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.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #71

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: Uuummm . . . no. We have not determined those things are wrong by some random or arbitrary “personal preference�.
You say that but you are doing it right now.
Using reason and observation and acknowledging the world we live in man can determine what is right/good.
Not without invoking your personal preference. I suppose you could argue that knowing your own preference counts as "observation," acknowledging your own preference counts as "acknowledging the world we live in," in the sense that you are part of the world.
Unless you mean human beings are intelligent enough to know it is best to prefer that which is right/good over that which is wrong/bad because it is in man’s best interest to do so.
What is best depends on what your goals are. Goals are set by individuals. For a murderous individual, intelligent and reason and observation leads to the conclusion that is best to kill without being caught. Good luck defending that as right and good.
Rape is not simply wrong if the individual feels it is. The wrongness of rape is not based on subjective taste – lol!
100% backwards. Rape is wrong BECAUSE the individual feels it is. The wrongness of rape is based on subjective taste.
Wow! I think you really believe that. We don’t think rape is wrong simply because we feel like it is.
But that's exactly why rape is wrong - we feel that it is. That's how morality works. We can determine what is the optimal solution to fix a problem is via observation, logic and reason. What is and isn't a moral wrong, i.e. is and isn't a problem to fix, is based solely on individual’s personal taste. You keep getting the two things mixed up.
That argument is getting harder and harder to use as homosexual unions are becoming more and more supported and approved...
... the happier homosexual people gets! See the fall in suicide rate in states legalise same-sex marriage.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #72

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to marco]
Why do you do this? We are discussing homosexuality not bestiality or paedophilia.
I’m using analogy to draw your argument to its logical conclusion. No analogy is perfect and Yes of course some sins are worse than others. Rape is obviously worse than stealing. Adultery is worse than getting drunk. Pedophilia is worse than a homosexual act. But they are all still wrong. I am hoping to show you, since you don’t seem to see it with homosexual acts, by using a different example. Of course, imagine my shock when you also were unable to admit the wrongness of bestiality. It is mind boggling to me that you think the fact that the majority of people would have a problem with human beings having sex with animals is some arbitrary human restriction we have invented. As if there is no reason or logic or biology or science to back up the reason we see bestiality wrong. This is an example when it is impossible to use reason.
You want to pass judgment on homosexual behaviour and I don't.
I don’t want to – all I want to do is acknowledge truth.
Suggesting that gay people can and should curtail their activities is both patronising and insulting;
No it ist. Not anymore than it would be insulting to suggest a pedophile curtail his activity. That is what I’m trying to show you and that is why I bring it up.
I can understand that you have your fixed view and would want justify it but I think your view is wrong and hurtful to people who are homosexual.
Right back at ya. I understand you have your fixed view and want to justify it, but I think your view is wrong and hurtful to people who are homosexual.

Let me un-nonsense it, then. Through the views you express on homosexuality, people were killed.
I am speaking factually
Sure. And slaves were hung, horse thieves were hung, Jewish people were exterminated, Africans were killed in the Rwanda genocide, babies are murdered every minute in the womb. All things my Church has spoken out against. I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but my Church vehemently opposes killing homosexuals. So, your facts need updating
I don't see how you can argue objectively on this subject when you readily equate criminal behaviour with homosexuality.
Right back at ya – I don’t see how you can argue objectively on this subject when you fail to see the wrongness of homosexual acts.
People who, by the grace of God, were born as homosexuals, are entitled to seek love and happiness.
Amen. Yes they are !!!!!!!!
You think they should exercise restraint and be celibate.

I think no person can live contrary to natural law and achieve human fulfillment. Like I say, I have a feeling you would think a pedophile should exercise restraint and be celibate, correct?
If my son announced he was gay I would be perfectly happy for him, and why not?
Then you are unaware of the facts. If my son announced he was gay, I would love and support him like you have no idea. I would never turn my back on him. I would never make him feel unwelcomed or even ashamed. We can’t always help our feelings. I would make sure he knows he is loved and that his sexuality does not define him and that all I want is for him to be happy. But be ok with him living a homosexual lifestyle as a gay man? That would lack compassion on my part to support such a thing. It would actually be cruel and abusive to encourage or support such a lifestyle. It will not bring him the peace/love/ and joy he is seeking – that we all seek. Here are some statistics . . . Again, this isn’t my opinion. These are facts . . .

Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been rising among gay and bisexual men, with increases in syphilis being seen across the country. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases where sex of sex partner was known in the United States. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections. HPV (Human papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States, is also a concern for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Some types of HPV can cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancers. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal cancer.


https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm


compared to other men, gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men are additionally affected by:

Higher rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs);
Tobacco and drug use;
Depression.

There are many reasons why gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men may have higher rates of HIV and STDs. Some of them are:

Prevalence of HIV among sexual partners of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men is 40 times that of sexual partners of heterosexual men;
Receptive anal sex is 18 times more risky for HIV acquisition than receptive vaginal sex;

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men on average have a greater number of lifetime sexual partners.

In fact, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men make up more than half of the people living with HIV in the United States and experience two thirds of all new HIV infections each year. Further, young gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men 13-24 had over 72% of the estimated new HIV infections in 2010. In 2012, 75% of reported syphilis cases were among gay and bisexual men.

https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/for-your-health.htm

I wouldn’t wish this upon anyone, little alone my son . . .



I side with sense and humanity. So would Jesus.
I don’t find your position on this issue based on sense or humane. I love our conversations and enjoy your insight very much, but I am afraid you are not using reason on this one. Your position denies the facts/reality. You brush off the position of acknowledging homosexual acts as wrong as based on unfounded religious prejudice, but I have shown time and time again that not to be true. It is not random or arbitrary that homosexual acts are a sexual perversion anymore than one would argue it random or arbitrary to see acts of bestiality or pedophilia that way. All three of my examples are disordered behaviors and not in man’s best interest. We use science/biology/shape/form/function/reason/logic to come to this conclusion – not the bible.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #73

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: I’m using analogy to draw your argument to its logical conclusion. No analogy is perfect and Yes of course some sins are worse than others. Rape is obviously worse than stealing. Adultery is worse than getting drunk. Pedophilia is worse than a homosexual act. But they are all still wrong...
That's the core problem right there, the analogy fails because homosexuality is not wrong, the same goes for all your other attempts. Nothing you stated in any of your post can convince someone who do not start with the presupposition that homosexuality is somehow immoral. For your post to have any weight, you cannot start from the premise that homosexuality is wrong.

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 #74

Post by marco »

RightReason wrote:

I’m using analogy to draw your argument to its logical conclusion.
You are using an analogy to make a wrong conclusion because the analogy is incorrect. Of course analogies are useful in arriving at a truth by parallelism. In your case, you are wrongly assuming there is common ground with paedophilia, bestiality and homosexuality. That is the subject of our argument, not its conclusion or its premise. Of course I am not involving myself with analogies that quietly parallel homosexuality with criminality. If this is the only way you can argue your case, you are demonstrating that you start with an assumption and you build from there.
Marco wrote:

Suggesting that gay people can and should curtail their activities is both patronising and insulting;
RightReason wrote:
No it isn't. Not anymore than it would be insulting to suggest a pedophile curtail his activity. That is what I’m trying to show you and that is why I bring it up.
Hmmm. Again you move to this equation which I am not accepting. I know what you are trying to show; I wish you would avoid talking about completely different subjects.
RightReason wrote:
I understand you have your fixed view and want to justify it, but I think your view is wrong and hurtful to people who are homosexual.
Ah, yes, I am going to remove your head, but it's in your best interest. That type of right and wrong. My view is based on compassion, understanding wide reading and condemnation of bigotry and prejudice. If my view is hurtful, I cannot express what yours might be.
RightReason wrote:
I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but my Church vehemently opposes killing homosexuals. So, your facts need updating
The Church was at the forefront of condemning and punishing. Bigoted attitudes have been passed down the centuries and in some Christian Third World countries, that love God more than fresh water, they kill homosexuals. I accept that Francis is civilised; the Church that has swallowed him was a synonym for brutality, and is only recently mending her ways, but as you show, some old attitudes still remain.
RightReason wrote:
Right back at ya – I don’t see how you can argue objectively on this subject when you fail to see the wrongness of homosexual acts.
The subject of our discussion is whether homosexuality is wrong. We don't assume this. It's nobody's business what two adults choose to do with each other in a loving or sexual context.
RightReason wrote:
I think no person can live contrary to natural law and achieve human fulfillment. Like I say, I have a feeling you would think a pedophile should exercise restraint and be celibate, correct?
You are wrong and you are again using a false analogy. When you eat the host are you indulging in cannibalism? Or is that the same type of false analogy?
RightReason wrote:
If my son announced he was gay, I would love and support him like you have no idea...... But be ok with him living a homosexual lifestyle as a gay man? That would lack compassion on my part to support such a thing.
Yes, love is conditional on his doing what he is told. You give examples of promiscuity when we are discussing a person simply being gay. In every instance, to make your case, you have to move into an area of criminality or irresponsibility or huge risk, as if by being homosexual a person is automatically semi-sane, irresponsible or criminal.

