Debating Christianity and Religion

Why is homosexuality wrong?

We all know what gays are and what they do. All of God’s laws are responses to a victim of some sort.

The one lied to is deceived.
The one who is killed is deprived of life.
The one stolen from looses his goods.

In the case of homosexuals there does not appear to be a victim or anyone hurt by the actions of the participant.

Why then does God discriminate against homosexuals?
It appears to go against His usual justice.

Regards
DL

Greatest I Am wrote:
In the case of homosexuals there does not appear to be a victim or anyone hurt by the actions of the participant.

It just appears that way.

No harm?

First, "gay pride" (two sins). The pro-gay movement flaunts it in our faces and tries to legitimize it. You don't hear of "adultery pride" parades, do you? But even if there were we'd take an equally stellar stance against those.

Second, most homosexuals I've encountered who claim to be Christian try to persuade others it's not a sin, leading many into perdition. We don't want to see even one soul lost.

Third (IMO), most homosexuals distort the scriptures in some fashion or another in order to try to justify their sin. The distort who Jesus is (saying he's not God so he never spoke out against gay sex sin); they make lengthly arguments against Leviticus, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc. Generally speaking, they attack the Word of God and thus attack God himself.

Fourth: Sin is a reproach to individuals and nations and brings God's disfavor on men and nations. Read Deuteronomy chapter 28 to see the curses of disobedience.

Fifth, many in the pro-gay movement attack those who hold traditional Biblical positions when we stand up for the truth of God's Word. We're often called bigots, homophobes, and all manner of names because we disagree with their stance.

Sixth, many push their ungodly agenda into every corner of America. Suing the Boy Scouts and anyone else who disagrees with them, causing many to incur hefty legal expenses. They try and sometimes succeed in pushing their gay agenda in elementary schools and elsewhere where it doesn't belong. Eight year old children shouldn't have to hear that Billy's daddy is, in effect, doing another guy, or that it's ok to do it. I don't think we really need to know which way people perform sex acts.

Seventh: They (and heterosexual sinners) cost taxpayers untold billions in unnecessary health care costs to treat AIDS and other diseases derived from irresponsible sexual behavior. There's also the cost of missed productivity to employers. It costs us all money out of our pockets.

And eighth: They refuse to repent of it, making their own salvation and those who they lead astray a serious question mark.

And there's more but that's for starters.

Greatest I Am wrote:Why then does God discriminate against homosexuals?
It appears to go against His usual justice.

Why does God "discriminate" against adulterers, or any other class of moral sinners? It's because he's God and he gets to make the rules.

Cheers...

Greatest I Am wrote:In the case of homosexuals there does not appear to be a victim or anyone hurt by the actions of the participant.

Easyrider wrote:It just appears that way.

No harm?

First, "gay pride" (two sins). The pro-gay movement flaunts it in our faces and tries to legitimize it. You don't hear of "adultery pride" parades, do you? But even if there were we'd take an equally stellar stance against those.

and national pride. I don't see too many Christians (excepting JWs) taking a strong stance against national pride.

Easyrider wrote:Second, most homosexuals I've encountered who claim to be Christian try to persuade others it's not a sin, leading many into perdition. We don't want to see even one soul lost.

This objection assumes what is yet to be proven. If you assume that homosexuality is a sin, then your argument would be valid, but the OP implies that homosexuality should not be a sin because there is no victim. If it is not a sin, then there is no harm in persuading others to be tolerant of it.

Easyrider wrote:Third (IMO), most homosexuals distort the scriptures in some fashion or another in order to try to justify their sin. The distort who Jesus is (saying he's not God so he never spoke out against gay sex sin); they make lengthly arguments against Leviticus, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc. Generally speaking, they attack the Word of God and thus attack God himself.

Good point. I have never really understood why homosexuals, feminists or democrats would want to be associated with Biblical Christianity.

Easyrider wrote:Fourth: Sin is a reproach to individuals and nations and brings God's disfavor on men and nations. Read Deuteronomy chapter 28 to see the curses of disobedience.

Begging the question again. If homosexuality was not a sin, then there would be no reproach to speak of.

Easyrider wrote:Fifth, many in the pro-gay movement attack those who hold traditional Biblical positions when we stand up for the truth of God's Word. We're often called bigots, homophobes, and all manner of names because we disagree with their stance.

Perhaps it is because your anti homosexual agenda is based only on your faith in the Bible as God's word. Isn't it hypocritical to try to force legislation against homosexuals but not sabbath keeping?

(yes, I recognize my own use of the fallacy of tu quoque.)

