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.

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

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #91

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to marco]
I would never enter an argument with a pointless: "How dare you?" You are countering an argument in a way you think appropriate.
You might not use those words, but the sentiment would be the same – your attempted point being it is silly or wrong to discuss pedophilia or bestiality along with homosexuality – to which I would argue it is neither silly or wrong, rather reasonable. When people start talking about sexual feelings, natural urges, and love I would consider the conversation open to discussing and comparing different examples and why/how we distinquish those examples.

I have had enough internet forum discussions now to have been accused of conflating bestiality with homosexuality when I was not conflating the two, rather comparing how we determine/decide what we will accept and what we won’t. As I have explained human reason in conjunction with the nature of the world we live in allows us to determine what is right/good.
Across the world there is great diversity as to what constitutes a child and which relationships are acceptable.
I agree, now acknowledge how it is that all men know there is a distinction/cut off to make regarding age and sexual relations. We should ask ourselves why is that? It’s quite logical – all men via reason and observation of the world are capable of recognizing in nature/the world we live in there is a physical difference between an adult and a child. We can observe that the shape/form/function of their bodies aren’t the same. Being scientific observers we can determine their bodies are not sexually compatible and were likely not intended to be so. There is nothing in nature that would cause us to think they were. Small boys do not produce sperm. A young girl would not only be able to not conceive, she would also be incapable of breastfeeding and nourishing a baby, being a baby still herself. Nature itself reveals to us what is right/good/and makes sense.
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.
Once again, I never said God is making the boundaries. That is always your go to conclusion about my argument. I am actually appealing to nature/the world we live in. I don’t think society arbitrarily decided man and animals should not have sex. That determination is decided based on what we can know via observation and acknowledgment of the world we live in on what is right/good/in man’s best interest. Clues from nature itself reveal this to us. Observation reveals the human body is not a good match with an animal of different species. We don’t have paws/claws/wings/tails/feathers/beaks/etc. We can control our passions and make rational choices. The taboo of bestiality is not simply random social mores dependent on time and culture agreed upon by a democratic society.

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.
I am demonstrating that we can know right/wrong by using our human reason and from what nature reveals to us AND that that IS how we know something is right/wrong.
If two adult people love each other it is entirely a matter for them
No, it really isn’t. What if a father and daughter love each other? A brother and sister? And why limit it to people? What if a man and a dog love each other? Also, sex between two people of the opposite sex can lead to children if they engage in sex, so their behavior has consequences, so it isn’t really a matter just for them.
. Civilised societies now rightly accept that this is a sensible approach.
civilized societies now accept abortion and pornography as sensible. Neither of which I would describe as rightly so.

Brutal societies, where religion is often king
Or where religion is absent (Marxism/communism/barbarianism/etc).

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
No, you do not. I have a feeling you are not cool with mommy and son getting it on, or cheating lovers who hurt their spouses or children. I’m sure there are many other actions/behavior you are not cool with and rightly so. As for punishing those who act contrary to what is right/good that would need clarification. I may oppose abortion, but am not advocating women who have an abortion be sent to prison. I oppose adultery, but am not advocating the guilty parties be branded with a Scarlet A. I oppose same sex unions, but have never advocated or suggested any sort of punishment for engaging in such behavior.
Of course rape is wrong, so consent is important.
Yes, your comments demonstrate right/wrong exist and can be known. I agree and what I have been arguing. This truth is obvious and how we as human beings operate on a daily basis – knowing and understanding there is right and wrong/good and bad that all men can know and are subject to.
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.
Anything can be justified/rationalize and inappropriately used for bad/wrong purposes. This does not mean we don’t use such methodologies in determining/discovering right from wrong. Your comments do not logically follow.
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.
Ha, ha, ha . . . and you are treating it as axiomatically right. Yes, I am assuming same sex relations are wrong for all the reasons I have presented throughout this thread.

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?


Adulterous relationships are wrong not because of the sexuality in them, but for a break in trust.
Adulterous relationships are wrong because they aren’t in man or societies’ best interest and will/cannot bring long term human fulfillment/happiness -- the very same reason same sex relationships are wrong.

