homosexuality is NOT a sin

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

icetiger300
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:55 pm

homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #1

Post by icetiger300 »

Hello, homosexuality and same sex marriage is not condemned and here's why.

These are not 100% accurate translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, they've been taken them out of their Scriptural and cultural context.

So, let"s put them back, and have a look"

Because they are basically repeating, I will just deal with the non murderous verse Leviticus 18:22.

That chapter starts off with God telling Moses to tell the Israelites to "not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."

It then goes on listing many various incestual restrictions, and then it tells not to have sex with a woman when she is having her period, then it tells not to have sex with your neighbors wife.

Then it takes a completely different turn, and tells not to give any of your children to be sacrificed to the Pagan god Molek.

After that, the restrictions of a mankind with mankind and sex with animals come in.

The reason for that is because back then in the culture God was referring to, the Pagans would start off their fertility ritual with a child sacrifice. What would follow was an orgy, where the women, but most of all the men, would have sex with anything and anybody. But they were very careful to do it in a way that would not impregnate anyone, that was only for the woman they were married to. So, they would have sex with animals and anal sex with Galli priests, and temple prostitutes.

They fully believed that what they were doing pleased their gods and goddesses. They believed that it would bring all forms of fertility to them and their land, but they were not homosexuals sexuality expressing their love and attraction for one another, the vast majority of them were not even homosexuals.

However, if you chose to ignore all of that, it is a fact that those two verses were only referring to men, and that means they could not refer to any and all homosexual sex for any reason.

One must factor in the cultural and Scriptural context. The Jews of that time, and in that culture did not know that a woman had a egg. They thought the the man's seed was like the seed of a plant, and the woman was (Like an incubator) just to be implanted with their seed. They also held increasing their numbers to the utmost importance. There are a few reasons for that, but the most crucial, was because they wanted to make their religion more dominant.

So, their reasons were based on their biological ignorance, and for the most part selfishness.

Given their belief they viewed any use of a man's seed other than for the attempt at procreation to be anything from uncleanliness, all the way up to murder.

Given this, it's not surprising that that would have an issue with a man having sex for any reason other than to procreate. However, if you take all of that into consideration, and the fact that they were coming into contact with cultures that embraced things like pederasty, and Pagan fertility orgies. It would be no surprise to see a lot of parts in the Old Testament (Torah) that strictly forbade men having any kind of sex other than sex to procreate.

But, in fact there are only 2 out of 23,145 verses in the Old Testament (Torah) that some state have to do with it directly forbidding men having sex with men. And, as I have pointed out, it is clearly backed up by the Scriptural and cultural context, that it was not any and all homosexual sex that was being condemned.

It is paganism.

I forgot to add this regarding Leviticus chapter 20...

If the focus of that murderous chapter was not surrounding Pagan idolatry, why would it start off with this?...

(Leviticus 20:1-5)

The Lord said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites: "Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.A279;

With Romans:26-28 it is actually right there in the context of the scriptures that Paul was not referring to homosexuals. I think you would agree that just because someone engages in homosexual sex does not mean they are a hoimosexual.

Here is the context...

"Because of this, God gave them over"

Because of what? Here is what...

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God"s invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"who is forever praised. Amen.

Now that is not Paul reffering to homosexuals, those people were Pagans engaging in idolatrous sex orgies.

Again...

The reason for that is because back then in the culture Paul was referring to, the Pagans would occasionally start off their fertility ritual with a child sacrifice. What would follow was an orgy, where the women, but most of all the men, would have sex with anything and anybody. But they were very careful to do it in a way that would not impregnate anyone, that was only for the woman they were married to. So, they would have sex with animals and anal sex with Galli priests, and temple prostitutes.

They fully believed that what they were doing pleased their gods and goddesses. They believed that it would bring all forms of fertility to them and their land, but they were not homosexuals sexuality expressing their love and attraction for one another, the vast majority of them were not even homosexuals.

The fact is that there was never any Greek or Hebrew words that were used in refrance to homosexuality used anywhere in the Scriptures, and there were words that would have left to question as to what the writer was reffering to. It is humans that have been equating aspects of Paganism with homosexuality, not the writers of the Scriptures or God. This is nothing new, things like this have been going on for as long as the Scriptures have existed.


Oh yeah. about "Sodom and Gomorrah".

