclusions from the silence of those who genuinely hold the position so I shall refrain from doing so just yet.

No violence is necessary…just honesty.

I'm not entirely convinced by this line, I've got to be honest. We don't, I agree, know what Paul meant by arsenokoites but it has an etymology that leads us to a fairly obvious guess. The only reason that we might look for a more sophisticated interpretation is if, for instance, it made absolutely no sense for a loving and wise God to proscribe such activity.

 

[Dirtydeak]

Well it seems to be where the battle lines are drawn at the moment. Anyway...

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who takes the position that homosexuality is immoral and that God takes a rather dim view of it. My queston is pithy... "Why?"

I'm presuming that a wise and loving God wouldn't just wake up one day and think "I know, I'll make homosexuality an abomination for the heck of it." I'm not really interested in the exegesis on this one. I'm prepared to accept that, for instance, arsenokoites means 'male homosexual'. Personally, I'm of the opinion that you have to do some violence to etymology to make it mean anything else. But my question is, why does it say what it does on the matter.

What I am interested in is an extra-Biblical corroboration of the position that homosexuality is immoral.

We are going to have to toss morals also. But its not to hard to explain. First we have the penis, and the vagina. Theses are the only two sexual orgins on the humman body with the express pourpose of procreating. The womans egg must be fertilized by the mans sperm. This is only going to occur in natural means, by sexual intercourse leading to orgasim during intercourse. At this point the female can become pregnate and carry on the species. In this example, even by the TOE , and natural selection gay relations are perverted and fruitless. Two men cannot bear young therfore, if gay relations were continued, the species would have died out. Nature its self did not intend male on male relations uless of course the species is hermaphadotic. But that wouldnt be "gay" since the species has both sex orgins. Gay relations amoung a group would have been weeded out by natural selection. Not even by natural means dose same sex intercourse make sense.

 

[TheGMan]

We are going to have to toss morals also. But its not to hard to explain. First we have the penis, and the vagina. Theses are the only two sexual orgins on the humman body with the express pourpose of procreating. The womans egg must be fertilized by the mans sperm. This is only going to occur in natural means, by sexual intercourse leading to orgasim during intercourse. At this point the female can become pregnate and carry on the species. In this example, even by the TOE , and natural selection gay relations are perverted and fruitless. Two men cannot bear young therfore, if gay relations were continued, the species would have died out. Nature its self did not intend male on male relations uless of course the species is hermaphadotic. But that wouldnt be "gay" since the species has both sex orgins. Gay relations amoung a group would have been weeded out by natural selection. Not even by natural means dose same sex intercourse make sense.

So, in summary, homosexuality is an unnatural and immoral behaviour because it does not produce children? Or is that an overly simple presentation of the argument?

 

[Dirtydeak]

So, in summary, homosexuality is an unnatural and immoral behaviour because it does not produce children? Or is that an overly simple presentation of the argument?

No.... it simply is not natural. Nor is it normal, nesisary, or a survival behavior. It must be justified by other means. It has no purpose, and cannot be convayed as natural or justifiable. Our sexual orgians have not evolved, or been created in the maner of same sex itnercourse, which leaves us with the reality that same sex intercourse is perverse considering the very make up of our sexual orgians. Also in the light of natural selection what is the puropuse of sex? To what end is anal or oral sex going to lead. Again the seed wiil be lost. Still there is no point. And also since we know the penis is made for the vigina, how con it not be perverse to be with the same sex? It is not the proper use of our sexual origans that have evolved into there set pourpse. 'perverse' is other than norm.

 

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

[There] are the only two sexual orgins on the humman body with the express pourpose of procreating. The womans egg must be fertilized by the mans sperm. This is only going to occur in natural means, by sexual intercourse leading to orgasim during intercourse. At this point the female can become pregnate and carry on the species. In this example, even by the TOE , and natural selection gay relations are perverted and fruitless. Two men cannot bear young therfore, if gay relations were continued, the species would have died out. Nature its self did not intend male on male relations uless of course the species is hermaphadotic. But that wouldnt be "gay" since the species has both sex orgins. Gay relations amoung a group would have been weeded out by natural selection. Not even by natural means dose same sex intercourse make sense.

Dirtydeak,

I think you need to re-educate yourself on a few matters. Your not quite grasping the basic concepts of evolution, nor do you seem to have a good overview to how nature - as a whole - aprroaches the concept of 'reproduction'.

First - you say:
'Gay relations amoung a group would have been weeded out by natural selection.'

Just ain't true. Evolution has no need to completely eliminate traits that may hinder the ability of a species to survive. If it did - then it would have also given us an 'air' pipe seperate from the 'food' pipe, so that thousands of kids wouldn't choke to death before they got a chance to even try and reproduce.

It only has to 'supress' any reproductively 'negative' traits to the point where they become statistically inconsequential.
And this isn't even opinion. Homosexuality has been present since the dawn of man, and yet we have prospered and multiplied just as effectively as any other species. In fact you could argue TOO well. Overpopulation is a known problem with serious consequences...
Combine this with the clear evidence that all kinds of animal species have instances of homosexual individuals within their populations, and your whole argument is pretty much toppled.

It's an argument purely derived from what you want to be the case, rather than what is.