You miss the point of the comments. Many argue same sex relationships should/could be considered right/good because they can bring the individual or couple “happiness/fulfillment� and the relationship between the parties has meaning, but the very same argument could be made regarding a couple in adultery. Heck, we could justify abortion by claiming the woman is now free to continue her education and make a meaningful contribution to the world. But the end does not justify the means. Things like abortion/adultery/homosexual acts are inherently wrong. All of us can sympathize and understand the reasons why people might choose to engage in these actions, but that does not negate the wrongness of the action.
Making up rules about how the majority behave and how the minority must follow them is not a good idea
Ha, ha, . . . .aaaand yet this is what we all do on a daily basis. Remember, “obviously rape is wrong� Yes, yes, obviously. Are you just making up rules Marco?


.
I know of people who write with their toes. Is that a sinful infraction of natural law?

I feel I have tried to explain this many times now. Your comment proves you still are not getting/understanding what is meant by 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.

Who is talking about crucifying homosexuals? Not I. But again, I wouldn’t celebrate incest or bestiality, so why should I celebrate same sex relations? You claim common sense. Throughout the course of this thread I have provided a great deal of common sense why we shouldn’t support/celebrate same sex relations. So, yes, common sense is typically based on what all men can know via reason and acknowledgment of the world we live in, and yes, it is a wonderful thing.

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 #92

Post by marco »

[Replying to post 91 by RightReason]

Let us dismiss, once and for all, the tactic that when we discuss homosexuality we can throw in bestiality and incest. We can, if you wish, discuss why bestiality is wrong and why incest is considered illegal. We could likewise discuss murder and theft. They have nothing to do with the present discussion. If the only way you can attack homosexual behaviour is by attacking bestiality, you have lost the argument, since you are talking about another subject.

Your appeal to natural law to determine what is right and what is wrong is a starting point. Fortunately, clever human beings realise that rules have exceptions. As civilised beings we look at two people loving each other - NOT at a man having sex with a bear or a baby - and we make decisions. Adultery, by the way, may be frowned on but it is not illegal. A man may have many wives, so there is no prima facie fault in loving more than one woman. Adultery involves betrayal of trust, which is another discussion.

There is nothing at all harmful to society in two men loving each other. Arguments about geometry and purpose are just attempts to bring a semblance of reason into prejudice.

If Tom wants to lie down with John, so be it. In order to find something wrong you have to convert John into a child or a dog, and then we are in another argument. Stick to the present case and there is nothing on earth wrong with the situation. Your views, of course, would have received a warm welcome 200 or even 100 years ago. We have advanced, though you may protest against progress. Many in Africa share your views - it does not make them right or good.

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

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #93

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to marco]
Let us dismiss, once and for all, the tactic that when we discuss homosexuality we can throw in bestiality and incest.
Well sure, anyone would prefer to just declare something off limits to shut down the conversation if doing so protects their position and not doing so would cause one to draw their argument to its logical conclusion rendering their position wrong.
We can, if you wish, discuss why bestiality is wrong and why incest is considered illegal.
Great. As the reasons we know those things are wrong are the SAME reasons we know same sex unions to be wrong – and THAT is my point. By George I think he’s got it!

We could likewise discuss murder and theft. They have nothing to do with the present discussion. If the only way you can attack homosexual behaviour is by attacking bestiality, you have lost the argument, since you are talking about another subject.
<sigh> nice deflection. Is bestiality not defined as sexual attraction to animals? Is homosexuality not defined as sexual attraction to someone of the same sex? Is pedophilia not sexual attraction to children? Is heterosexuality attraction to someone of the opposite sex? Do murder and theft have anything to do with sexual attraction? Sexual partners? Anything having to do with sex? Is it ok to relate homosexuality to heterosexuality since clearly they are not the same thing?

Analogies are often used to help us understand something. Here is the definition analogy:

A comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Exactly how I am using it. Check.

A correspondence or partial similarity. Again, exactly how I am using it and why I am not using murder or theft as an example. Check.

A thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects. Yep, meets all the criteria. Check.

Looks like bestiality, pedophilia, and homosexuality are all about sexual feelings/attraction/and relationships. They meet all the criteria described above as qualifying as reasonable analogies. The only criteria they don’t meet is that you don’t like me to use them. Again, why? Do you consider bestiality wrong? Does a dog not have feelings? Does a person? Who are you to say the person and the dog cannot be with each other? Does it affect you if Fred gets it on with Fido? Who are you to judge? And why be so offended if I compare Fred and Fido’s relationship with John & Joe’s if both parties act as if their relationship is something they want/enjoy?