Why is it that some of you have equated an angry mob threatening to gang rape some strangers in their city with homosexuality? Are you aware of the fact that not one Jew/Hebrew/Israelite in almost 4000 years ever taught that? They have always taught that the people of "Sodom" treated strangers and the needy sadistically at times, there are horrible stories regarding this in their teachings. Are you also aware of the fact that there is not one living Biblical Scholar that believes that homosexuality was the reason for their destruction? Even the Scriptures where Jesus and God describe the reasons, it was not due to homosexuality.

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus Christ condemns specific towns which reject His disciples to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Matthew 10:14 "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

Matthew 11:23 "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

These passages from Jesus show that hospitality was seen as a quality of righteousness in the ancient world.

Any city that proved inhospitable, was condemned to the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of the plain indeed treated visitors with cruelty, brutality, and viciousness.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 is a unique passage in that God Himself talks of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

This passage confirms the above allegations concerning Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of the plain were "overfed", indicating a wealth and abundance of food and resources.

They were "unconcerned", as Isaiah and Jeremiah both pointed to their arrogance, and "haughty and did detestable things", demonstrated in their treatment of the young girls and their treatment of God's angels.

They also refused to help the needy and the poor, an indication of the selfishness of the people.

If it would not have been for the intercession of the angels, Lot might have been counted amongst the Sodomites victims. And, the Angles would have most likely been killed.

I hope that clears up your confusion, and that you stop spreading lies and distortions that have caused nothing but harm and death to multi-millions of God's children and in His name worst of all.

Correct if I'm wrong christians.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #81

Post by marco »

RightReason wrote:
So far you simply keep repeating we aren’t allowed to discuss it.
I believe you misunderstand my position. We are allowed to discuss the improprieties in bestiality if that is what is on the menu. It is wrong to pretend to discuss homosexuality, taking bestiality as an analogy. Entering this discussion is to accept a wrong premise: Homosexuality is perverse. It is like bestiality. I do not accept this, so there's no further point in labouring bestiality to demean homosexuals.

When a lawyer asks the accused: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" the accused cannot win whatever he answers. When I spoke simply of two people living together you think it is wrong. The reason: Because it is! Your arguments point out that it is different; it is not what is usually done - but so what? Nothing you say brands it as wrong. So you have failed to make a case against homosexuality but if we ever discuss why bestiality is wrong, then you'll be on much stronger ground.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #82

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 81 by marco]
I believe you misunderstand my position. We are allowed to discuss the improprieties in bestiality if that is what is on the menu. It is wrong to pretend to discuss homosexuality, taking bestiality as an analogy.
No, it isn’t and that is what I continue to explain. You don’t like the analogy – I get it. But to say it is wrong to discuss bestiality with homosexual acts is wrong is, I am afraid, merely your opinion and assumption. I, OTOH, have provided the reasoning in doing so.
Entering this discussion is to accept a wrong premise: Homosexuality is perverse. It is like bestiality. I do not accept this, so there's no further point in labouring bestiality to demean homosexuals.
But that isn’t my premise. I am not starting with the premise, homosexual acts are perverse. I am saying IF we deem bestiality as perverse, then it would follow to conclude homosexual acts as perverse, because I demonstrated the same reasons/rationale we use to determine bestiality is perverse, is the very same reasons/rationale we can use to determine homosexual acts are perverse. It is an appeal to biology, science, form, shape, function, consequences, “harm done�, man and man’s relationship with the world he lives in, and reason, and logic.

[qote]When a lawyer asks the accused: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" the accused cannot win whatever he answers. When I spoke simply of two people living together you think it is wrong. The reason: Because it is![/quote]

Uuum . . . I think you have that backwards . . . my reason is not or never – because it is. That seems to be however your premise regarding homosexual acts or the insistence that one cannot compare homosexual acts with bestiality. I, OTOH provide support of my reasoning.

I have no desire to continue to beat a dead horse, but your position on this topic seems to keep coming back to life (at least in your head). O:)

I should get going . . . gearing up for the Super Bowl here in Philly -- Fly Eagles Fly!