The situation where your son takes a male partner for life has nothing to do with the sexually transmitted diseases you outline. If he swears he will be faithful, as a married couple do, would that make it ok? I guess not, because your statistics are red herrings, concealing a bias. So I put it directly to you:

If he is in love with another man and they want to settle down for life, do you give them your blessing, knowing that the STD statistics don't apply? A similar case might be if one's daughter's life were in danger if she did not have an abortion, would the pregnancy be terminated? Even worse, if she'd been assaulted (God forbid) and the pregnancy endangered her, would a termination be acceptable?

There are exceptions to most rules, I think. Stepping back from our hard position isn't a bad thing, and I believe it is the stance Jesus took. Being cruel to be kind is often an excuse for being cruel.

I too enjoy my discussions with you and I see plenty of areas where we agree. Were I your son and were I gay I would be packing my suitcase before telling you and texting from a safe distance, to shelter from that abundance of love.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #75

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to marco]
You are using an analogy to make a wrong conclusion because the analogy is incorrect.
I disagree.
Of course analogies are useful in arriving at a truth by parallelism. In your case, you are wrongly assuming there is common ground with paedophilia, bestiality and homosexuality. That is the subject of our argument, not its conclusion or its premise. Of course I am not involving myself with analogies that quietly parallel homosexuality with criminality. If this is the only way you can argue your case, you are demonstrating that you start with an assumption and you build from there.
I already explained why it is reasonable and fair to use pedophilia or bestiality in my argument because they are both sexual acts that we as a society have determined as wrong using the same process we use to determine the wrongness of homosexual acts. Love is not love as we see when it comes to pedophilia and bestiality, even if both the parties think otherwise (and yes, like I already demonstrated we can know consent even without audible words. There are other cues to use. Also, keep in mind with pedophilia there are actual groups called man-boy love that work to abolish age-of-consent laws citing young men enjoy the encounters and are often willing participants. They parallel the practice to similar grooming of boys to men done in ancient Greece. Ludicrous? Yes, I agree, but goes to show you as a society we do not just leave it at – ‘whatever happens in the bedroom between consenting parties is fine’. In fact, that simply isn’t true. The reason things like pedophilia and bestiality are wrong is because we as observers of the world we live in can acknowledge the way this world works. We look at the biology and science, form/shape/function, relationship we have to one another, harm/consequences in knowing whether certain sexual behaviors are acceptable or not. Using the scientific method and accepting the facts from the world we live in we can determine man was not intended to have sex with animals (nature does not reveal this is the relationship man was intended to have with animals), he was not intended to have sex with pre pubescent human beings (biology, even size and shape and function of the body can reveal this very obvious truth), and he was not intended to have sex with someone of the same sex (nature reveals this through the body, what fits together and what happens when those things come together – children/family). We can observe the human body, study biology and understand the body’s function/purpose. We can see and acknowledge what happens in this world when people live contrary to that purpose. It is through this process of discovery that man can know what is ordered and what is right/good for man and what is not.



Hmmm. Again you move to this equation which I am not accepting. I know what you are trying to show; I wish you would avoid talking about completely different subjects.
You don’t get to shut down the conversation by not allowing the conversation. That is what is done when people yell, “homophobic!� to anyone who disagrees with them and opposes same sex unions. That is what is done when people like you imply I would throw my child from a building if I found out he were gay. You dismiss the person, so you can dismiss the argument. In doing so the person is even prevented from making the argument in the first place. The minute someone says pedophilia or homosexual in the same sentence someone cries, “Foul!� not even hearing out what is to follow. It is a brilliant successful tactic that has been working well. Of course, it is based on emotion, rhetoric, and lies. Let’s not let the facts get in the way. Let’s continue to put our fingers in our ears and paint our opponent as hateful and bigots and we will eventually win. But one must ask, win what? Generations being encouraged to engage in behavior that could never bring them peace/happiness/fulfillment and is also dangerous and harmful. Congratulations.

