Homosexuality

Daystar · Post by **Daystar** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:03 am

Italy's nominee to become the European Union's Justice and Home Affairs commissioner failed on Monday to win the backing of the European Parliament's Justice Committee, days after testifying that he considers homosexuality a sin.

The panel narrowly failed to endorse Rocco Buttiglione, who is currently Italy's European Affairs minister, said Jean-Louis Bourlanges, chairman of the Justice Committee.

Buttiglione said that he would fight for the rights of homosexuals, but would not back away from his statement that the lifestyle is sinful.

Isn't this the way it should be? Fight for the rights of homosexuals, but individuals, but define their lifestyle as sinful (Lev. 18:22).

chrispalasz · Post by **chrispalasz** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:22 pm

Tigerlilly: A. Homosexuality is abnormal, but it's not uncommon. There are myriad cultures and countries around the world that accept it, and there are many cultures which completely reverse/share gender roles and marriage, and those societies do not collapse. It's very common.

There are also cannibalistic societies and cultures. That's both abnormal and uncommon. I don't agree that homosexuality is not uncommon.

Homosexuality is common among humans, but it's abnormal behavior in that it deviates from the norm. It's a really odd concept, according to Anthropological studies. IT explains it in greater detail than I can in this college text:

Tigerlilly: B. Yes, commiting suicide is natural, but not normal. Having sex with your children is natural, but abnormal. It's even done in the Bible. People get the father drunk and have sex with him.

Please, name something that fits your definition of unnatural for me. I'm at a loss to find a true example of "unnatural". I know that having sex with your children is done in the Bible. It is sinful, just like homosexuality, which is spoken of being done in the Bible. Many sins are committed by people in the Bible. It is still wrong, and the Bible says that.

Tigerlilly: C. The difference between having sex with other animals and having sex with young children is that two homosexuals are conscenting, and they and they are old enough to give conscent. They are harming no one else physically. Pedaefiles and such are actually violating the rights of other people and harming them. That's why it's wrong.

I hold that homosexuals are harming themselves mentally - and they are also putting themselves at a greater risk for physical harm.

The age of adulthood is chosen arbitrarily at 18. It could be 14, as it has been in history.

You simply can't justify homosexuality without unwittingly justifying beastiality, incest and pedaophelia too. That's where this discussion is going, once again. All four are wrong.

Tigerlilly · Post by **Tigerlilly** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:44 pm

I believe homosexuality most definitely does harm. It does the same amount of harm as any sin does when it is practiced, loved, and accepted.

Ok. Now we cannot assume this is true. We have to have credible scientific proof and statistics that it does harm. Do you have any of these? The primary position of the AAA and the APA is that it does no harm.

under the definition that you presume - please give me an example of something that is unnatural. You won't find much, if you're using the definition you assumed.

Dogs who can sing soprano
Cats that are born with wings
Sheep that give birth to lions
Humans giving birth to kittens

etc. THere are lots of things that are unnatural.

There are also cannibalistic societies and cultures. That's both abnormal and uncommon. I don't agree that homosexuality is not uncommon.

Uncommon means rare.
Abnormal means deviant from a norm, or a social norm. Since cultural relativism is a well-known fact, the idea t hat some are cannibalistic or homosexual tolerant does not even realy make it abnormal. I was wrong. It's abnormal according to our particular culture, but not according to another.

As for being uncommon, if millions of people do it in many cultures, it can't be uncommon, it's just abnornmal to our society.

Please, name something that fits your definition of unnatural for me. I'm at a loss to find a true example of "unnatural".

That which does not occure in nature is unnatural. I have yet to see a bird that gives birth to a mammal, or a cat that has gills. To me, that's unnatural, and impossible.

I know that having sex with your children is done in the Bible. It is sinful, just like homosexuality,

how is it sinfull, when God encouraged it? They didn't do it on their own. GOd told them to. God also ordered people to have sex with members of their extended families. It's ok when God tells you to do it, but not when you want to do it, it seems.

I hold that homosexuals are harming themselves mentally - and they are also putting themselves at a greater risk for physical harm.