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7139
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1268 times
Been thanked: 1499 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #83

Post by Tcg »

[Replying to post 1 by icetiger300]

There is no reason to accept the homophobic ideas expressed in a book that is greatly outdated, so it doesn't really matter what the bible does or doesn't say on this matter. To consider homosexuality a sin is to accept the archaic ideas of an ancient society whose values are greatly out of date and not based on rational thought.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #84

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Tcg]
There is no reason to accept the homophobic ideas expressed in a book that is greatly outdated, so it doesn't really matter what the bible does or doesn't say on this matter. To consider homosexuality a sin is to accept the archaic ideas of an ancient society whose values are greatly out of date and not based on rational thought.
I agree -- there is no reason to accept homophobic ideas expressed in an outdated book. Of course . . .

1- The Bible is not an outdated book.
2- I don't believe opposing same sex relationships is homophobic.
3- I personally have not claimed to oppose same sex relationships because of the Bible.
4- I don't believe same sex relationships are wrong because the Bible says they are wrong, rather the Bible says they are wrong because they are wrong.
5- The reasons I provided to know the wrongness of same sex relationships were absolutely based on rational thought (science, biology, and logic as well)
6- If one were a Christian and was interested in what the Bible had to say . . . it would be perfectly acceptable to have a discussion about whether the Bible does in fact consider same sex relationships a sin and any Biblical scholar would conclude the Bible does condemn same sex relationships.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7139
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1268 times
Been thanked: 1499 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #85

Post by Tcg »

RightReason wrote: [Replying to Tcg]

1- The Bible is not an outdated book.
Of course it is. It hasn't been revised in almost 2,000 years.
2- I don't believe opposing same sex relationships is homophobic.
It is.
3- I personally have not claimed to oppose same sex relationships because of the Bible.
I didn't ask you about the source of your homophobia, in fact I didn't reply to you at all.
4- I don't believe same sex relationships are wrong because the Bible says they are wrong, rather the Bible says they are wrong because they are wrong.
You can believe whatever you want.
5- The reasons I provided to know the wrongness of same sex relationships were absolutely based on rational thought (science, biology, and logic as well)
I didn't respond to you nor any of your reasons for your homophobia.
6- If one were a Christian and was interested in what the Bible had to say . . . it would be perfectly acceptable to have a discussion about whether the Bible does in fact consider same sex relationships a sin and any Biblical scholar would conclude the Bible does condemn same sex relationships.
I'm not.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #86

Post by marco »

RightReason wrote:
4- I don't believe same sex relationships are wrong because the Bible says they are wrong, rather the Bible says they are wrong because they are wrong.

Ah, mon dieu, enfin, as Napoleon would say after a victory... I have been saying this is your argument for many a post.
RightReason wrote:
5- The reasons I provided to know the wrongness of same sex relationships were absolutely based on rational thought (science, biology, and logic as well)
I think I see your error. Performing the high jump in a certain way is wrong; placing one's foot in a certain way when serving at tennis is wrong.But wrong does not mean sinful here. Science and the rest DO NOT employ the term WRONG as you wish to employ it, meaning sinful. One can use a wrong method in mathematics but arrive at the right answer through some tedious process. Anyway, this relates to the mechamics of sexuality; homosexuality, the state of preferring one's own sex, is completely devoid of wrongness. It is no more wrong than left handedness, which was once punished as well.

But your admission: it is wrong because it is wrong, says everything - wrongly, of course! Go well.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #87

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 86 by marco]
RightReason wrote:



4- I don't believe same sex relationships are wrong because the Bible says they are wrong, rather the Bible says they are wrong because they are wrong.




Ah, mon dieu, enfin, as Napoleon would say after a victory... I have been saying this is your argument for many a post.
Not fair. That has not been my argument regarding the wrongness of homosexual acts and you know it. My comments above were merely stating that I don’t believe something is wrong simply because the Bible says it is. I have provided my reasoning and logic and never has it been, “they are wrong because they are wrong� However, that does seem to be your attempted reasoning in declaring homosexual acts aren’t wrong. When I say homosexual acts are wrong and provide my reasoning, your response is simply, “They aren’t.� Would you care to elaborate as how you have derived at your decision?
RightReason wrote:



5- The reasons I provided to know the wrongness of same sex relationships were absolutely based on rational thought (science, biology, and logic as well)