That type of right and wrong. My view is based on compassion, understanding wide reading and condemnation of bigotry and prejudice. If my view is hurtful, I cannot express what yours might be.
And there you go again, to make me out as a monster, even though I too am compassionate and have nothing but love for all of God’s children. We both want the same thing, we just disagree on how such can be achieved.

but as you show, some old attitudes still remain.
Lovely strawman. You claim I represent hate and bigotry and that I desire gay people to be killed, even though I have repeated I want no such thing, so what exactly have I showed to make you think I think gay people should be killed. If you are going to make that accusation, please post my comments that would support that.
The subject of our discussion is whether homosexuality is wrong. We don't assume this. It's nobody's business what two adults choose to do with each other in a loving or sexual context.
I would say your comment, “It's nobody's business what two adults choose to do with each other in a loving or sexual context� is the assumption and a bad one at that. I OTOH have laid out exactly how we can know right from wrong and determine the wrongness of homosexual acts – you simply keep repeating the standard narrative.

RightReason wrote:



I think no person can live contrary to natural law and achieve human fulfillment. Like I say, I have a feeling you would think a pedophile should exercise restraint and be celibate, correct?


You are wrong and you are again using a false analogy.
So, you don’t think a pedophile should exercise restraint and be celibate despite his sexual feelings?
RightReason wrote:



If my son announced he was gay, I would love and support him like you have no idea...... But be ok with him living a homosexual lifestyle as a gay man? That would lack compassion on my part to support such a thing.


Yes, love is conditional on his doing what he is told.
Uummm . . . where in my above statement did I ever suggest I would withhold love? My love would be unconditional as I stated – it is you who suggested my love would be conditional.
You give examples of promiscuity when we are discussing a person simply being gay.
Wrong. The reason the statistics show a higher percentage of men who have sex with men as contracting more venereal diseases or HIV is precisely due to the nature of the sexual act they engage in. Science reveals the anus is more likely to tear and harbor and spread disease than a vagina. Also, statistically speaking the research shows gay men do have more sexual partners than heterosexual men. So, yes, it appears according to the facts simply being a sexually active gay person, he is at higher risk for physical and psychological health issues.
In every instance, to make your case, you have to move into an area of criminality or irresponsibility or huge risk, as if by being homosexual a person is automatically semi-sane, irresponsible or criminal.
Not at all. It isn’t about the person – it is about the nature of the disorder.
The situation where your son takes a male partner for life has nothing to do with the sexually transmitted diseases you outline. If he swears he will be faithful, as a married couple do, would that make it ok?
No, because my opposition to same sex relations is not simply based on ‘harm done’. That is one consequence of living contrary to natural law, but what makes the act wrong in the first place, is precisely because it is contrary to natural law. Right and wrong exist. Ethically speaking that isn’t only true if we see directly the consequences of the wrongdoing. Also, sexually transmitted disease is not the only consequence faced by a young gay man.

The research shows increased substance abuse, depression, mental illness, domestic abuse, but again those things are secondary. Even if no animal is harmed in an act of bestiality, the behavior is wrong.

We don’t know bulimia to be wrong because the bulimic has a higher incidence of tooth decay. We know bulimia to be wrong because the behavior is disordered. We know the person is engaging in behavior that is wrong – misuse of the body. We don’t hate the person – we try to help the person.
If he is in love with another man and they want to settle down for life, do you give them your blessing
No. He would get my unconditional love, but I would not encourage/support him doing something we can know is wrong
A similar case might be if one's daughter's life were in danger if she did not have an abortion, would the pregnancy be terminated?
This is a red herring from the pro aborts. There are so few examples of an abortion being necessary to save the mother’s life. Even in situations where a mother’s life is threatened, one would attempt to do all they could to save both lives. If that can’t be done, you would of course would do what you have to do to save the mother’s life, if the baby dies in the process of doing so – that isn’t purposely or deliberately killing the baby. It would simply be a sad consequence. There is a big difference from murdering a child vs. not being able to prevent a child from dying.
Even worse, if she'd been assaulted (God forbid) and the pregnancy endangered her, would a termination be acceptable?
Answered exact same as above. What difference would it make if she had been assaulted? Is the baby still not a human life? A part of my little girl in fact.
There are exceptions to most rules, I think
Yes, sometimes, but none of the examples you used above qualify.

Stepping back from our hard position isn't a bad thing, and I believe it is the stance Jesus took. Being cruel to be kind is often an excuse for being cruel.
Not what I’m doing.
I too enjoy my discussions with you and I see plenty of areas where we agree. Were I your son and were I gay I would be packing my suitcase before telling you and texting from a safe distance, to shelter from that abundance of love.
Guess that is always a possibility, but I really don’t see it, because my children know their father and I love them to the moon and back and nothing could change that. They live with me and know and understand what I believe because they see the kind of people we are day in and day out. They appreciate and acknowledge this awesome world we live in. I teach my children the beauty of sex, marriage, and family – it’s pretty cool. Contrary to the stereotype many love to perpetuate, I am not hateful or a bigot or some religious fanatic yelling, ‘turn or burn’. I simply see the beauty and truth of the world and I think my children recognize it as well.

