Homosexuality: Where is the sin?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oddish On Fire

Whenever I debate gay marriage, the first thing I hear is how the Bible specifically says how being gay is wrong. My problem with this is that I cannot see any sense in why God would find this wrong. Being gay is a sin where nobody is harmed. If I decided to have anal sex with a consenting male, there would not be a single negative or harmful consequence for anyone, assuming that I used protection. My opinion is this; If you follow a religion, you should make sure that is logically sound. But, let us ignore what some consider logical fallacies in the Bible and assume the existance of a God. The primary questions are these; Why would God consider gay sex wrong? Furthermore, is being gay itself wrong, or is simply following those urges wrong? If two virgin males joined themselves in marriage and then consumated their marriage, would it still be wrong? If so, why?

As this topic hopefully advances, I will add more questions.
 
Why would God consider gay sex wrong?
Click to expand...

because anatomically a man and woman go together. you cannot get a male pregnant.

that being said I really -really- despise the idea that gay marriage (and anything gay in general) should be prohibited. I agree with almost nothing in the Bible as its credibility has been thoroughly stomped on by its fallacious nature and overall absurdity. it's no different than the same racial prejudice that we lived with (and to an extent still do) for hundreds of years. what makes a human any less worthy or deserving of a partner simply because he/she is different than you? should we frown upon mentally challenged people as well? I mean surely if you're going to be prejudice about how someone's brain is naturally attracted to those of the same sex, you must be against those with brain defects too, right?

perhaps this comes off like I'm a homosexual, but believe me when I say I'm not. I simply hate deliberate ignorance. yes let's frown upon the gay guy because he was born with different brain chemistry!

the blatant stupidity of a lot of conservative ideas makes me sick.
 
I'm not a Christian, and I vaguley understand the bible.

That being said, I kinda remember something about God striking down a man for "spilling his seed". So maybe thats it? The seed of a man is being wasted; i.e. it's not being used to impregante a woman (thats why contraceptives are contraversial).

Also, homosexuality is "different" from the norm. People are afriad of things that are different. Therefore, they believe that thier god would abhor it.
 
I'm going to counter these points before someone who actually means what they're saying chimes in.

trilog said:
because anatomically a man and woman go together. you cannot get a male pregnant.
Click to expand...

So God dislikes the idea of a man and man copulating because it will not end in pregnancy? If this is the case, than is sex between a heterosexual married couple where one partner is incapable of reproduction also wrong by God's standards? I do not see people attempting to ban those incapable of reproduction from getting married.

FattyButt said:
I kinda remember something about God striking down a man for "spilling his seed". So maybe thats it? The seed of a man is being wasted; i.e. it's not being used to impregante a woman.
Click to expand...

Not using your sperm also results in its eventual death. By using this logic everyone should marry immediately after puberty and have frequent sex in order to avoid going to Hell. Any woman who has a period has also has wasted their "seed." Because of this, will they also go Hell? Or does God create a double standard for the sexes?
 
can't answer that for you as I haven't read the Bible... ever. I'm going by what I think. there is a natural, normal attraction to people of the opposite sex. however, on an anatomical level, you can't get a man pregnant.

I'm giving nothing more than my wholehearted opinion for input purposes. you should wait for someone who has read the Bible to respond to that question as my post was not focused on god's silly ideas.
 
I think a part of this debate is linked to the concept of virginity and sexual purity.
The slow liberalization of Christianity has lead to the Catholic Church accepting homosexuality as ok, as long as there isn't any sexual activity involved. I'm pretty sure that's where the church is at right now as a whole, but I could be summarizing a particular sect's views.
So, back to my main point. I think that the argument goes like this:
Homosexuality is unnatural. It wasn't Adam and Steve (or Madam and Eve?), it was Adam and Eve. Sex is primarily for procreation. Since same-sex couples cannot physically produce a baby via natural methods (unnatural is on its way), homosexual sex like sodomy are referred to as acts against nature. Morality is tied to religion to a large degree (albeit it is a completely separate concept), so morality also needs to be considered. The general definition is "what one ought to do"--that is, fulfill one's obligations. Those obligations, many agree, come from our nature as human beings. Therefore, if we go against that nature, we are being immoral. Since being immoral is equated with sinning, homosexual acts are sins.
 