Easyrider wrote:Sixth, many push their ungodly agenda into every corner of America. Suing the Boy Scouts and anyone else who disagrees with them, causing many to incur hefty legal expenses. They try and sometimes succeed in pushing their gay agenda in elementary schools and elsewhere where it doesn't belong. Eight year old children shouldn't have to hear that Billy's daddy is, in effect, doing another guy, or that it's ok to do it. I don't think we really need to know which way people perform sex acts.

Personally, I approve of open education about sexual issues. Why does a discussion about toleration of the sexual choices made by consenting adults not belong in an elementary classroom? My children learned about sex in a sexuality workshop, where they talked frankly and openly about what is what and what the options are. I learned about sex, in bits and pieces, by rumour, whisper, giggle and experimentation. I think that the upcoming generation has the advantage.

Easyrider wrote:Seventh: They (and heterosexual sinners) cost taxpayers untold billions in unnecessary health care costs to treat AIDS and other diseases derived from irresponsible sexual behavior. There's also the cost of missed productivity to employers. It costs us all money out of our pockets.

Fine, then campaign against promiscuity not homosexuality.

Easyrider wrote:And eighth: They refuse to repent of it, making their own salvation and those who they lead astray a serious question mark.

You again assume that it is a sin, in order to show that it is a sin.

Easyrider wrote:And there's more but that's for starters.

I'm so glad that there is more, because those arguments are all duds.

Greatest I Am wrote: All of God’s laws are responses to a victim of some sort.

No, that's not true. Most of the laws regarding sex don't relate to victims. ie. sex before marriage. The OT is full of laws that involve "victimless crimes". (eg pride, laws regarding the sabbath)

In fact in the 10 commandments, only half of them, if committed, will likely result in hurting others.
Killing, lying, stealing, adultry, dishonoring parents.
Four are responses to God's ego.
The last - "coveting" is debatable who that hurts, if anybody.

Easyrider wrote:Second, most homosexuals I've encountered who claim to be Christian try to persuade others it's not a sin, leading many into perdition. We don't want to see even one soul lost.

McCulloch wrote:This objection assumes what is yet to be proven. If you assume that homosexuality is a sin, then your argument would be valid, but the OP implies that homosexuality should not be a sin because there is no victim. If it is not a sin, then there is no harm in persuading others to be tolerant of it.

Sounds like circular reasoning to me. IMO it's the OP's assumption that is flawed, because it's assuming a position contrary to scripture and traditional American values.

Easyrider wrote:Third (IMO), most homosexuals distort the scriptures in some fashion or another in order to try to justify their sin. The distort who Jesus is (saying he's not God so he never spoke out against gay sex sin); they make lengthly arguments against Leviticus, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc. Generally speaking, they attack the Word of God and thus attack God himself.

McCulloch wrote:Good point. I have never really understood why homosexuals, feminists or democrats would want to be associated with Biblical Christianity.

That's why you don't see much about the "Religious Left." They prefer their own man-made religion of political correctness.

Easyrider wrote:Fourth: Sin is a reproach to individuals and nations and brings God's disfavor on men and nations. Read Deuteronomy chapter 28 to see the curses of disobedience.

McCulloch wrote:Begging the question again. If homosexuality was not a sin, then there would be no reproach to speak of.

Big "if" there. The problem with their cause is that there's not one gay relationship in the Bible that's presented in a favorable light, or approved by God. No gay marriages, no mention of God-approved gay unions, or anything like that.

Easyrider wrote:Fifth, many in the pro-gay movement attack those who hold traditional Biblical positions when we stand up for the truth of God's Word. We're often called bigots, homophobes, and all manner of names because we disagree with their stance.

McCulloch wrote:Perhaps it is because your anti homosexual agenda is based only on your faith in the Bible as God's word.

And their pro-gay agenda is based on what? At least our side has the Word of God on its side, and a long tradition in American history.

McCulloch wrote: Isn't it hypocritical to try to force legislation against homosexuals but not sabbath keeping?

Is voting "forcing"? It's the way of our laws and Constitution. Apparently the Founding Fathers didn't think such voting was wrong. As for the Sabbath, there's also "The Lord's Day" (Sunday) to consider in the discussion and what the Sabbath ultimately represents (read Hebrews chapter 4).

Easyrider wrote:Sixth, many push their ungodly agenda into every corner of America. Suing the Boy Scouts and anyone else who disagrees with them, causing many to incur hefty legal expenses. They try and sometimes succeed in pushing their gay agenda in elementary schools and elsewhere where it doesn't belong. Eight year old children shouldn't have to hear that Billy's daddy is, in effect, doing another guy, or that it's ok to do it. I don't think we really need to know which way people perform sex acts.

McCulloch wrote:Personally, I approve of open education about sexual issues. Why does a discussion about toleration of the sexual choices made by consenting adults not belong in an elementary classroom?