Your appeal to natural law to determine what is right and what is wrong is a starting point. Fortunately, clever human beings realise that rules have exceptions. As civilised beings we look at two people loving each other - NOT at a man having sex with a bear or a baby - and we make decisions.
Yes, like you said, that is a good starting point, but then go deeper. Ask yourself how/why it would be uncivilized to consider man having sex with a bear or baby? What are we basing that judgment/knowledge on? We base it on the knowledge about the human body, its design/function/shape/form. We base it on what the social sciences can tell us about man and his relationship with this world. We base it on consequences/harm done/what is in man’s best interest, etc. What we are left with is knowledge of right/wrong/good/bad.
Adultery, by the way, may be frowned on but it is not illegal. A man may have many wives, so there is no prima facie fault in loving more than one woman. Adultery involves betrayal of trust, which is another discussion.

There is nothing at all harmful to society in two men loving each other.
I could cite research showing otherwise and yet likely very little actual research showing bestiality is harmful to society. We base such knowledge on observation, acknowledgment of the way the world works and reason. Same sex relationships have higher incidences of domestic violence, increased number of sexual partners, substance abuse, depression, mental illness, suicide, etc. Do we consider these facts? How harmful is it to society if cousins Julie and Tom hook up? Is it harmful to society if my husband betrays me? I would argue it is, because marriage and sexual relationships do affect society at large.
If Tom wants to lie down with John, so be it. In order to find something wrong you have to convert John into a child or a dog
NOT at all. You miss the entire argument! What is wrong with Tom lying down with John is that JUST like John lying with a child or a dog, his body was not intended/designed to lie with John. He doesn’t fit with the child, the dog, or Tom. Nature reveals this. It is a matter of biology and reason. John and the dog can exhibit behavior that shows they are happy as clams and yet does them thinking/acting they have something meaningful make it right or good or meaningful? The facts might show otherwise. If John is happy with Tom, should it matter that the nature of their relationship puts them at increased risk for domestic violence? Substance abuse? Depression? Could a relationship that is contrary to nature ever be right/good? All legitimate questions. We would ask this if John chose to have a relationship with a dog, his sister, or his friend Tom, and rightly so. Their bodies, the science, their form, the physical and psychological consequences of such a relationship shows us such a relationship is not good/right. We use knowledge of the world and reason to know right from wrong.

Stick to the present case and there is nothing on earth wrong with the situation.
This thread is full of showing you what is wrong with the situation. The statistics give us clues that men were not intended to have sex with other men. The behavior is contrary to nature. The very fact that their sexual relations could never produce children reveals according to nature two people of the same sex were not intended to raise children together. The fact that an 8 year old girl and an 88 year old woman are unlikely to conceive also reveals perhaps they aren’t well suited to raise children. That makes sense. According to the world we live in, all of us to even have come about needed a man and a woman. Why dismiss that? Why not consider that relevant?

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males

http://josephsciambra.com/wp-content/up ... 61_DS1.pdf

Your views, of course, would have received a warm welcome 200 or even 100 years ago. We have advanced, though you may protest against progress.
Who gets to define “advancement�? I must go to your favorite Apostle of Common Sense, G.K. Chesterton, for thoughts on progress


“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.�

“Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back.�

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.�

“Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative.�

“Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle.�

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 #94

Post by marco »

RightReason wrote:
We could likewise discuss murder and theft. They have nothing to do with the present discussion. If the only way you can attack homosexual behaviour is by attacking bestiality, you have lost the argument, since you are talking about another subject.


Is bestiality not defined as sexual attraction to animals? Is homosexuality not defined as sexual attraction to someone of the same sex? Is pedophilia not sexual attraction to children? Is heterosexuality attraction to someone of the opposite sex?


If you wish to compare heterosexuality with bestiality you will find similarities. So what? The common ingredient is love. Your wrong point is that in heterosexual relations love is okay; in the others it is not. That is because you say so.
RightReason wrote:

Analogies are often used to help us understand something. Here is the definition analogy:


A definition doesn't help one to use an analogy properly. You are wrongly using bestiality as analogous to homosexuality.
RightReason wrote:


Looks like bestiality, paedophilia, and homosexuality are all about sexual feelings/attraction/and relationships.
As is heterosexuality. Why would anyone want to compare bestiality and heterosexuality? If we do not agree that homosexuality is a perversion, then your analogy fails. Heterosexual and homosexual love are both about people responsibly being attracted to each other, with no victim. If there IS a victim, we have moved from heterosexuality and homosexuality into something else.


