• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
If the only reason is because God said it, then that is good enough, but as with all sins we can see the affects of sin on the world. We see that today, broken families are the route causes when it comes to many societal problems. A man brings something to the table as well as a female. Men in the home according to the Bible have specific roles. The man is to provide for the family and make the big decisions in the house, being the leader. he wife is to be the caretaker for the children, as we have seen through science, the care of a mother is necessary when raising a healthy baby. The male and female are to raise the child thus allowing the child to develop through feminine and masculine persuasion. I am aware that the homosexual is not able to reproduce. But many do choose to adopt and I am certain we will begin to see the repercussions. Like I said, we don't need an explanation, but we sure can find one if we so choose to look.
This is a pretty outdated mode of thinking. Maybe we shouldn't follow ancient texts written by people who were ignorant to much of the knowledge we have acquired since those texts were first written down. I mean, we're talking about people who thought slavery was okay too.

I can assure you that homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproducing, as they have the same genitalia as heterosexual people. My cousin has a child that she gave birth to. She is a lesbian.

What repercussions do you foresee as a result of gay adoption? How come we haven't seen it yet in countries that have allowed gay adoptions for decades?

By the way, if you think there is a problem with broken families in the world today, doesn't it make sense to support gay marriages and the families that result from them?
 
Last edited:

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Why does this entire forum deny sexual imprinting?

Imprinting (psychology) - Wikipedia
Because, as others have said, this is no less an inappropriate use of the term than when people call Beauty and the Beast an example of Stolkholm's Syndrome. You're using TV Freudian BS to try and find something wrong with the object of your prejudice.
It would be like saying Christians make for themselves a powerful illusion due to an infantile desire for a strong father figure, taking on childish behavior like belief in immortality of the self and being the innocent and meek powerless figure to cast off adult acceptance of superiority of nature over self.
(The above are actual Freudian diagnostics.)

Ultimately your assertion has no correlative power, let alone causitive.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You got the wrong generation mate. I didn´t realize I was speaking to a Brit, your national social history is different to ours. I Was speaking of the Berkeley free speech movement of the 60ś. I was also speaking of the crybaby loser college students in the USA.

I didn´t read the OPś post, I wasn´t interested, he didn´t represent my Christian views, and you are unjust in lumping me in with ¨ YOU guyś´´ you don´t know me, you don´t know my actions you don´t know how I relate to anyone.

I only responded because as I was passing by I caught your emphatic statement about being ¨ born that way ¨. There is very little evidence of this, lots of theoryś. I once had a long conversation with a celibate Christian homosexual on the very question of ¨ why would I choose to be this way ¨. I appreciate your point

As you guys say, cheers. As we say, have a nice day
Hmm, so do you think animals are consciously choosing to be gay? Are heterosexuals consciously choosing to be straight? If the answer to both is no, then the answer to the "are they born that way" question becomes rather obvious.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You're not he


Sexual imprinting is real: Imprinting (psychology) - Wikipedia

Having a first experience with a same sex person is no guarantee, nor are multiple experiences, however, to a person at an over 99% rate, each homosexual I've met was either molested same sex or had a broken relationship with a same sex parent, which latter point is missed by every person so far who has responded at this forum.
This was addressed pretty thoroughly in posts #191 and #192.

Edit: And a bunch of other posts too, I see.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
And that's the rub. For Christians who are opposed to homosexuality it must be by choice. Even the Catholic Church admits homosexuality is a 'given' just as heterosexuality is. The Church leaves any definitive answer to science. Were you born a heterosexual or did you choose your sexuality?
You propose that I "oppose" homosexuality. That is not the Biblical position nor mine. Anybody can be whomever they choose or are. Why should I oppose them ? You, like many, and sadly, many Christians, conflate the proper Biblical position, with avoidance, dislike, disrespect, etc., etc.. The Bible is clear, first ALL people are to be treated with respect and kindness. second, homosexuals are part of the general population, Paul makes this clear when he says that "to avoid them you would have to leave the world", so they certainly are part of ALL.

The misconceptions are based on the focus, which expand to the general conclusions by many.