Prove that they are harming themselves mentally. Are there any credible studies and statistics? If not, we are not allowed to make that assumption. The American Psychological Association would disagree with you here. They state it does nothing wrong.

The fact that they are putting themselves at greater risk for harm is not their fault or their problem. THe problem and fault rests squarely on the shoulders of those who would violate their rights and do them harm because they are different. I believe that is the greater moral concern. By blaming homosexuals for being beaten up on, you might as well blame girlfriends/wives who get abused by their husbands.

The age of adulthood is chosen arbitrarily at 18. It could be 14, as it has been in history.

Yes. It is fairly arbitrary. In Mass I think the legal age for sex is 16 for males. I think it should be when one has reasonably achieved adulthood, which is about 17/18.

You simply can't justify homosexuality without unwittingly justifying beastiality, incest and pedaophelia too. That's where this discussion is going, once again. All four are wrong.

I believe you can seperate them quite easily. Homosexuality is far different from Pedaophelia, incest, and beastiality and here are the reasons why:

1. Autonomy and Rights: if one engages in pedaophelia, one is most certaily taking advantage of one who is underrage, and not capable of giving concent, making the encounter ok. If one engages in such behavior, one is ignoring the basic rights of the child/individual as well as ignoring that person's autonomy.

That person is also not developled and under the care of others, so those people, up untill adulthood, are responsible for that child, and they should have a say over whom with that child can have relations, especially of such a dangerous kind.

I won't get into how much emotional damage pedaophelia does to children, because I don't have the statistics with me now, but I can guess that being molested by an adult you don't want is problematic.

2. In terms of beastiality, the animal with whom you are having sexual relations is not autonomous or rational, and it does not have the power to give concent, therefore it is wrong to force yourself upon that animal, much like it would be wrong to force yourself on a small child who does not have the ability or the right to give conscent. The animal cannot speak for itself, and there can be no legal arrangement because of that. It's also not Human, which means further that it can say/do nothing to support/avoid the arrangement.

I won't say that it's unnatural, but even if it were, it wouldn't make it wrong, since according to Hume's Law, one can never get an ought statement from an IS set of premises. IT's the naturalistic fallacy. Natural does not imply moral or immoral.

3. Incest is bad for the sole reason that if it is allowed through a few generations, it will result in genetic deformiteds, pain, and suffereing, as well as various forms of mental illness.

Homosexuality does none of these. It doesn't lead to mental illness, diseases (sexual) are transmitted primarily by heterosexual encounters. In fact, AIDS is spread primarily by at suffered by heterosexual males, but women are comming in quite quickly. THe most problematic cause of disease spread isn't homosexuality, but imporper contraceptive use and education. Sub-saharan africa is the biggest culprit, alongside drug addicts, prostitutes etc. Homosexual behavior does not lead to violating the rights/autonomy of anyone else. They are engaging in a personal activity comprising mututal conscent, which is really none of anyone else's business. They aren't harming others. No one has a right over any one elses body, and they no one has the right to discriminate against people based on such superficial reasoning.

Gaunt · Post by **Gaunt** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:37 pm

GreenLight311 wrote:You won't find much, if you're using the definition you assumed.

You are likely correct, however, I do not believe that "natural" or "unnatural" are necessarily equivalent to "good" and "evil" respectively either. Marijuana and tobacco are "natural" and yet are harmful. Most technology, and societal customs could be consided "unnatural" and yet are good. I do not think is is appropriate to put undue significance on whether or not something is "natural" or not, with regards to whether that thing/action/whatever should be condemned.

GreenLight311 wrote: It does the same amount of harm as any sin does when it is practiced, loved, and accepted.

I disagree with this phrasing. It seems to me, from that website you've linked, that sin, along with Everything Else, does harm when it is taken to an extreme. Heterosexuality is also harmful when taken to an extreme, so you'll have to find a better line of reasoning for why homosexuality is to be condemned. Extremes do not necessarily reflect the median.

GreenLight311 wrote:You simply can't justify homosexuality without unwittingly justifying beastiality, incest and pedaophelia too.