I prefer it when we don’t fight, but perhaps it takes these arguments to appreciate the other person’s perspective. Even when I give you a hard time, I do appreciate you believe what you believe. I even appreciate your truthfulness in your Catholic experience and why you see the Church the way you do. It is helpful and I acknowledge your skepticism.

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 #76

Post by marco »

RightReason wrote:
I already explained why it is reasonable and fair to use pedophilia or bestiality in my argument because they are both sexual acts that we as a society have determined as wrong using the same process we use to determine the wrongness of homosexual acts.
You discuss paedophilia when you should be discussing homosexuality. Conclusions you draw from that investigation do not and need not apply to homosexuality. And society has not "determined homosexuality as wrong." Society has admitted it made mistakes. It is you who argue homosexuality is wrong and, being unable to produce valid reasons, you move on to discuss paedophilia instead.
RightReason wrote:
They parallel the practice to similar grooming of boys to men done in ancient Greece.
In Sparta homosexuaality was accepted and in fact had great military benefits in that society. Among the Athenians there were rules for relations with ephebes and Athenian society did not seem to sink into chaos. We owe a lot to Greece and her philosophers, some of whom were probably homosexual.
RightReason wrote:
The minute someone says pedophilia or homosexual in the same sentence someone cries, “Foul!� not even hearing out what is to follow.
Quite rightly so. Homosexuality is NOT a crime so it is mischievous to compare it to one.
RightReason wrote:
It is a brilliant successful tactic that has been working well. Of course, it is based on emotion, rhetoric, and lies. Let’s not let the facts get in the way. Let’s continue to put our fingers in our ears and paint our opponent as hateful and bigots and we will eventually win.
I am not debating out of self-interest. I view those who condemn homosexuality as wrong. They have their own prejudices disguised as reason and logic. When I see what horrors have been meted out to homosexual men in the past, I am ashamed of the society that did it and disgusted with the religion that spawned that hatred.
RightReason wrote:
Lovely strawman. You claim I represent hate and bigotry and that I desire gay people to be killed, even though I have repeated I want no such thing, so what exactly have I showed to make you think I think gay people should be killed. If you are going to make that accusation, please post my comments that would support that.
I said that the attitude you espouse led in the past to people being killed. I am sure you don't want people to be killed, but as I say, your method of reasoning has justified violence in the past. I accept you distance yourself from that violence. It is enough to know that a set of views that destroyed people is a wrong set of views.
RightReason wrote:

I would say your comment, “It's nobody's business what two adults choose to do with each other in a loving or sexual context� is the assumption and a bad one at that. I OTOH have laid out exactly how we can know right from wrong and determine the wrongness of homosexual acts – you simply keep repeating the standard narrative.
It would be a method of knowing if I accepted it but I don't. You have made an argument to accord with your views. Society does not accept your argument. You may say society is wrong and the brutes of the Third World who kill homosexuals, by following religious dogma, are closer to truth. You are entitled to that curious view.

RightReason wrote:
So, you don’t think a pedophile should exercise restraint and be celibate despite his sexual feelings?
I refer to homosexuality. You counter with paedophilia. You confuse the two.
RightReason wrote:
Not at all. It isn’t about the person – it is about the nature of the disorder.
It isn't a disorder. One might call religious fanaticism a disorder, more threatening to society. If indeed there are risks in exercising one's God-given homosexuality, I'm sure the person should be allowed to take them if he chooses. Thankfully, modern society's law agrees with me.
Marco wrote:
If he is in love with another man and they want to settle down for life, do you give them your blessing?
RightReason wrote:
No. He would get my unconditional love, but I would not encourage/support him doing something we can know is wrong
At least you are honest but that would be sad and no doubt many sons are discarded for the theory and bias held by parents. How love enters this scene is a mystery. The son would never feel it.
Incidentally you accuse me of using "red herrings." Since you've been doing this with paedophilia and bestiality It is rather amusing.
RightReason wrote:
They live with me and know and understand what I believe because they see the kind of people we are day in and day out. They appreciate and acknowledge this awesome world we live in. I teach my children the beauty of sex, marriage, and family – it’s pretty cool.
It is nice to finish on this warm note. I am pleased that you and your family know such happiness. My best wishes.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #77

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Bust Nak]

RightReason wrote:


Uuummm . . . no. We have not determined those things are wrong by some random or arbitrary “personal preference�.