The relevant issue is Paul's statement that homosexuals are not to be allowed membership in the church. This doesn't exclude them from attending, or being ministered.

He makes it clear that homosexuality is considered a sin by God. He makes it clear many human behaviors are sins. Some that I have committed, and probably will commit one today. Christianity, is a choice, no one is forced to live by it's tenants. There was a time in my life many decades ago, when I wanted to be a professional baseball player. I had neither the skill, nor the dedication to the physical training to be accepted on a pro team. I chose not to seek that career.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Hmm, so do you think animals are consciously choosing to be gay? Are heterosexuals consciously choosing to be straight? If the answer to both is no, then the answer to the "are they born that way" question becomes rather obvious.
No, your question is weighted in that it presumes that biological predeterminism is a fact for the presence of homosexuality in humans. That is far from proven. the discussion is about humans, not animals. No biologist, geneticist, psychologist or psychiatrist that I have read on the matter relies on your formula, ' "It is, therefore it was predetermined". Sex is biologically determined by genes. The sexual organs are designed or evolved biologically for reproduction. The sex drive, in evolution is to provide the survival of the species by reproduction, the evolution and function of the sex organs prove this. In Christian design this is also true, coupled with an emotional component. In 90 to 95% sexual intercourse is consistent with the biological determination of sex. There is a reason why in that small percentage it isn';t. Your contention that it it is, so it has been biologically proven, is false, and until it is proven it will remain a theory. There are other theories. None have been proven. Many, perhaps most believe one or more. Belief is a different kettle of fish entirely
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
No, your question is weighted in that it presumes that biological predeterminism is a fact for the presence of homosexuality in humans.
So where do you think heterosexuality comes from?

That is far from proven. the discussion is about humans, not animals.
We're all biological organisms. Why leave animals out?

No biologist, geneticist, psychologist or psychiatrist that I have read on the matter relies on your formula, ' "It is, therefore it was predetermined".
So what? For all I know, you only know one biologist.

There are all kinds of factors involved, much like heterosexuality.

Sex is biologically determined by genes. The sexual organs are designed or evolved biologically for reproduction. The sex drive, in evolution is to provide the survival of the species by reproduction, the evolution and function of the sex organs prove this. In Christian design this is also true, coupled with an emotional component. In 90 to 95% sexual intercourse is consistent with the biological determination of sex. There is a reason why in that small percentage it isn';t. Your contention that it it is, so it has been biologically proven, is false, and until it is proven it will remain a theory. There are other theories. None have been proven. Many, perhaps most believe one or more. Belief is a different kettle of fish entirely
Sex and sexual orientation are not the same thing.

You didn't answer my questions and I think the reason is rather obvious.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Quite interesting that you believe the majority of conservative Christians who do translate this are not biased in any way. I am indeed a Biblical scholar, I have a Bachelor's of Science degree in Religious Studies.

However, this isn't the 1980's were you MUST rely on a scholar from 7 cities over. You can do your own research by using the all powerful internet - and guess what, you can translate it yourself with translators that are online.
I have a couple of undergraduate degrees, I don't believe they qualify me as scholar in their particular fields.

I don't deny bias exists, but the Greek says what it says. You are talking about a few disputed words in two books of Paul's that a vocal minority disputes the conclusions of the overwhelming majority. Being a scholar, you understand that context is critically important. I contend, as do most, that that minority does not consider context in how they translate these words.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
So where do you think heterosexuality comes from?


We're all biological organisms. Why leave animals out?


So what? For all I know, you only know one biologist.

There are all kinds of factors involved, much like heterosexuality.


Sex and sexual orientation are not the same thing.

You didn't answer my questions and I think the reason is rather obvious.
I didn';t answer your question because it is based on a false assumption., Have you stopped beating your wife ?