RightReason wrote:
We base it on the knowledge about the human body, its design/function/shape/form.
We do nothing of the kind. There are artistes who perform feats that defy normal use of limbs. Is that sinful?
RightReason wrote:
We base it on what the social sciences can tell us about man and his relationship with this world. We base it on consequences/harm done/what is in man’s best interest, etc. What we are left with is knowledge of right/wrong/good/bad.
Well WE don't - apparently you do. Social science is a modern term and homosexuality has been with us for millennia. This appeal to a scientist to step in and tell us if it's okay for John to love Jim is silly.
RightReason wrote:
I could cite research showing otherwise and yet likely very little actual research showing bestiality is harmful to society. We base such knowledge on observation, acknowledgment of the way the world works and reason. Same sex relationships have higher incidences of domestic violence, increased number of sexual partners, substance abuse, depression, mental illness, suicide, etc.
And homosexuals are more likely to be highly accomplished? Do we have that bit of spurious research? There is no PRIMA FACIE case for saying love between two men or two women is wrong. Brutal societies may disapprove but the more civilised view is that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
RightReason wrote:
NOT at all. You miss the entire argument! What is wrong with Tom lying down with John is that JUST like John lying with a child or a dog, his body was not intended/designed to lie with John.
I don't "miss" this argument; I dismiss it since it is no argument at all. You are claiming we have been modelled to work in a certain way and we cannot operate in any other way. Why? Says who? We shouldn't fly up to the clouds 'cos only birds are allowed to do that - but we do fly.

RightReason wrote:
According to the world we live in, all of us to even have come about needed a man and a woman. Why dismiss that? Why not consider that relevant?
Homosexuals have no desire that the world follow their example any more than monks want everyone to go into monasteries. Not all sexual acts are intended to produce offspring. So homosexual acts follow that "unnatural" practice among many heterosexuals of copulating simply to copulate or touching just to touch.... in consenting situations.

If research found homosexuality to be harmless, would it stop being a sin in your eyes?

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 #95

Post by marco »

[Replying to post 93 by RightReason]

On the matter of determining whether homosexuality is right or wrong we don't check our Natural Law notebooks. In western society people are not allowed to wander around the streets naked, though nature did not present us with clothes. Why is public nakedness seen as bad?

Take the situation of two men, kissing to show they love each other, and settling down with each other in an otherwise platonic relationship. Is this wrong? If you say: NO, then you agree homosexuality is not sinful. Your problem is with promiscuity, perhaps.

If you say YES, then your arguments about shape, size, natural law and what not are irrelevant, and you are judging simply out of a prejudiced position.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 398 times
Been thanked: 25 times
Contact:

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #96

Post by Aetixintro »

[Replying to post 1 by icetiger300]

Let's assume that homosexuality is not a sin. That two adults love one another.

However, for the representation in nature:
How are homosexual animals faring in terms of "child" upbringing? If homosexual animals can't deal with any offspring, why is this so? So, is the story of homosexual men and women and their relationship to children another fake story? The facade and cover up by corrupt people? Has science been used as political science of how homosexuality is represented in animals? Are in fact homosexual people a kind of "category"-schizophrenics?

Note that I agree primarily that people should be punished for doing crime, not loving one another.
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5560
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Post #97

Post by tam »

Peace to you all,


Just some information I found that I thought I would shares since the conversation is going to be about what happens among animals in nature, including in regard to parenting (the quotes are about the parenting, but the information in both articles - while conflicting on some matters - are about homosexuality and bisexuality in nature):

Same sex pairs in nature can and do raise offspring, often in birds (which tend to mate for life). One article said that among one species, same sex chick rearing was better than a female going it alone, but not as good as male and female pairing.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206 ... al-animals

The female-female pairs are not as good at rearing chicks as female-male pairs, but are better than females that go it alone. So it makes sense for a female to pair up with another female, says Marlene Zuk of the University of Minnesota in Saint Paul, US. If she did not, she might manage to mate but would struggle to incubate her egg and find food. And once a female forms a pair-bond, the species' tendency towards monogamy means it becomes life-long.
In another article, it is stated that sometimes the same sex parenting fared even better than the opposite sex parenting. https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/ ... ality.aspx
Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.



Peace to you!