I think I see your error. Performing the high jump in a certain way is wrong; placing one's foot in a certain way when serving at tennis is wrong.But wrong does not mean sinful here. Science and the rest DO NOT employ the term WRONG as you wish to employ it, meaning sinful.
Correct. Science does not employ the word sinful. I never said it did. But what I did say is man can know right from wrong good from bad based on observation of this world, how it works, form, shape, function, purpose, consequences, logic, reason, biology, science, man’s relationship to the world he lives in.
One can use a wrong method in mathematics but arrive at the right answer through some tedious process. Anyway, this relates to the mechamics of sexuality; homosexuality, the state of preferring one's own sex, is completely devoid of wrongness. It is no more wrong than left handedness, which was once punished as well.
Again, I am afraid this is your mere opinion. Homosexual acts can be shown to be wrong because of all the reasons I have already provided in my numerous previous posts. I’m not even sure what the argument regarding the “wrongness� of left handedness ever was. Was the argument simply that more people are right handed, so left handedness must be wrong? Because that is not at all a reason I give for the wrongness of homosexual acts. Anyway, I am afraid your comparison fails.
But your admission: it is wrong because it is wrong, says everything - wrongly, of course! Go well.
I’m actually surprised you said this. I NEVER said homosexual acts are wrong because they are wrong. EVER!!!!!!! I said, the Bible says homosexual acts are wrong because they are wrong. THAT is a big difference. And I’m pretty sure you recognize the difference, but for some reason, that doesn’t seem typical of you , you chose to attempt to use my words referring to something else in this situation. It didn’t work. In fact, it doesn’t even makes sense with anything I have been arguing about in this entire thread. Perhaps you’re tired. Get some rest.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #88

Post by marco »

RightReason wrote:
However, that does seem to be your attempted reasoning in declaring homosexual acts aren’t wrong. When I say homosexual acts are wrong and provide my reasoning, your response is simply, “They aren’t.� Would you care to elaborate as how you have derived at your decision?
I have read a lot on the sufferings society has imposed on people who were born as homosexuals. Their fault seemed to be their difference; in the spectrum of love they preferred their own sex while it was usual to prefer the opposite sex. There is noting wrong with the latter, but there is something wrong and cruel in branding people who are homosexual. The two people involved are not asking that the world join them, just that their mutual decision be respected. Something that unnecessarily hurts others, through prejudice, religious or other, is very wrong. We can invent justifications for our prejudices, as judges in the past have done, when sentencing men to death but it is best to see them for what they are. If David and Jonathan love each other, there is nothing at all wrong with this. Comparing their love to that of bestiality is cruelly irrelevant. They are two people who can make informed choices, just as a nun might choose never to marry and enclose herself unnaturally away from the world. That may be unnatural, uncommon but it is not wrong. The best reason I have for accepting my homosexual friends is that we should treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #89

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to marco]

Happy Easter Marco. My reply to your last post is long because I had 40 days to think about it. Hope you are well.
I have read a lot on the sufferings society has imposed on people who were born as homosexuals. Their fault seemed to be their difference; in the spectrum of love they preferred their own sex while it was usual to prefer the opposite sex. There is noting wrong with the latter, but there is something wrong and cruel in branding people who are homosexual.
If a person can’t help being attracted to someone of the same sex, can a person help being attracted to children or animals? This is a serious question and yet the response is always, “How dare you? How dare you equate homosexuality with pedophilia/bestiality?� I recognize they are not the same, but neither is homosexuality and heterosexuality. Who determined that human beings should only have sex with other human beings? What determines that children are off limits? Does form/function/shape/design matter? Does biology matter? Do the social sciences matter?

Those who might think man having a sexual relationship with a cow a perversion, how is it not argued in the spectrum of love this is simply “another way� and they should not be judged in their difference?

It is a legitimate question to ask if all sexual attraction is equivalent and or right/ordered/in man’s best interest? Is that not a serious legitimate question?
The two people involved are not asking that the world join them, just that their mutual decision be respected.
On the contrary, often they are asking and even demand the world join them. If someone doesn’t want to support or participate in the legitimacy of their union/relationship, they want to declare that illegal, bigoted, and homophobic (ie: photographers refusing to photograph a gay wedding or bakers refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding are being sued, there are groups insisting same sex unions be reflected in stories, grammar sentences and math word problems in school text books and insisting any remarks/comments/beliefs contrary to the “legitimacy� of same sex unions as hate speech, etc). It is being demanded that same sex unions must be not only accepted, but supported or it is viewed as hateful and grounds to be fined or fired.
Something that unnecessarily hurts others, through prejudice, religious or other, is very wrong.
Yes it is. And failing to stand up for what is right/good can unnecessarily hurt others, do great damage, and is very wrong. I guess we both agree it is wrong to hurt others.
We can invent justifications for our prejudices
Yes, and a person can be just as prejudiced toward something as against it. And we can invent justifications and rationalizations for any thought or belief. You seem to feel justified in insisting there is nothing wrong with same sex unions. You claim it is simply a different form of love. You mean like bestiality? Or Thrupples? And if you scoff at that -- why?