Now you introduce a new factor "sexual orientation". Well, of course, literally sex determines sexual orientation. I think I know what you mean, a psychological or social factor, but you tell me. If you contend it is biological, predetermined genetically, the circle closes, to date, this can't be proven.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
The article doesn't refute anything I've said, and, repeating, I've witnessed to numerous homosexuals and heard from clinicians who confirm what I've shared. Why does no one on this forum understand what sexual imprinting is?
Simple logic refutes what you've said. You've provided no evidence, just anecdotes. Science does not bear what you say is the cause of homosexuality. It's not a cause of abuse or a mental disorder. It's a naturally occuring variation on a spectrum of sexual orientations. I don't care about what your friends or whatever psychologists you know say. I have friends who say different and there's psychologists and scientists who say different. So save it.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I didn';t answer your question because it is based on a false assumption., Have you stopped beating your wife ?
What false assumption is it based on? Do you think animals choose to their sexual orientation? Do you think humans choose their sexual orientation?

Now you introduce a new factor "sexual orientation". Well, of course, literally sex determines sexual orientation. I think I know what you mean, a psychological or social factor, but you tell me. If you contend it is biological, predetermined genetically, the circle closes, to date, this can't be proven.
I didn't introduce anything. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation.

The general consensus is that sexual orientation comes from a mixture of biological, genetic, epigenetic, hormonal, developmental, and environmental factors. I'll go with that.

I find it bizarre when people want to claim that sexual orientation is a choice that anybody is consciously making, whether it be homosexuality, heterosexuality or anything in between (which is actually where a lot of people fall anyway).
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
What false assumption is it based on? Do you think animals choose to their sexual orientation? Do you think humans choose their sexual orientation?

I didn't introduce anything. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation.

The general consensus is that sexual orientation comes from a mixture of biological, genetic, epigenetic, hormonal, developmental, and environmental factors. I'll go with that.

I find it bizarre when people want to claim that sexual orientation is a choice that anybody is consciously making, whether it be homosexuality, heterosexuality or anything in between (which is actually where a lot of people fall anyway).
I NEVER once stated it was a choice YOU assumed that. General consensus is an agreement to an opinion or decision or idea, it could be totally wrong, totally right, or something in between. You want to do exactly what you are accusing me of doing plump down on all the information is in, when it isn´t

I find it bizarre that people choose to eat octopus, jump out of planes, shoot themselves, are terrified of cockroaches or spiders, but they do and are
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
That man, as you claim, was chosen by God to write down exactly what he was inspired by God what to write.

First of all the Thread is not about whether God exists or not.

The Thread is about ( God's opposition to homosexual behavior,Why?)

So to get into a discussion about whether God exists or not, is not what this Thread is about.
But if you wish to get into the discussion about homosexual behavior.

If you would read the sign over the room before you enter the room it does read

( God's opposition to homosexual behavior.Why?)
And yet, I could as easily start a thread called "The Flying Spaghetti Monster's opposition to Christian behaviour. Why?" And you would find you find yourself in an identical position. First, you would insist that there a) is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, and b) that there is evidence that it opposes Christian behaviour, because if both of those are untrue (let alone just one of them, impossibly) then the question itself is not well-formed, meaningless and unanswerable.

You would very likely claim that anything purported to be written "by the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is really just some human being pretending to be inspired by a non-existent being. You could not, however, prove that. And it is certainly true that there are many behaviours displayed by Christians that are objectionable, not least of which are missionary zeal and condemnation of others for supposed "sinful behaviours."

Thus, from my point of view, the answer to the question "why is God opposed to homosexual behaviour" is: He isn't -- because HE IS NOT.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I am not sure why people are ignoring my argument here... is it because they are stuck on black and white thinking? The verses were translated incorrectly intentionally. My wall of text that you guys seem to find so offensive shows this. There is not a single verse in the bible that condemns homosexuality.
I took note of your argument, and essentially agree with much of. I've studied some of the same material myself. I am also aware that many, many Christians theologians have come to the conclusion that homosexuality (including homosexual behaviour) is not wrong, nor hated by God. The United Church of Canada, for example, is quite happy to marry loving gay couples (of both sexes), and to include them fully in the life of the church -- including the ministry. You have probably seen the "Letter to Louise" written by Bruce W. Lowe, which is a good demonstration (God Made Me Gay: A Letter to Louise). If not, I urge you (and others) to read it.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Everyone is so obsessed with sex they ignored what I wrote regarding a broken relationship with a same sex parent . . . growing in Children's Aid you had a superb paternal relationship with your father?