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

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #98

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to marco]

If you wish to compare heterosexuality with bestiality you will find similarities. So what? The common ingredient is love. Your wrong point is that in heterosexual relations love is okay; in the others it is not. That is because you say so.
This comment is wrong on so many levels. First, one would have to agree to terms on what we mean by love. I love my mother and my children very much, but I would not have sexual relations with them. So, what we are talking about is not simply love, rather marital or sexual love, right? And in that sense when we talk about bestiality, pedophilia, and heterosexuality, we all understand that to mean the relationship has a sexual component, unlike many other forms of love. So, now that we agree to be discussing that kind of love, then yes, let’s move on and acknowledge whether heterosexuality, pedophilia, homosexuality, and bestiality are appropriate forms of love. I assume you agree there are appropriate and inappropriate forms of love?

I have never argued that heterosexuality is ok because I say it is ok, nor have I argued that same sex relations are not ok because I say they aren’t ok. NEVER has my position been, “because I say so�. And THAT’S the point. It isn’t about what I or you say on the matter. You continue to dismiss the argument on grounds that a person only opposes same sex relations because they say it’s wrong or because their religion says it’s wrong, even though THAT has NEVER been my argument. I have provided reasoning after reasoning. I have provided science/knowledge/facts/logic, but you continue to make comments like, “something isn’t wrong just because you say so�. I continue to demonstrate that knowing if something is ok or not ok is something all men can know/derive via observation and acknowledgment of the world we live in. It isn’t a matter of opinion, rather something that can be observed and acknowledged. The truth about whether something is right/good/ordered is something to be acknowledged and discovered – not invented or even voted on.
A definition doesn't help one to use an analogy properly. You are wrongly using bestiality as analogous to homosexuality.
That isn’t what I am doing at all. I am not saying homosexuality is the same as bestiality. It isn’t. Nor is homosexuality the same as heterosexuality. It is not. Right? What I am saying, but you keep ignoring is that we can use the same methodology to determine whether homosexuality, heterosexuality or bestiality are ok. We need only to observe the world -- notice the form/shape/function of something acknowledge the facts/the science/the biology, and use reason to know then what is right/good. This is what you are not getting.

If you can compare homosexuality to heterosexuality then you can compare heterosexuality to bestiality and bestiality to homosexuality. If one is being intellectually honest, that is logical, because they are all about sexual relationships.

Do you think a person is born with homosexual desires? Do you think a person is born with heterosexual desires? Do you think a person is born with pedophilia desires? THOSE are legitimate questions.

Looks like bestiality, paedophilia, and homosexuality are all about sexual feelings/attraction/and relationships.


As is heterosexuality.
Yes! Which is what I’ve been saying and therefore should be judged according to the same standards.
Why would anyone want to compare bestiality and heterosexuality?
What do you mean? Why does anyone compare anything? To better understand what makes sense, what is wise, what will work, what will bring us human fulfillment. We compare, study, and observe things to understand why some things might be better suited for some things and other things better suited for other things.

If we do not agree that homosexuality is a perversion, then your analogy fails.
Not in the least. Because one can see that the same arguments to know the rightness/wrongness of bestiality are the same arguments that can be used to know the rightness/wrongness of same sex relations.

You make the assumption that there is nothing wrong with same sex relations and therefore refuse to have the conversation. You are the one making the assumption, but if there is nothing wrong with same sex relationships then you shouldn’t be afraid to hear out any argument proposed by someone. Follow the logic. If one is truly seeking truth, he shouldn’t be afraid where the logic may lead. Your assuming there is nothing wrong with same sex relations prevents you from acknowledging the facts.
Heterosexual and homosexual love are both about people responsibly being attracted to each other, with no victim. If there IS a victim, we have moved from heterosexuality and homosexuality into something else.
Well, no that isn’t really what defines heterosexual and homosexual love. For one thing heterosexual love can and often does involve victims, which yes, then would render it wrong or bad, but not inherently or intrinsically wrong or bad, as some heterosexual love is right/good. Also, some could argue there is no victim in bestiality. We can certainly observe that a dog/cow/whatever enjoys and is a willing participant in the relationship as well as the human. And I would be remiss if I did not bring up the fact that one could argue same sex relations are far from victimless – again that is simply you stating your assumption.


RightReason wrote:



We base it on the knowledge about the human body, its design/function/shape/form.


We do nothing of the kind. There are artistes who perform feats that defy normal use of limbs. Is that sinful?
I don’t understand why you keep bringing this up. Like I said it proves you do not understand Natural Law. If someone is born without limbs it is right/good and ordered to help them do that which one should do with limbs (ie: write/draw/paint). If people can’t see, they can wear contacts to help them see – because seeing is good. Man was meant/designed to see. Contacts aren’t a violation of Natural Law because Natural Law does not simply mean that which is natural as in not manmade.