There is also the tendency to falsely equate opposition to same sex unions with mere religious belief and therefore something that can be dismissed and hailed as religious bigotry. In practice, this also tends to manifest itself as censoring religious freedom.


“Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.� ― G.K. Chesterton

Even though my objections to same sex relations are rarely argued from a religious perspective – unless someone is specifically inquiring what Scripture or the Church has to say about the matter. I have always maintained all men, regardless of religious belief, can know the wrongness of same sex unions based on observation and acknowledgment of the world and man’s relationship with the world. It is simply an acknowledgment of the world we live in based on observation/form/shape/function/biology/science/logic/reason/etc.

If David and Jonathan love each other, there is nothing at all wrong with this.
I realize that is your opinion, but here is an interesting fact . . .


The HIV rate among gay men is "135 times that of heterosexuals." In comparison, according to the American Lung Association: the risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers compared to male non-smokers.

These are the facts we choose to ignore -- I'm not sure why.

Comparing their love to that of bestiality is cruelly irrelevant.
Why? Do you believe bestiality is wrong/perverted? Why do you believe that? Is there properly ordered sexual desire? What determines such? Who are you to tell a human being and a dog that they cannot express their love for one another sexually?
They are two people who can make informed choices
So are two people who choose to have sex while being married to others. Does that make their adulterous affair right/good? Is it cruel to acknowledge their behavior as wrong?
just as a nun might choose never to marry and enclose herself unnaturally away from the world. That may be unnatural, uncommon but it is not wrong.
I agree, but it would be unnatural and wrong if she were to sexually get it on with her fellow sisters, or her cat. She would be using her body in a way it was not intended, she would likely be subjecting herself to physical and psychological harm, and doing so would not bring her the peace/joy she deserves.
The best reason I have for accepting my homosexual friends is that we should treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves.
Soooooo, you would have no problem if your friend was having sexual relations with his dog or cheating on his wife because you wouldn’t want someone to hold you accountable so you won’t hold them accountable?

Treating others as we would like to be treated does not mean ignoring wrongdoing or being afraid to let someone know when they are engaging in behavior that is wrong and could never bring human fulfillment.


Also, I’m not sure you are getting natural law.

The idea of natural law is that there is an inherent order to the universe that can provide the governing principles which can be reached by human reason. Both people of faith and non religious have accepted and are subject to natural law. One could say natural law is right reason in agreement with nature.

If there is no natural law one could argue that people are not equal simply for being a human being, and nothing quite frankly then is self-evident. Of course, most rational human beings acknowledge that there are commonly understood self evident truths. And we operate accordingly on a daily basis.


There is nothing wrong for David and Jonathon to love each other, but it is wrong for them to sexualize that love. We CAN know this in the same way we can know it would be wrong for a man to sexualize his love for an animal. We know that the order/design/form/shape of something helps us understand something's function/purpose. This is written in the world we live. All we need to do is acknowledge it. We can know via observation that living contrary to the order/design of the world will not bring man peace/ fulfillment. To live contrary to that which we can know to be right/good is illogical. Of course, David and Jonathon can do as they like -- anyone can do as they like, but it doesn't make them right and could be harmful.

You continue to repeat about the sufferings endured from homosexuals. I agree -- they are vast. Some of these sufferings were cruelly and intentionally inflicted by others and some were simply inherent in the nature of a same sex relationship. Their fault is not simply in their difference like your false analogy to left handedness pretends. The fault is in the act itself. It is intrinsically disordered and therefore incapable of ever being right/good. We can know this via observation of the world. No similar conclusion can be shown regarding left handedness.