And you asked thousands of gays in Canada about their growing up process and inquired as to the abuse they experienced?

I've witnessed to thousands of people, when homosexuality comes up, I can close my eyes and say, "Behold! You were abused or had a bad relationship with your same sex parent."

I'm asking you to be honest with me, if you want to go there and have an honest discourse, and learn.
I was 100% honest with you. Did I not say, in my post "I was one of the very few exceptions" (to gays growing up in loving, healthy families)? Here's the thing, you are talking about people who you do not really know (who you have "witnessed to," whatever the heck that means), and you say "thousands" of them to boot. I'm talking about people I've known, hundreds and hundreds of them, and often known members of their families, over long periods of time. These were my friends and close acquaintances, about whom I got to know something. And, even though I am an exception (as I stated), your claim does not reflect IN THE SLIGHTEST the reality that I know and have lived.

And that is why I suggested that I distrust both your statements and your motives.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The reason homosexual behavior is condemned is not explicitly given in scripture, just that it is. However I have an opinion of why it is. (Mind this is just my personal opinion) I think it is because homosexual behavior is selfish. Heterosexual behavior can be too. And selfish expressions are also condemned. Similarly selfish form of other behavior are condemned. For example gluttony is condemned while normal eating is not. Similarly avarice and covetousness are condemned but labor and balanced ambition are not. The question needs to be asked, what is the purpose of sex? Is its purpose self pleasure or altruistic and procreation? Not that sex should not also be pleasurable but that is secondary to sex’s primary purpose which is to serve others. And to serve others unselfish needs, not their selfish ones.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I see you are genuinely upset. I'm not trying to cause you pain. But I will share truth where I can.

Sexual imprinting is an acknowledge science fact: Imprinting (psychology) - Wikipedia

And while psychologists have come against homosexuality being a learned condition, they will never deny the realities of sexual imprinting and of broken relationships with same sex parents, as they deal with these with clients daily.
Yes I am upset when people bear false witness and generally lie about others.

Imprinting has no affect on sexual orientation. It can affects things like sexual fetishes, a cycle of abuse or even unhealthy expectations of relationships (gay or straight or whatever.) You are deliberately misusing a known phenomenon and twisting it to explain your own preconceived prejudices. Quite intellectually dishonest of you, I must say.
Are you honestly suggesting that heterosexual people who were abused or came from broken homes (which accounts for the majority of the stats relating to such phenomenons) are heterosexual specifically because of their broken homes or abuse?

Are you suggesting that we are all born bisexual and then choose to be either gay or straight (which is essentially the implications of gay being a choice?)

Give me actual studies that support your claim, from legitimate sources. Otherwise all you have is fallacious data that has no real merit in a debate.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
The reason homosexual behavior is condemned is not explicitly given in scripture, just that it is. However I have an opinion of why it is. (Mind this is just my personal opinion) I think it is because homosexual behavior is selfish. Heterosexual behavior can be too. And selfish expressions are also condemned. Similarly selfish form of other behavior are condemned. For example gluttony is condemned while normal eating is not. Similarly avarice and covetousness are condemned but labor and balanced ambition are not. The question needs to be asked, what is the purpose of sex? Is its purpose self pleasure or altruistic and procreation? Not that sex should not also be pleasurable but that is secondary to sex’s primary purpose which is to serve others. And to serve others unselfish needs, not their selfish ones.
Keeping in mind that god never said a man and a woman shouldn't have sex unless it's for procreation, why didn't god condemn heterosexual behavior?

.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
The reason homosexual behavior is condemned is not explicitly given in scripture, just that it is. However I have an opinion of why it is. (Mind this is just my personal opinion) I think it is because homosexual behavior is selfish. Heterosexual behavior can be too. And selfish expressions are also condemned. Similarly selfish form of other behavior are condemned. For example gluttony is condemned while normal eating is not. Similarly avarice and covetousness are condemned but labor and balanced ambition are not. The question needs to be asked, what is the purpose of sex? Is its purpose self pleasure or altruistic and procreation? Not that sex should not also be pleasurable but that is secondary to sex’s primary purpose which is to serve others. And to serve others unselfish needs, not their selfish ones.