You say that but you are doing it right now.
That doesn’t even make sense. I went on to show that the wrongness of homosexual acts is not based on “feelings� or personal preference rather based on science/facts.

Quote:
Using reason and observation and acknowledging the world we live in man can determine what is right/good.

Not without invoking your personal preference.
Wrong. Acknowledging biology and science and that the body has a shape and a form and a function and acknowledging using something in a way in which it appears to not have been designed for causes negative consequences all help us determine the rightness or wrongness of something – personal preference/feelings/and opinions have nothing to do with it.
What is best depends on what your goals are. Goals are set by individuals
To a degree. Your statement can apply to the little things, like if I am really good at math so my goal is to further my studies in math to some day get a career in mathematics vs. I am really artistic so I am going to skip college and go to art school instead. Both perfectly valid goals. But I’m talking morality here. Rape is always wrong. Yes, even for the rapist. It’s never ok and never best.
For a murderous individual, intelligent and reason and observation leads to the conclusion that is best to kill without being caught. Good luck defending that as right and good.
That is illogical and untrue. Killing would not be in the best interest of the murderer, even if he didn’t get caught, regardless of his feelings. Now you’re just talking nonsense.

Quote:
Rape is not simply wrong if the individual feels it is. The wrongness of rape is not based on subjective taste – lol!

100% backwards. Rape is wrong BECAUSE the individual feels it is. The wrongness of rape is based on subjective taste.
Wow! Uumm, NO!




But that's exactly why rape is wrong - we feel that it is.
No, rape is wrong because each individual person has his own personal space and say over his own body. This is something all human beings can recognize from the world we live in. We are all unique, autonomous individuals. One individual has no right to force themselves upon another, because we aren’t things or objects, rather human beings. We also can observe the harm and danger that comes from raping. For these reasons we know rape is wrong – again feelings are irrelevant. Unless you mean human beings have some innate feeling to acknowledge and recognize the world we live in.

That's how morality works. We can determine what is the optimal solution to fix a problem is via observation, logic and reason.
Yes! And that determination is as you admit based on observation, logic, and reason – not feelings – thank you.
What is and isn't a moral wrong, i.e. is and isn't a problem to fix, is based solely on individual’s personal taste. You keep getting the two things mixed up.
Oooh and you were so close . . .

I think anyone who seriously believes rape is personal preference is the one mixed up. Your argument does not follow reason – mine does.

We can start an entirely new thread discussing right/wrong (morality) and how it is not subjective, rather something all men can know based on acknowledgment of the world we live in.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #78

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 76 by marco]
You discuss paedophilia when you should be discussing homosexuality. Conclusions you draw from that investigation do not and need not apply to homosexuality. And society has not "determined homosexuality as wrong." Society has admitted it made mistakes. It is you who argue homosexuality is wrong and, being unable to produce valid reasons, you move on to discuss paedophilia instead.
I don’t really feel like repeating everything I have already explained, but you leave me no choice. Homosexual acts meet the same criteria for example that bestiality does in determining the wrongness of the behaviors. IOW, the same reasons we come to know bestiality is wrong are the same reasons we can know homosexual acts are wrong. You keep saying, “but homosexual acts aren’t wrong�. To which I would say I realize that the current culture has recently made that claim, however it does so void of logic and reason, if for example the same arguments that make bestiality wrong could be used to describe homosexual acts. And THAT is my point. Of course, given this particular avoidance/denial will probably simply mean the culture eventually changes its position regarding bestiality as well. The culture will be forced to recognize that their argument in favor of homosexual acts, if drawn to its “logical� conclusion, mean acts of bestiality are not wrong either. If two parties want to be together, ‘love’ one another then they should be able to do so. And I suppose people think also the state should recognize their relationship.

We observe the world and it is not difficult to see that using logic and reason a man was not designed for sexual relations with an animal. Again, I know many don’t like the word design because they feel it implies a designer, so I don’t really care what word you use. The point is the shape/form/function does not indicate that a man and an animal should be sexual partners. The behavior would be contrary to the natural order. There are also negative physical and psychological health consequences that would occur in such a relationship that give us further clue/evidence that desiring an animal as one’s sexual partner is not in the best interest of man to obtain human fulfillment. Biology gives us no reason to see compatibility between man and animal – as clearly the sexual act does not contain what nature reveals as part of the sexual act – a procreative function.