Sure you can. One involves the consent of two legal adults. the others involve no consent on the side of one of the parties involved. There is a BIG difference, legally speaking.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:20 pm

I will address the points by quoting from you and the webpage, Greenlight.

GreenLight311 wrote: Here are some risks of homosexuality, provided by this website:
http://www.porn-free.org/homosexual_consequences.htm
Physical sickness:

Physical sickness: The Apostle Paul mentioned a “due penalty” that people received for practicing homosexual acts (Romans 1:27). It is possible that such a penalty could be a physical ailment such as AIDS, Human Herpes Virus 8 (exclusive to male homosexuals), Karposi’s Sarcoma (cancer) or some other sexually-related illness. Another less-publicized problem is the “Gay Bowel” Syndrome, which results from repeated anal intercourse. This is where the sphincter muscle in the anus loses its elasticity and can no longer close.

Again a fixation with male homosexuals. Female homosexuals are one of the groups that are least likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease. This argument also isn't against homosexuality, but specifically an act associated with homosexuality, but which can still be performed by heterosexuals, which is sodomy.

AIDS and herpes can be protected against fairly well - and does not in itself make homosexuality "harmful", but simply risky - and "gay bowel" syndrome is actually mislabeled. "Gay bowel" is the antiquated name for a parasitic disease, not exclusive to the gay community, contracted from oral-anal acts. I have searched for information on the sphincter losing its elasticity, and though some sites state that anal sex strengthens the sphincter, most seem to say that anal incontinence is possible, though extraordinarily rare. However, saying sodomy is wrong because it leads to anal incontinence is like saying eating is wrong because it leads to gluttony. Anything done to excess is harmful.

Emotional confusion:

Emotional confusion: Paul linked “futile” thinking, “darkened” hearts and “depraved” minds to homosexual activity in Romans 1:21-22,28.

Okay, prove that liking one sex better than another, or placing one's sexual organ in a slightly different place, creates "darkened hearts" and "depraved minds".

Spiritual confusion:

Spiritual confusion: Paul described this as exchanging the truth of God for a lie, which was evident both in the Romans’ idol worship and homosexual practice. The rejection of truth opens doors to every form of evil, including greed, envy, murder, strife, malice, gossip, slander, hatred, hatred of God, insolence, arrogance and rebellion (Romans 1:25,29-31).

Again, as above, I would like to see this slippery slope proven. The "rejection of truth" effects would also hold true for anyone not a Christian.

Consumption by lust:

I feel this is clear enough that I don't need to quote your webpage. But how can simply liking the same sex automatically result in "consumption by lust"? Why doesn't liking the opposite sex result in the same thing?

Lack of peace:

The website only quotes a bible verse but doesn't explain anymore. That verse is Isaiah 48:22, which states compellingly, "There is no peace unto the wicked". Then the chapter concludes. They have certainly convinced me.

And there are a slew of other reasons:
http://www.porn-free.org/consequences.htm

You are right, most are Christian reasons, and the ones that are not have already been dealt with, so I will not go into them again.

Tigerlilly · Post by **Tigerlilly** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:30 pm

Again a fixation with male homosexuals. Female homosexuals are one of the groups that are least likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease.

One problem is that the majority of people with AIDS aren't homosexual at all. It's a very small number. THe reason why males get it is related to contraceptive inefficieny and non-use.

This argument also isn't against homosexuality, but specifically an act associated with homosexuality, but which can still be performed by heterosexuals, which is sodomy.

What does sodomy really have to do with it, though. You can get the disease through normal sex as well. The problem is the same either way.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:54 pm

Tigerlilly wrote:
Again a fixation with male homosexuals. Female homosexuals are one of the groups that are least likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease.
One problem is that the majority of people with AIDS aren't homosexual at all. It's a very small number. THe reason why males get it is related to contraceptive inefficieny and non-use.

True, but AIDS is more prevalent amongst male homosexuals (and people from certain parts of Africa) then any other group. This should be acknowledged, but it should not be a strong argument for the "harm" that comes from homosexuality.