If you want to be objective about that, then teach all about the health issues that arise from same-sex bahavior as well - the shortened life-span of gay males; the diseases, the number of gays who died from AIDS, gay on gay violence; how homosexual sin has been viewed by the Founding Fathers, including Jefferson, and so on. But don't sugar-coat it and try to pass it off as some innocuous, healthy life style.

Easyrider wrote:Seventh: They (and heterosexual sinners) cost taxpayers untold billions in unnecessary health care costs to treat AIDS and other diseases derived from irresponsible sexual behavior. There's also the cost of missed productivity to employers. It costs us all money out of our pockets.

McCulloch wrote:Fine, then campaign against promiscuity not homosexuality.

Sorry, it's not "either / or," but both.

Easyrider wrote:And eighth: They refuse to repent of it, making their own salvation and those who they lead astray a serious question mark.

McCulloch wrote:You again assume that it is a sin, in order to show that it is a sin.

It's not my creation. It's what the Bible teaches. I'm not prepared to throw out the Bible just because some don't like what it says.

McCulloch wrote:I'm so glad that there is more, because those arguments are all duds.

You couldn't prove that by what you just presented.

easyrider, you may have conveniently avoided the issue of nationalism and pride that mcculloch brought up.

I will add, in sum, although I agree with some things you've said, your arguments were indeed duds. Your defense "Sounds like circular reasoning to me" is completely unfounded. Even though I disagree with Mcculloch's views I did recognize that his reasoning was not circular. Think about it. There's no use in talking to you any longer about the matter, if you're being blatantly unreasonable.

Mark_W wrote:easyrider, you may have conveniently avoided the issue of nationalism and pride that mcculloch brought up.

Even if he's right, he's trying to then justify one bad behavior by citing a separate example. That doesn't excuse the first.

Mark_W wrote:
I will add, in sum, although I agree with some things you've said, your arguments were indeed duds. Your defense "Sounds like circular reasoning to me" is completely unfounded. Even though I disagree with Mcculloch's views I did recognize that his reasoning was not circular. Think about it. There's no use in talking to you any longer about the matter, if you're being blatantly unreasonable.

Gay sex is a sin, Mark. The Bible seems pretty clear on that. You either are for God and his Word or you're fighting against him. Choose this day whom you will serve.

did I say it wasn't a sin? Go back and read what I wrote. I'd love to talk with you if you're willing to be reasonable.

McCulloch wrote:"I have never really understood why homosexuals, feminists or democrats would want to be associated with Biblical Christianity."

What a horrible insult for ANYONE to utter in a forum like this, let alone for a "moderator" !
I am so flabbergasted by the enormity of the ignorance betrayed by this statement that I'm not going to try to answer it.

Rayosun wrote:

McCulloch wrote:"I have never really understood why homosexuals, feminists or democrats would want to be associated with Biblical Christianity."

What a horrible insult for ANYONE to utter in a forum like this, let alone for a "moderator" !
I am so flabbergasted by the enormity of the ignorance betrayed by this statement that I'm not going to try to answer it.

I also wonder why homosexuals and feminists would associate with Biblical Christianity. I also don't see how it is an insult. Democrats do it to pander to the religious.

Why is the above an insult but the comments made by Easy fine? I am not even gay and what Easy said was revolting to me.

Back on topic:

The pro-gay movement flaunts it in our faces and tries to legitimize it.

If people try to legislate against Christians aren't you going to join a pro-Christian movement? Does that mean the Christian movement would not be legitimate? Are you jealous?

Second, most homosexuals I've encountered who claim to be Christian try to persuade others it's not a sin, leading many into perdition.

In other words, your interpretation of the bible is right and theirs is wrong. What makes you better at interpreting the bible?

Third (IMO), most homosexuals distort the scriptures in some fashion or another in order to try to justify their sin.

They could say the same about you. What can help me to tell who is right?

Fourth: Sin is a reproach to individuals and nations and brings God's disfavor on men and nations.

Were you the one holding that, "God Hates Fags" sign on TV? Is God going to punish us for your sins? Looks like you are causing just as much disfavor from God by judging other people. If this were true then why are there Islamic nations?

We're often called bigots, homophobes, and all manner of names because we disagree with their stance.

If you act like a bigot don't be surprised when you are called one. I also disagree with their position but have never been called a bigot. Perhaps it is not your message but the way you deliver that message.

Eight year old children shouldn't have to hear that Billy's daddy is, in effect, doing another guy, or that it's ok to do it.

I have not heard of any school indorsing any sex act. Can you give me an example? What do you think is a good age to tell children about sex?

They (and heterosexual sinners) cost taxpayers untold billions in unnecessary health care costs to treat AIDS and other diseases derived from irresponsible sexual behavior.

Then your for gay marriage.