Homosexuality

[razovor]

I was wondering if anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, could tell me what is wrong with it.

I'm talking in the sense of utilitarian morals. How does homosexual intercourse, or homosexual marriage, increase the suffering in the world?

[Justin108]

If not utiliarian morals, then by what moral system does god decide his commandments?

If his rules are merely arbitrarily, then they can't be considered moral. They have to achieve good in the world, or they're not worth following.

Perhaps avoiding sin does improve your relation with god, but that only benefits yourself. If god's commandments don't promote good, then Christians are selfish to follow them.

In addition, if sin is not genuinely something bad, If it's just an arbitrarily rule, then god is being cruel to deny a relationship to those who sin, because they've done nothing wrong.

I think if you look at the Bible, it is pretty clear that God's morals are deontological . The 10 commandments for example are clearly set-out rules. From a utilitarian perspective, what logic would there be for not keeping the Sabbath holy?

The best example of God's deontology is found in the first book of Genesis. The only commandment given to man was to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. But why? What outcome would be so horrid that that would be the single greatest sin for man kind? Looking at what Adam and Eve went through after committing the sin; all the negative outcomes was a direct act of God. He punished them for disobeying a senseless law. The only thing that came from the tree was knowledge. What harm was there in that in the context of Genesis? What would have happened had Adam and Eve lived in the garden with knowledge? The very fact that God placed the tree there suggests it was meant as temptation. If God merely wanted Adam and Eve not to disobey for utilitarian reasons he would never have placed the tree in the garden.

[dusk]

Well as far as Sabbath goes. It is definitely a good thing to have some sort of weekend or break. It obviously doesn't have to be saturday or every 7th day. That is all pretty arbitrary but some break should be, some free time of not doing work in our tedious specialized work economy.
Most cultures adopted some such day.
It is also entirely arbitrary what day exactly sabbath is. After all we could start our weeks any other day. We don't renew them at day 0 each year which means they cycle through rather weirdly. No harmony in the system. Somebody (probably some kings) said 7 is a great number and they just started counting.

Genesis as well as the commandments relating to the ONE god which the bible says are the most important are obviously such rather arbitrary from god ones.

[99percentatheism]

I was wondering if anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, could tell me what is wrong with it.

I'm talking in the sense of utilitarian morals. How does homosexual intercourse, or homosexual marriage, increase the suffering in the world?

Predatory encounters.

Since homosexuality is inherent in only a miniscule fraction of the animal populace, it stands to reason that the person with the psychologically-based homosexual drive in humans, will have to find sexual release in the vast numbers of non homosexual people. Until of course they somehow find a like-minded homosexual human that they might find sexually attractive.

Take for example a female homosexual gazelle. That intrinsically disordered individual gazelle (per the Darwinian evolutionary model) can only find sexual release with same gendered but NON homosexual gazelles. Now, in nature, there is no anti-bullying laws that would force the non-homosexual gazelles to support the desires of the homosexual gazelle.

In the human species, the prevelance of deception, coersion and deceit, to achieve sexual release is a reality. So, in essence, to "support" homosexuality," would be to legitimize seduction and deception, and'or to agree to allow lying and manipulation to be seen as something equal to ethical morality.

Unless of course, like the homosexual gazelle (to protect the vast majority population of gazelles), the focus is on identification, seperation and isolation - which of course Darwinian evolution implements - of like-conditioned individuals.

[connermt]

I was wondering if anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, could tell me what is wrong with it.

I'm talking in the sense of utilitarian morals. How does homosexual intercourse, or homosexual marriage, increase the suffering in the world?

Anything the righteous disagree with they can consider "sin". To wit, many act on the same desires they call sinful (hypocritical). As society evolves, so does religious "correctedness". I remember when many considered the following sinful: men with long hair, women with short hair, women wearing pants, playing cards, listening to rock music, dancing, drinking, inter-racial marriage....I even remember my parents telling me about mental illness and being left handed as being "of the devil".
So, in fact, most anything can be considered a "sin".

Morality is largely individualized, so what one considers moral/immoral is up to them.

Gay marriage would do no more damage than inter-racial marriage has done. Further, marriage has become a 'disaster' in recent years (40%-50% divorce rate depending on the poll referenced) with no interaction of gay couples. Or in other words: straights have jacked it up enough on their own.

The reason so many religious people are anti-gay, from my experience, is typically:
1) protesting against their own feelings
2) fear bred from ignorance
3) they're told to and/or
4) they think it's "gross".