omgthatkid said:
I think a part of this debate is linked to the concept of virginity and sexual purity.
The slow liberalization of Christianity has lead to the Catholic Church accepting homosexuality as ok, as long as there isn't any sexual activity involved. I'm pretty sure that's where the church is at right now as a whole, but I could be summarizing a particular sect's views.
So, back to my main point. I think that the argument goes like this:
Homosexuality is unnatural. It wasn't Adam and Steve (or Madam and Eve?), it was Adam and Eve. Sex is primarily for procreation. Since same-sex couples cannot physically produce a baby via natural methods (unnatural is on its way), homosexual sex like sodomy are referred to as acts against nature. Morality is tied to religion to a large degree (albeit it is a completely separate concept), so morality also needs to be considered. The general definition is "what one ought to do"--that is, fulfill one's obligations. Those obligations, many agree, come from our nature as human beings. Therefore, if we go against that nature, we are being immoral. Since being immoral is equated with sinning, homosexual acts are sins.
Click to expand...
Calling something that naturally occurs in nature "unnatural" seems counter-intuitive. Not to mention the "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument is so full of holes it's hard to take anyone who uses it seriously at all.
 
omgthatkid said:
I think a part of this debate is linked to the concept of virginity and sexual purity.
The slow liberalization of Christianity has lead to the Catholic Church accepting homosexuality as ok, as long as there isn't any sexual activity involved. I'm pretty sure that's where the church is at right now as a whole, but I could be summarizing a particular sect's views.
So, back to my main point. I think that the argument goes like this:
Homosexuality is unnatural. It wasn't Adam and Steve (or Madam and Eve?), it was Adam and Eve. Sex is primarily for procreation. Since same-sex couples cannot physically produce a baby via natural methods (unnatural is on its way), homosexual sex like sodomy are referred to as acts against nature. Morality is tied to religion to a large degree (albeit it is a completely separate concept), so morality also needs to be considered. The general definition is "what one ought to do"--that is, fulfill one's obligations. Those obligations, many agree, come from our nature as human beings. Therefore, if we go against that nature, we are being immoral. Since being immoral is equated with sinning, homosexual acts are sins.
Click to expand...

Going against human nature is now a sin? I thought laws like "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shall not commit adultery" existed to curb what is human nature.
 
I hope you guys don't think I'm advocating that argument.
I'm just trying to articulate the views of the opposition.
I'm actually gay, by the way...
 
By using this logic everyone should marry immediately after puberty and have frequent sex in order to avoid going to Hell.
Click to expand...

The traditional view of thinking is that every man should get married and have children.

Or does God create a double standard for the sexes?
Click to expand...
I don't know if you've noticed, but the bible creates double standards for almost everying.
 
While I don't think homosexuality as an entire behavior is sinful, I think the argument can be made about gay marriage.
I don't like how people equate gay marriage with gay rights. It's nonsense.
Marrying people that oughtn't be married is like giving presidential status to Hitler. Recognizing someone in such a way that violates what the church believes marriage ought to be (union of man and woman...to encourage child-bearing?) I think is wrong.
It shouldn't even have legal status.

Also, in response to Hipmonlee, my friend was voicing her opposition to homosexuality as a whole (she's a Muslim, not Christian). Since she's not here to speak on her behalf, I think it's permissible that I reiterate what she had to say in my own words.
 
I'm not singling anyone out, but could people please stop making erroneous posts? I was hoping for much more out of this thread. If a mod could clean it up, I would appreciate it. (This post included)
 
That assumes you actually understood her argument in the first place.

The problem with Devil's Advocate is that generally your understanding of the argument in question is assumed to be shallow compared with someone who actually supports that position. And if the argument is indeed unreasonable, then demonstrating that is pointless, unless there is someone present who actually believes it. And if that is the case, then it is probably a good idea to wait for that person to argue that position than make it on their behalf.

Especially in this context, where I think the point of the question is that the common arguments like what are being offered here are so stupid that the OP assumes there is some depth that he, like he must assume the rest of you, are missing.

The fact is this thread has gone nowhere..

Have a nice day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top