This EXACT same logic and reason can show a man was not designed to have sex with another man. They don’t fit. To argue why would a man then be attracted to another man does nothing to support that the relationship would be right/good, as we can observe in this world that man can have sexual feelings and desire to engage in sexual acts that are far from right/good, like pedophilia and bestiality.
In Sparta homosexuaality was accepted and in fact had great military benefits in that society.
Wrong. It was never sanctioned by the state. It was always underground and kept on the down low. Also, the practice was not about love, rather power and dominance, and lust. No culture in any period of history every sanctioned homosexual unions (until recently) Why? Well, let’s ask the question why societies feel the need to recognize marriage in the first place. It was because of the nature of the marital act – the procreation of children. I can love my best friend, but there is no reason for the government to recognize my relationship with my best friend. The state has no compelling interest to recognize love.
Among the Athenians there were rules for relations with ephebes and Athenian society did not seem to sink into chaos.
There are historians who would disagree with you. According to Wikipedia . . .


The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free.


the proper way for a Roman male to seek sexual gratification was to insert his penis into his partner.[9] Allowing himself to be penetrated threatened his liberty as a free citizen as well as his sexual integrity


outside marriage a man was supposed to act on his desires with only slaves, prostitutes (who were often slaves), and the infames.. . . sexual use of another man's slave was subject to the owner's permission.


homosociality was not as pervasive in Rome as it had been in Classical Athens, where it is thought to have contributed to the particulars of pederastic culture


In the Imperial era, a perceived increase in passive homosexual behavior among free males was associated with anxieties about the subordination of political liberty to the emperor, and led to an increase in executions and corporal punishment.[15] The sexual license and decadence under the empire was seen as a contributing factor and symptom of the loss of the ideals of physical integrity (libertas) under the Republic.


Some older men may have at times preferred the passive role. Martial describes, for example, the case of an older man who played the passive role and let a younger slave occupy the active role.[48] An adult male's desire to be penetrated was considered a sickness (morbus); the desire to penetrate a handsome youth was thought normal.[49]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... cient_Rome




We owe a lot to Greece and her philosophers, some of whom were probably homosexual.
I have no problem with this, but not sure what it has to do with the immorality of homosexual acts.
RightReason wrote:



The minute someone says pedophilia or homosexual in the same sentence someone cries, “Foul!� not even hearing out what is to follow.


Quite rightly so. Homosexuality is NOT a crime so it is mischievous to compare it to one.
Again, the recognized “criminality� of something has nothing to do with the conversation. Abortion is legal, but will always be wrong/immoral, regardless of what any state or government says. Besides, I have repeated multiple times, I am not interested in locking up women who have abortions (even if it were illegal) or locking up those who engage in homosexual acts. This is a discussion about right/wrong not government policy. Therefore, it is putting one’s head in the sand to not here out someone’s argument or refuse to discuss certain topics -- it’s shutting down conversation – always a dangerous thing.




I am not debating out of self-interest.
Nor am I.

I view those who condemn homosexuality as wrong.
You might want to actually hear the argument first.
They have their own prejudices disguised as reason and logic. When I see what horrors have been meted out to homosexual men in the past, I am ashamed of the society that did it and disgusted with the religion that spawned that hatred.
If it makes you feel better . . . I can make sure the record will reflect your pre conceived prejudice toward those who disagree with you on this issue. Your generalization regarding religion is noted.

I said that the attitude you espouse led in the past to people being killed. I am sure you don't want people to be killed, but as I say,
your method of reasoning has justified violence in the past.
Aaaaaand secular methods of reasoning have justified violence in the past. Good grief. Also, I continue to tell you I am not opposed to homosexual acts because of the Bible or my religion. So, for you to claim I oppose same sex unions for religious reasons is incorrect. I have not mentioned God, but you continue to do so.
I accept you distance yourself from that violence.
Good, since I AM distanced from that violence. But, thanks?




You have made an argument to accord with your views. Society does not accept your argument.
You have made an argument to accord with your views. I however don’t take my cues of right/wrong from the popular vote of the day. Whether society accepts my argument or not does not matter.
You may say society is wrong and the brutes of the Third World who kill homosexuals, by following religious dogma, are closer to truth. You are entitled to that curious view.
BIG TIME STRAWMAN !!!!!! I do not think those who kill homosexuals in the name of religion or not in the name of religion are closer to the truth, but I recognize you have to create strawmen like this, as it’s all you got.


