Post by Kaiouss Khalizad on Jan 16, 2007 3:04:54 GMT -5
The text indicates that it is the act itself which is wrong:
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful" (Romans 1:26-27).
It seems that homosexuality itself is being condemned here, as opposed to heterosexuality ("men, leaving the natural use of the woman"). This is confirmed by (though it is not dependent on) the Old Testament which specifically states that the mere act of sex between two men is detestable (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful" (Romans 1:26-27).
It seems that homosexuality itself is being condemned here, as opposed to heterosexuality ("men, leaving the natural use of the woman"). This is confirmed by (though it is not dependent on) the Old Testament which specifically states that the mere act of sex between two men is detestable (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).
As you have interpreted what is "natural" yourself to be against homosexuality, I'm sure it would not be so hard for a person writing these things to do so, as well. The intent was different. Also remember that these letters were long after the destruction of Soddom and Gommorah and, historically, it just seems like the attempt of the faithful to attach a reason to it. If you're going to take a literalist approach on this, you shouldn't talk about determining what comes from God and what doesn't, you should simply accept what's given you from God on the hopes that it will increase an understanding your humanity could do nothing to augment.
Also, you're simplifying Romans (which version of the Bible are you quoting from--it's not too important, just a matter of curiosity). The passage uses a specific example. If the sin were simply the act of men lying with men, that's what it would say, but the assumption of the passage is that there is no reason for a man to desire another man except for being given up to lust and disgusting. What about a situation where lust is not the key component to a gay relationship? Shouldn't that mean that homosexuals could marry in the contemporary sense and even be permitted to consummate the marriage (in accordance with marriage in the sense of biblical context).
But if homosexuality is []inherently
It's not saying that even nearly. Lust is still wrong for straight couples (so much for that--haha, I love modern society), so it's not particularly unique to this single action. It's like if I told you I didn't want a Peach Smoothie and you didn't buy me any smoothie at all. In fact, out-spoken, active, and voting Christians would be partially responsible for banning homosexuals from marrying (and supposedly sinning) and even forcing them away from God. What sense would there be in believing in God if every other person who believed in God told you there was no place for you there? I'm sure that jives with the messages of love and acceptance.
Actually, it was Paul (I Cor. 7:8-9, 25-28) who said that. But how is this related at all to the topic of whether homosexuality is wrong or not?
I actually have a habit of citing Peter when I'm referring to Corinthians. Don't worry, though, I know it's Paul; I write too fast to notice, oftentimes (explains spelling errors, also). The point I was trying to make was that Paul wanted people to abstain from sex (and, therein, marriage), so even heterosexual couples have failed if they have not honestly tried to lead a life of celibacy (in Paul's eyes). Paul sees such things as succumbing to lust.
You're going to have to show me the sources for that figure, but even if it's correct, it doesn't prove anything because murder and rape are also more common than they were in the past, but that doesn't prove that those things are "natural" or morally right.
That number came from memory and the original number was probably somewhere around 1.3% (I see a lot of variation on the demography sites online) But if the action itself is wrong, 36something% of American males (keep in mind this is 1974, but it did cut down on Kinsey's 37%) have engaged in homosexual activity at some point during their adolescence.
Actually, wikipedia has a really good entry on this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation
And murder and rape are up or down in different places, even if the national average is up. Also, we would be talking about the world average. And statistically "normal", you're right, does not make something right. After all, the opinion that theism holds the key to all of (after)life's answers fits that description in the US. And I never argued that homosexuality was morally right nor did I even say it was natural. Monogamy is unnatural (as you've discussed with myself and a few others, apparently), but that doesn't mean it's "wrong".
How so?! The kinds of things that take place in homosexual activity are extremely unhealthy, not to mention disgusting. You yourself also admitted in your post that "a homosexual is more likely to contract an STD" (third-to-last paragraph of your post).
Heh. So I take it you haven't had sex with a man? Well, neither have I, I suppose, so I'm not one to judge. Also, I said that a person was more likely to contract an STD through anal sex than vaginal (straight couples still have the option) and, more importantly, through mishandled sex than planned sex. Unhealthy? Not unless you go munch on Mr. Sister's back bits and even then you might be okay. Disgusting? There's apparently between 4 and 5 percent of the population who disagree.
No, I was trying to use intuition alone to show why homosexuality was wrong, rather than appealing to a specific religion. Intuition could point out to the Designer's intentions without touching on any specific religion.
Still limited to religions with Designers, but I see where you're trying to go with this point. Again, doesn't prove it's wrong, just why the way Mr. Designer built us didn't work out as well for that kind of sex. It's harder to do the Wheel Barrow than Missionary position, but, well, it happens. Does that mean God only intends to have sex in the most convenient, reproductive way possible?
Of course. The only reason it should be considered wrong is if the Creator says that it's wrong.
What if there were three creators? Or seventeen? Why is what this one says always right? How do you even know what it's saying?
It's not banning people from marriage and reproduction, it's banning people from a distortion of marriage and reproduction. Everyone would still be allowed to get married and have kids, so how would it be banning them from reproduction?