Homosexuality is no more selfish than heterosexuality. It is simply a sexual attraction towards someone of the same sex and that one is most likely born with. If we are to believe much evidence, there are large numbers who have some degree of sexual attraction towards those of the same sex - the graph in the link below - how do we explain this:

Nearly half of young people don't think they are exclusively heterosexual

I have some concerns that sex is often or mostly seen as being mainly for pleasure these days, for many at least, but this is hardly new. It is one reason why I am not so enamoured with pornography, which to me, also doesn't enhance relationships as might relationships so dependent upon sex.

:holdinghands: :menholdinghands: :dancers: :family: :D

Edit: However, I found this too :rolleyes::

WSU psychologists dispute continuum theory of sexual orientation
 
Last edited:

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Since Kinsey is mentioned in the link cited, with his work concerning homosexuality and especially paedophilia taken as gospel often, I thought I might as well contribute this.

Many paedophiles will consistently use the Kinsey Reports as evidence for the universality of childhood sexuality, but his research seems quite flawed as to the samples used, not exactly randomly selected or by age, and the dubious methodology, that it would take a supreme optimist, or a paedophile, to see his work as being entirely without flaws. It is often the case that paedophiles will cite research studies as not being relevant because the data comes from either offender populations or might not be representative (Dr James Cantor's work springs to mind - About Dr. James M. Cantor, psychologist and sex expert), but this is exactly what Kinsey did when obtaining some of his data. Some of the following might be concluded from Dr Sarah Goode’s second book, Paedophiles in Society (2011) - recommended reading regarding paedophilia, as is her first book.

Kinsey seemed to have a view that fits well with many pedo-advocates - that children should be encouraged to have as early an acquaintance with their sexuality as possible hence his (and his team's) attitude, or lack of it, towards sexual abuse - all sex is good sex. He apparently never pushed the view that adult-child sexual contact could ever be harmful - another reason he is so in bed with paedophiles. This is hardly neutral or impartial science, since he seemed to already have had an assumed position with regards to this issue. Apparently Kinsey thought that, in a more enlightened society, and no doubt helped along by an adult's manipulations, about half of children below about age four would experience orgasms. I doubt it. It might just sexualize them though. I’m sure most parents know this, but TV programmes such as The Secret Life of Four, Five, Six-year-olds do tend to show how vulnerable children are at this age, and how little they actually know or can control. They really don’t need to be bothering with sexuality.

The Kinsey data for one aspect came from the reports of nine paedophiles apparently, or possibly just one man, or possibly from prison interviews, and perhaps from one convicted child sex abuser - but who knows, so how can it be trusted? Where was the science here? Of course, paedophiles are just as honest as everyone else, so just accept the evidence? :rolleyes: But anyone so described can hardly be called impartial or be disinterested with regards what occurred. The thought springs to mind that much of the data gathered is not useful when it appears (from his writing) that there might have been manipulation, coaching, or grooming in many cases involving very young children. How scientific is this - ignoring the abuse implications, as it would have been abuse just as it is now. He also seemed to have had little regard for the rights of the child as autonomous individuals, but those were different times. Many today still don't see children as having such inherent rights.

He also might have had a bias towards homosexuality, being bisexual himself, since the 10% figure for homosexuals in the population is possibly not accurate either, being much less, but probably higher than the number of paedophiles. If homosexuals did exist in such large numbers, then we would probably see much more evidence, which can be said possibly for paedophiles too. (Quite a few studies seem to imply that although the incidence of paedophilia in the adult population might be in the 1% to 2% region, many more (as much as 20% to 30% of adult males) do have sexual fantasies concerning very young children.) Being sexually aroused by certain stimuli does not necessarily equate to having a sexual attraction for the subject however, and certainly doesn’t indicate a sexual orientation. Concerning homosexual sexual orientation, I’m more inclined to believe the figure of 4% in the survey shown in the link, given that those younger will perhaps be unsure and still experimenting - and exclusivity being the appropriate measure.

:( :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Top