And once again your comparison to nuns not marrying proves you misunderstand what is meant by unnatural . Yes, sexual feelings are natural -- that does not mean all sexual feelings are good. It also does not mean all people must act on these natural sexual feelings. Eating is natural -- that doesn't mean eating until one is sick is right/good or imbibing something harmful is good or trying to eat by shoving food into our ears is good. Natural does not simply mean that which we see in nature. There are albinos in nature and human beings born without limbs. But when those things occur, we know something went wrong. Being an albino is a disadvantage and we help restore those born without limbs with limbs in order to live life more fully.

IOW, a natural law signifies what is necessary or expedient for one of our natural ends. So natural law reasoning involves examining the goods that perfect or fulfill human nature.

****************************

Even if we were to concede that a gay relationship is an avenue of “meaning� and that it “replenishes intimacy,� we would still have to ask: is the “meaning� and “intimacy� of the relationship in harmony with the true flourishing of our nature? Adulterous lovers no doubt sometimes find some sense of “meaning� and “intimacy� in their affairs. Is this enough to declare adultery a genuine fulfillment of human nature and thus permissible by natural law?

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2015/0 ... tural-law/

************************

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #90

Post by marco »

RightReason wrote:



If a person can’t help being attracted to someone of the same sex, can a person help being attracted to children or animals? This is a serious question and yet the response is always, “How dare you? How dare you equate homosexuality with pedophilia/bestiality?� I recognize they are not the same, but neither is homosexuality and heterosexuality. Who determined that human beings should only have sex with other human beings? What determines that children are off limits? Does form/function/shape/design matter? Does biology matter? Do the social sciences matter?


And warm wishes to you at Easter, Right Reason. I would never enter an argument with a pointless: "How dare you?" You are countering an argument in a way you think appropriate.

Across the world there is great diversity as to what constitutes a child and which relationships are acceptable. I think it is agreed that immature adults cannot make meaningful decisions for themselves. Involvement with animals is simply society's decision to make limits, just as society says that two people should not copulate in public. Society sets boundaries, not God. Some societies did not observe the taboos we have on incest.

The problem with your argument about homosexuality, incest and bestiality is that you are regarding them all as equally verboten and deducing sinfulness from your view. If two adult people love each other it is entirely a matter for them. Civilised societies now rightly accept that this is a sensible approach. Brutal societies, where religion is often king, murder people for loving their own kind. I align myself with the view that people should be free to act without incurring labels of sin or being punished simply for loving another, consenting human. Of course rape is wrong, so consent is important.

RightReason wrote:

I have always maintained all men, regardless of religious belief, can know the wrongness of same sex unions based on observation and acknowledgment of the world and man’s relationship with the world. It is simply an acknowledgment of the world we live in based on observation /form /shape/ function/biology/ science/ logic/ reason/etc.


One could use this argument to punish those who are different from us. Difference is not per se sinful but history shows we have a habit of making life hard for those who differ. It sometimes manifests itself as bullying.
RightReason wrote:


So are two people who choose to have sex while being married to others. Does that make their adulterous affair right/good? Is it cruel to acknowledge their behavior as wrong?


You present examples that merit censure but wrongly present the censure as synonymous with your condemnation of homosexuality. Two married people swear faithfulness; in adultery they betray trust, which is another matter.
RightReason wrote:


Soooooo, you would have no problem if your friend was having sexual relations with his dog or cheating on his wife because you wouldn’t want someone to hold you accountable so you won’t hold them accountable?


You are twisting Christ's dictum. That we treat others respectfully does not prevent us from condemning their crimes. You are quietly, once again, treating homosexuality as axiomatically wrong.
RightReason wrote:


Adulterous lovers no doubt sometimes find some sense of “meaning� and “intimacy� in their affairs. Is this enough to declare adultery a genuine fulfillment of human nature and thus permissible by natural law?


You are drifting away here. There are people who have many wives, as did wise old Solomon. Adulterous relationships are wrong not because of the sexuality in them, but for a break in trust. Sex outside marriage is sometimes regarded as sinful, but why would it be? Making up rules about how the majority behave and how the minority must follow them is not a good idea. I know of people who write with their toes. Is that a sinful infraction of natural law?

If a man discovers he loves another man, then let us celebrate his discovery instead of trying to crucify him with our own orthodoxy. Will this mean we allow the murderer to murder or the rapist to rape. Not at all. Common sense is a wonderful thing. Go well.

Post Reply