Besides the point. You're making a decision for another person--taking the place of God. You're restricting the Free Will of a private organization that may otherwise arrange a marriage between two homosexuals. Are we going to go and legislate morality in the place of God? Should sex outside of marriage be illegal, too? Note that you're not only keeping gays out of religious institutions, but you're preventing them from having a stable financial/legal situation--especially in the way that you mentioned: supporting a family. You've taken your faulty ideas of morality, family, marriage, etc, and imposed them upon my life and the lives of others around you. We're no longer free to commit sins the majority doesn't want us to commit or make decisions they disagree with. Not only is it unethical and amoral, it's fascist. If you really want a Theocracy, there are a lot of developing countries ripe for change. Given that the average person is not a social scientist, it's tantamount to having a disc jockey try and do surgery on you with a butter knife in the middle of the street because he's trying to help and thinks he knows what he's doing.
Also, you have to keep in mind that just because some people may have homosexual tendencies, that does not necessarily mean that the person has no desire whatsoever for heterosexual intercourse. Sometimes it could be a matter of where a person directs his/her sexual desire. For instance, one day a married man may cross paths with someone who is not his wife and have an automatic sexual desire for her, but that doesn't mean he can only enjoy sex with her instead of with his wife. It is up to him to recognize that desiring adultery is wrong, and to redirect his sexual desire towards his wife.
Cheating should be against the law, too. Actually, I think we should just financially encourage Christianity by using the government. I don't intend to be trite, but that particular issue is one that I find uniquely disagreeable. Leastways, there are more universal ethical foundations which would encourage a person's priorities to be a monogamous relationship if that's what either partner wanted.
I meant that you seem to imply that couples who are sterile, post-menopausal, genetically different, or any other such things should not be married or have sex. Let's see... religion to justify Eugenics... where have I heard that before? Surely not from a Catholic painter who ruled Germany...
Clearly, such a person might say, God did not intend for these people to marry or procreate.
It's hard to comment on a situation that I have not directly seen.
You don't have to have seen it; the point was that your sweeping generalizations that if(parents=gay); then(children=screwed up). I reasoned that you had no experience in this matter given that my brother, best friend, and many members of my extended family are all gay and so I've naturally met a lot of couples who chose to adopt. None of their children, to my surprise, had clubbed feet or presented a twitch. In fact, many of them bragged about it (as my friend in High School did about his lesbian mothers).
Well show me what Bible passage gives him that right, and then there would be a problem with Christianity. But just because someone does something in the "name of God" does not necessarily mean that the God of the Bible actually approves of it. In fact, the "Bible-thumping slave owner" was going against the Bible by what he did, so the fact that STDs started with him (if that's true) confirms that the Bible is right in its sexual prohibitions.
So, essentially, you're not only saying that your particular brand of your particular religion of your particular worldview is the only correct one; you're also saying that only your particular interpretation from the interpretation of this precise time period is THE greatest, the only, the correct interpretation of reality and everything contained therein and then some?
By your own argumentation, it's clear that God did not intend for the black man to dominate the Earth, so it's good that the white man was there to civilize him and give him a means to work and live honorably and in fear of God. So what minute revelation is it that has happened to come down in this generation that makes it more true that all revelations past? Or perhaps God works in rotating revelations.
Here you admit that a homosexual is more likely to contract an STD. Could that be God's doing? He has programmed nature in such a way that if a person abuses sex, it will backfire on him.
Or, at least, backfire on a few of them. This was addressed a little higher up in my post.
Ha? How is that the case? I thought population is "getting out of control" (the supposed "benefit" of homosexuality to control population), not diminishing! Our society is largely a monogamous society. If any society consists of 100 families, each having a father, a mother, and a few children, what would prevent that society from growing and continuing?
That was the problem I was talking about. I suppose if God's purpose of the human race was simply to "be fruitful and multiply", then we will do so until we're standing on top of one another. Maybe the final judgements happen just before God's Earth is insufficient to sustain the life He supposedly Created.
No, although polygamy was not God's original intent, I'm not sure it is a direct sin per se. King David had more than one wife and there is no record of God rebuking him for it. Apparently God allowed it to take place, although clearly that wasn't what He would have preferred.
So cheating is okay? The Bible also says (Peter DOES say this one) that, well, it's 1 Peter 3:1-7) It's not cheating if it's beneficial to them, I guess.
All that is simply a commentary on the sinfulness of humanity, as Solomon points out: "God has made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes" (Ecc. 7:29). The Bible elsewhere explains:
"Although they [the human race] knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful..., but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves... And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting" (Romans 1:21-28).
One last thing. It's important to stress the fact that us Christians are not trying to be restrictive when it comes to sex, but are trying to protect its value and honor so that it is practiced in a proper and God-honoring way. In other words, Christians are for sex, but against the distortion or abuse of sex.
"Although they [the human race] knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful..., but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves... And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting" (Romans 1:21-28).
One last thing. It's important to stress the fact that us Christians are not trying to be restrictive when it comes to sex, but are trying to protect its value and honor so that it is practiced in a proper and God-honoring way. In other words, Christians are for sex, but against the distortion or abuse of sex.
So you force other people to do what you want so that 5% of the population doesn't "distort" it? How does two men having sex disturb sex with your wife? I'd be interested to know. I do find it ironic that people always think they're the only ones going to heaven. Every generation condemns every generation before it (you saw the issues of slavery and eugenics).
In fact a US News and World Report survey asked 1000 respondents to rate themselves and a few celebrities on the person's likelihood of getting into heaven. Of the celebrities, Mother Theresa was the highest with 79 percent approving her for heaven. So what percentage said that they, themselves were going to heaven? 87 percent.
Every human has thought/felt, does think/feel, and will think/feel that s/he is the smartest, most good human of them all and, well, only one of us can be right.