RightReason wrote:



We base it on what the social sciences can tell us about man and his relationship with this world. We base it on consequences/harm done/what is in man’s best interest, etc. What we are left with is knowledge of right/wrong/good/bad.


Well WE don't - apparently you do. Social science is a modern term and homosexuality has been with us for millennia. This appeal to a scientist to step in and tell us if it's okay for John to love Jim is silly.
I couldn’t agree with you more, but I think you are referring to pseudo science or that which is claimed science but more about political correctness. Trust me, I make no appeals for the “social sciences� to tell us it’s ok for John to love Jim. But this is exactly what has become popular. You are correct to recognize social science has become more of a modern term and not real science. But again, that is not what I am referring to. On the contrary, I am referring to the actual facts/statistics – things like those who identify as homosexual have higher rates of mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, depression, etc. I am not referring to social science that says, “if some man feels like a woman, then he is a woman�. That is actually ignoring the science/truth/facts. It is a denial of reality making truth dependent on feelings.

NOT at all. You miss the entire argument! What is wrong with Tom lying down with John is that JUST like John lying with a child or a dog, his body was not intended/designed to lie with John.


I don't "miss" this argument; I dismiss it since it is no argument at all. You are claiming we have been modelled to work in a certain way and we cannot operate in any other way.
Overgeneralization. I can use a screw driver to hammer a nail into the wall instead of a hammer if I like (it would be a bit foolish, slower, probably more dangerous, and not be as efficient – but I could do that if I wanted). But good luck trying to use a hammer to screw in a screw. The truth is something’s form/shape/function tells us what that thing is best suited for. The wise person observes and acknowledges such. Why? Because it will bring the most fulfillment/satisfaction. AND because often doing the opposite could actually cause great harm. It isn’t irrelevant to assess this world this way and in fact IS how we make decisions in life all the time – you just don’t like it in this case because it highlights the wrongness of same sex relationships.

I’m going to leave it there for now. I disagree with you on this topic, but thank you for the conversation.

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

Post #99

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to tam]
Just some information I found that I thought I would shares since the conversation is going to be about what happens among animals in nature, including in regard to parenting (the quotes are about the parenting, but the information in both articles - while conflicting on some matters - are about homosexuality and bisexuality in nature):

Same sex pairs in nature can and do raise offspring, often in birds (which tend to mate for life). One article said that among one species, same sex chick rearing was better than a female going it alone, but not as good as male and female pairing.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206 ... al-animals
Most human cultures adhere to the, “it takes a village� and we often see friends and family helping raise children. Of course this never renders mom and dad superfluous. Also, Natural Law applies to human beings. Man is different than other species of animals and we can only determine what is best for man according to man and his relationship with this world we live in – not other animal species and the laws of nature that govern their world. Some animals eat their young. Some animals kill their mate after sexual intercourse. As you can see, the same laws that apply to other species do not necessarily apply to man.
In another article, it is stated that sometimes the same sex parenting fared even better than the opposite sex parenting. https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/ ... ice-homose...
Sure, would be similar to someone observing how women often get together with other women to accomplish many child rearing tasks (sewing, cooking, cleaning, quilting). Might be a bit shortsighted to conclude since these women were more successful in these undertakings with other women than with their male partners, their male partners have less of a role in child raising or could simply be completely replaced or eliminated. Perhaps while the women were busy with these child rearing things, the men were hunting for food, building homes, making money, protecting the family from intruders.

In sum, one cannot conclude that a human behavior is normal simply because it exists – otherwise all human behavior would be considered normal. And one cannot conclude there is “nothing unnatural� about a behavior simply because it is observed in both humans and animals. Cannibalism exists in humans and animals.

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1320
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Post #100

Post by Overcomer »

RightReason wrote:
In sum, one cannot conclude that a human behavior is normal simply because it exists – otherwise all human behavior would be considered normal. And one cannot conclude there is “nothing unnatural� about a behavior simply because it is observed in both humans and animals. Cannibalism exists in humans and animals.
I agree. I have often heard people argue that homosexuality exists in the animal world and, therefore, it's natural and acceptable for human beings to engage in it.

But some animals, including many primates, kill their young. See here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... fants.html

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/new ... s-animals/

Where do we draw the line if we say that, because animals do it, it's okay for humans to do it, too?

Of course, animals do not have the thinking capabilities to determine morality. But human beings do. And therein lies the key difference in a discussion of animal behavior vs. human behavior.

Post Reply