This argument also isn't against homosexuality, but specifically an act associated with homosexuality, but which can still be performed by heterosexuals, which is sodomy.
What does sodomy really have to do with it, though. You can get the disease through normal sex as well. The problem is the same either way.

True also, except when we are talking about losing the elasticity of the anus, but anal penetration does still have a slightly increased risk of contracting a disease due to the sensitivity of that particular area and the possibility of it being torn to bleed.

But, to clarify, what I was thinking when I wrote this was that male homosexuals do not need to have sex, and if they refrain from doing so they are still homosexuals. That is to say, the argument isn't against homosexuality, it is against a homosexual act that doesn't need to be done, even in a homosexual relationship. Thus its relevance to the question "what harm is it to be homosexual" is minimal.

chrispalasz · Post by **chrispalasz** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:58 am

Corvus: But, to clarify, what I was thinking when I wrote this was that male homosexuals do not need to have sex, and if they refrain from doing so they are still homosexuals. That is to say, the argument isn't against homosexuality, it is against a homosexual act that doesn't need to be done, even in a homosexual relationship. Thus its relevance to the question "what harm is it to be homosexual" is minimal.

Well, if the discussion is whether or not homosexuality is wrong (if the homosexual is not acting on it), then there's no need for me to discuss it, really.

I'm a sinner... but I'm not acting on it.

As a Christian, I believe that even looking at a woman in lust (who is not your wife) is sin - as it is said according to the Bible and Jesus Christ. I will simply say what is wrong and rely on God to convict people of the Truth.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:16 am

GreenLight311 wrote:
Corvus: But, to clarify, what I was thinking when I wrote this was that male homosexuals do not need to have sex, and if they refrain from doing so they are still homosexuals. That is to say, the argument isn't against homosexuality, it is against a homosexual act that doesn't need to be done, even in a homosexual relationship. Thus its relevance to the question "what harm is it to be homosexual" is minimal.
Well, if the discussion is whether or not homosexuality is wrong (if the homosexual is not acting on it), then there's no need for me to discuss it, really.

I'm a sinner... but I'm not acting on it.

Yes, but the current course of the conversation is on the harm of being homosexual; i.e. liking the same sex. Male-to-male sodomy is just one example of sexual interaction between homosexuals. A good clean anal rogering, done in moderation, harms no one, but if we are to take the position that this is hamful because it's risky, other avenues are open for the male homosexual, like mutual masturbation. And, as stated before, lesbians suffer very little in the way of STDS, so your statement that homosexuality is harmful because of it is erroneous.

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:47 am

GreenLight311 wrote:[
You simply can't justify homosexuality without unwittingly justifying beastiality, incest and pedaophelia too. That's where this discussion is going, once again. All four are wrong.

Another slippery slope fallacy GL.

How does justifying homosexual behaviour in any way sanction bestiality, incest or paedophilia?

Amphigorey · Post by **Amphigorey** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:01 am

You simply can't justify homosexuality without unwittingly justifying beastiality, incest and pedaophelia too. That's where this discussion is going, once again. All four are wrong.

Sir, homosexuality is unrelated to beastiality, incest, pedophelia, theft etc. Claiming that the justification of the former requires justification of the latter is as illogical as claiming because Mayan religious practice included human sacrifice that we should outlaw Christianity because "everyone knows" religious practice leads to human sacrifice.

I hold that homosexuals are harming themselves mentally - and they are also putting themselves at a greater risk for physical harm.

Sex between members of the same sex is no more "harmful" than sex between members of opposite sexes. The trasmission of STDs may be a real world possibility, but it is not inherent to any sexual act and in any case transmission is an equal possibility regardless of the participant's genders. If you consider the hazards of childbirth, one could easily argue that homosexual sex is the less hazardous option.

Homosexuality is common among humans, but it's abnormal behavior in that it deviates from the norm.

Statistical frequency is no justification for bigotry and prejudice. You may as well burn people at the stake for their hair color or skin color. And, yes, burning people alive is where the term "faggot" comes from.