RightReason wrote:



So, you don’t think a pedophile should exercise restraint and be celibate despite his sexual feelings?


I refer to homosexuality. You counter with paedophilia. You confuse the two.
Appears you are the one confused, you can’t even answer a simple question.
RightReason wrote:



Not at all. It isn’t about the person – it is about the nature of the disorder.


It isn't a disorder.
I couldn’t disagree more and I demonstrated why.

One might call religious fanaticism a disorder,
It probably is. So, who are you accusing of religious fanaticism? I’d be happy to take a psychological test to see in fact if I am a fanatic.



At least you are honest but that would be sad and no doubt many sons are discarded for the theory and bias held by parents. How love enters this scene is a mystery. The son would never feel it.

Interesting to me that you couldn’t see love involved in telling a person it is wrong to engage in behavior that is wrong. In your words – what a curious view.

It is nice to finish on this warm note. I am pleased that you and your family know such happiness. My best wishes.
Thank you. Are we finished O:) ?

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 #79

Post by marco »

[Replying to post 78 by RightReason]


I wouldn't think wiki is a definitive source for what went on in ancient Greece. The Greeks of various states regarded same sex relations in various ways. We find a variety of attitudes among educated Romans.


Using a strawman argument is a deflection technique and when you discuss bestiality at length when we are dealing with homosexuality, you are using a strawman argument. When I say that your method of reasoning to condemn homosexuality is precisely what was used in past ages to place opprobrium of people, this is fact. Condemnation comes from the darker pages of the Bible.


This is the simple position, shorn of irrelevance:

Two people of the same sex settle down together in the way a man and wife do. Is this wrong? No. Your arguments about promiscuity don't apply so you have no useful argument against this other than a religious one. I cannot see any further extension to this discussion.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: homosexuality is NOT a sin

Post #80

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 79 by marco]
I wouldn't think wiki is a definitive source for what went on in ancient Greece. The Greeks of various states regarded same sex relations in various ways. We find a variety of attitudes among educated Romans.
Sure, but it is certainly evident that the prevailing attitude and behavior toward homosexual unions was something that was not sanctioned in regard to matrimony. Also, looks like there is a great deal of evidence showing prevailing attitude seemed to view being on the receiving end of sodomy was a sign of weakness AND those who were “chosen� to play this role were often slaves and or prostitutes.
Using a strawman argument is a deflection technique and when you discuss bestiality at length when we are dealing with homosexuality, you are using a strawman argument.
This is simply not true and I explained why a few times now. My argument is fair. What’s not fair is to declare my argument something not to be considered (to dismiss it on not on its merit, but based solely on your personal opinion of “proper� rhetoric. It’s a little odd to say we can’t talk about something and when pressed as to why simply say, “because I said so�. Sorry, while that line of reasoning is typically used in situations where a person is expected to obey someone (no questions asked), it simply fails in the public forum. Again, if you have something concrete to say or argue about my reasoning with how we derive the immorality of bestiality in comparison to how we derive the immorality of homosexual acts, I would love to hear it. So far you simply keep repeating we aren’t allowed to discuss it.

When I say that your method of reasoning to condemn homosexuality is precisely what was used in past ages to place opprobrium of people, this is fact.
Which method is that? If you mean the method of acknowledging the world we live in, acknowledging science, biology, shape, form, function, man, man’s relationship with this world, reason and logic, then I would agree THAT might have been what people in the past used to know/understand the immorality of homosexual acts.

If you are somehow saying what I have presented here as reason is bigotry or hatred or mere opinion or something based on “feelings�, then I would not deny that kind of reasoning did occur in the past, but is not what I have presented.
Condemnation comes from the darker pages of the Bible.
You mean the same dark pages that condemn murder, adultery, and bestiality? I suppose the subject matter does make it darker pages, but immorality is typically seen as dark. But I will continue to repeat, I do not get my reasoning from the Bible.


Two people of the same sex settle down together in the way a man and wife do. Is this wrong?
Yes, I think so. It is something we can know from the world we live in to be disordered behavior. I will ask you, if a man and a dog desire to settle down together in the way a man and a wife do, is that wrong? Why?
Your arguments about promiscuity don't apply
I already explained they do apply because the nature of the act itself contributes to some of the statistical research.
you have no useful argument against this other than a religious one.
Absolutely false. Once again, I have not brought up religion.
I cannot see any further extension to this discussion.
I think I agree.

Post Reply