It also sounds to me like you misunderstand the basic premise of reproduction in nature.
There is one fact that seems to elude you:
Not all individual organisms within a species are nessesarily required to reproduce.
Many insect species - in fact - only rely on ONE single member of a 'hive' to go about the business of reproducing, with most of the individuals being totally infertile!
Does this mean they aren't valid organisms?! Or that they are natures mistakes?! Of course not. They build the nests, they protect their hive, they feed the young. Without them, the 'reproductive' process would be meaningless. The young would die off very quickly, assuming they got to the point of being created in the first place.

Obviously, once we get to inspecting mammals, the 'responsibility' of reproduction is spread far more evenly across the entire population. But does that mean every single organism is bound to re-produce?
Well, obviously not. Because - as clearly stated earlier - many mammal species are known to have homosexual individuals regularly appear within their populations. And yet ALL these species have managed to survive just fine.

If you want to believe homosexuality is 'wrong', then that's your business. But I wouldn't count on the natural world giving you backing for your stance.
In fact it makes homosexuality look perfectly - well - natural

 

[Athene]

Dirtydeak,

Well, obviously not. Because - as clearly stated earlier - many mammal species are known to have homosexual individuals regularly appear within their populations. And yet ALL these species have managed to survive just fine.

You got evidence for this!!

It doesn't matter, I do, it's been known for a long time that homosexuality appears in other animals besides humans.

Here's a nice article from National Geographic.

 

[Dirtydeak]

Dirtydeak,

I think you need to re-educate yourself on a few matters. Your not quite grasping the basic concepts of evolution, nor do you seem to have a good overview to how nature - as a whole - aprroaches the concept of 'reproduction'.

First - you say:
'Gay relations amoung a group would have been weeded out by natural selection.'

Just ain't true. Evolution has no need to completely eliminate traits that may hinder the ability of a species to survive. If it did - then it would have also given us an 'air' pipe seperate from the 'food' pipe, so that thousands of kids wouldn't choke to death before they got a chance to even try and reproduce.

It only has to 'supress' any reproductively 'negative' traits to the point where they become statistically inconsequential.
And this isn't even opinion. Homosexuality has been present since the dawn of man, and yet we have prospered and multiplied just as effectively as any other species. In fact you could argue TOO well. Overpopulation is a known problem with serious consequences...
Combine this with the clear evidence that all kinds of animal species have instances of homosexual individuals within their populations, and your whole argument is pretty much toppled.

It's an argument purely derived from what you want to be the case, rather than what is.

It also sounds to me like you misunderstand the basic premise of reproduction in nature.
There is one fact that seems to elude you:
Not all individual organisms within a species are nessesarily required to reproduce.
Many insect species - in fact - only rely on ONE single member of a 'hive' to go about the business of reproducing, with most of the individuals being totally infertile!
Does this mean they aren't valid organisms?! Or that they are natures mistakes?! Of course not. They build the nests, they protect their hive, they feed the young. Without them, the 'reproductive' process would be meaningless. The young would die off very quickly, assuming they got to the point of being created in the first place.

Obviously, once we get to inspecting mammals, the 'responsibility' of reproduction is spread far more evenly across the entire population. But does that mean every single organism is bound to re-produce?
Well, obviously not. Because - as clearly stated earlier - many mammal species are known to have homosexual individuals regularly appear within their populations. And yet ALL these species have managed to survive just fine.

If you want to believe homosexuality is 'wrong', then that's your business. But I wouldn't count on the natural world giving you backing for your stance.
In fact it makes homosexuality look perfectly - well - natural

Thats all good. But this is not a thread on TOE, aspeciation, abiogennissis or what have you so I have not gone into great detail, and I might know just a little. My point in hand is that no matter what animal is doing it, it is perverted in nature. The sexual orgins are not made to work this way. This is somthing that has to be excepted only by the mamal commeting the act. Tell me please what the function of the penis and vagina are? You make it sound as if the ones making proper intercourse are weird.


Since your on TOE, were primates correct? What is the sexual oriantation of the majiority of any primate population? If the majority is having intercourse with women, and only a few with other males. Arent the same sex relations the other than normal? If then they are other than normal, they are perverted in their sexual act.

 

[Dirtydeak]

You got evidence for this!!

It doesn't matter, I do, it's been known for a long time that homosexuality appears in other animals besides humans.

Here's a nice article from National Geographic.

What is this? Please explain.

 

[Athene]

What is this? Please explain.

The National geographic is a Journal which covers a broad range of subjects which come under the heading of geography, it will cover human interest stories outside of that so it's not like the Journal of Bacteriology for example which only publishes articles related to research in bacteriology.

It's a good journal for laymen who are interested in what is going on in the world but don't want to trawl through the specialist journals and want more then that which is offered in the newspapers.

 

[Dirtydeak]

The National geographic is a Journal which covers a broad range of subjects which come under the heading of geography, it will cover human interest stories outside of that so it's not like the Journal of Bacteriology for example which only publishes articles related to research in bacteriology.

It's a good journal for laymen who are interested in what is going on in the world but don't want to trawl through the specialist journals and want more then that which is offered in the newspapers.

You have got to be kidding,. right? I didnt mean the mag. I ment your point. What were you geting at? I don't mean this to be sarcastic.