All of those reason are individualized and thus, are the cross of the individual to deal with, not society.
Two guys/girls marrying each other has no more negative impact on others than a man and woman getting married.
Two guys/girls having sex with each other has no more negative impact on others than a man and woman having sex with each other.

[otseng]

Predatory encounters.

Moderator Comment

You'll need to be more careful in your word choice and potential blanket accusations against an entire group.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[Mr. LongView]

Not religious but...

Sex can cause suffering in the world.

Desire is a double edged sword.

Some good, some bad...

[preacher]

@ex-mormon:
I think there's a slight interpretation about homosexuality in bible. you're saying that homosexuality in the bible refers to something other than man having sexual intercourse with other man. is this correct? but rather, they're referring to temple prostitution and child abuse?

[ndf8th]

I think a good answer come from research that Jon Haidt does
http://www.moralfoundations.org/

4) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
5) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
6) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

The way the Bible set up what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of God
can be explained by these examples above.

Homosexuality is seen as a breach of God's authority.
The Bible see such acts as breach of loyalty and betrayal
of the norms of the convenant? and the gut feeling most likely come from
the feeling of disgust.

This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination.

It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated,
less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea
that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities
and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

What food you eat is also regulated. To not work on the Sabbath.
How to treat a neighbor and so on. God is seen as a god of order.
So they listed all those rules and homosexual acts are one of the many rules.

One can see it as a kind of price they pay for to be part of that particular group.

Other groups had other norms and rules.

[Choir Loft]

Which words Paul used is interesting. Because nothing had to do at "natural" and "unnatural" with nature. But with the "nature" concerned to a person. To use your example: For a left-handed person it is unnatural to do something with the right hand; not however for a right-handed person.

Sure but it is utilitarian secular laws that are discussed in the public discourse and saying it is JUST bad no reason given is not going to work. So they have to come up with something for why it is justified to discriminated against gays simply because they think god wants them too, without looking like twisted hypocritical a-holes.
The Nazis and British also had all kinds of weird arguments for why black people are supposed to be below us, do not deserver the same rights as we grant white people and so on.
I think the natural or unnatural the Christians bring up because they somehow believe that makes it a good argument in a secular universe or one that non Christians would respond to. Certainly all those that had funny race arguments like these kind.

The bible and Jesus simply wanted Children to be born to people that give something about them and provide for them. Lacking any contraception they banned all extramartial activities from act and though. So orgies also got under the hammer and to really quench it completely they argued also against all sorts of just for fun stuff, even just dressing the wrong way. It got a little out of hand and just like with computer tutorial because they don't give proper reasons nobody really gets what it is that is important. I think the Bible is a really poor attempt on communicating timeless ideas.

You have taken liberties with your interpretations of scripture that are not present in the pages of the Bible. In fact, the points you make aren't even suggested or hinted at.

You did a nice job of justifying wickedness, though. Adultery, fornication, cheating, lying, robbing and even murder are probably ok in your book.

The Bible is very clear. Homosexuality is forbidden. Adultery is forbidden as well as all the excesses of the flesh you listed. The Bible also says something else;

Rejoice, O young man, in your youth; and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth, and walk in the ways of your heart, and in the sight of your eyes: but know you, that for all these things God will bring you into judgment.
- Ecclesiastes 11:9

I'm not discussing human standards here, but God's. If you wish to justify your position according to the ways of man, then feel free to do so. I'm sure you will get adequate applause. If you wish to learn what God's standards are and what He expects of you, then read the Bible.

He who reads the Word of God with his eyes crossed soon discovers he can see nothing at all.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[mood2]

I think a good answer come from research that Jon Haidt does
http://www.moralfoundations.org/

4) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
5) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
6) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

The way the Bible set up what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of God
can be explained by these examples above.

Homosexuality is seen as a breach of God's authority.
The Bible see such acts as breach of loyalty and betrayal
of the norms of the convenant?

But the OP question is asking what's the moral basis for making such a rule in the first place

and the gut feeling most likely come from
the feeling of disgust.

This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination.

It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated,
less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea
that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities
and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

What food you eat is also regulated. To not work on the Sabbath.
How to treat a neighbor and so on. God is seen as a god of order.
So they listed all those rules and homosexual acts are one of the many rules.

I think you might be right about the human origins of homophobia being partly rooted in disgust, though obviously gay sex isn't disgusting to gay people! However, from a utilitarian view of morality disgust is irrelevant in this case, where-as we can see it may have had some value with regard to certain potentially harmful foods.

One can see it as a kind of price they pay for to be part of that particular group.

Other groups had other norms and rules.

Perhaps so, but that doesn't make it morally right, or even useful.