God's opposition to homosexuality. Why?

[tarekabdo12]

Yes, there are homosexuals everywhere in Egypt. They just have better sense than to let anyone know about their homosexuality.

There is a vast difference in the no. between those in western and eastern community, everywhere doesn't mean anything.

 

[McBell]

There is a vast difference in the no. between those in western and eastern community, everywhere doesn't mean anything.

How would you know?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is a vast difference in the no. between those in western and eastern community, everywhere doesn't mean anything.

The eastern community is repressive and frightened of change. I'm hoping that the switch to democracy in your country will lead to a more relaxed view of things, although I'm sure it will be a grudgingly slow process.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Disagree with the conclusion, and is what the experiment / bet is about.

More accurate to say, some self identified heterosexual males when considering sexual activity with someone of the same gender are prone to prejudices from peers, family, own discriminations, such that the idea of being a "certain way" is determined to be revolting.

The experiment I alluded to earlier, bypasses the prejudice, and deals specifically with what all, or most, heterosexual males (who like oral sex) claim they desire in that act. I think that experiment, when performed, would change minds of some, but not all.

Another way to consider things is to entertain idea that every partner a heterosexual has been with was previously a male (think sex change), but that information wasn't given to you. Admittedly, this is nowhere near the same point I made in the experiment, but for some, it actually is. Because, it would mean, some were / are actually "that way" and if reality was, "ex girlfriend called me up and said she was a guy before we met, but never told me during the relationship," I think certain heterosexual males would feel entirely violated and revolted by the sex they were engaged in. I'm not saying they'd convert, but the revolt would be, in many cases, equal to revolt you are speaking of.

It's only a lost and confused world that even considers it possible to change a person's sex. Such things can only happen in a world completely devoid of any absolute truth and out of touch with reality. Just because you can chop a man's thing off and poke a hole in him does not make him a woman. Anyone who's willing have a "sex change" operation is dealing with severe issues and needs psychiatric help asap. Unfortunately, some people are so determined to chase such perverted sexual desires , under the false belief that God made them this way, that they won't even entertain the possibility that they need help.

 

[Acim]

It's only a lost and confused world that even considers it possible to change a person's sex. Such things can only happen in a world completely devoid of any absolute truth and out of touch with reality. Just because you can chop a man's thing off and poke a hole in him does not make him a woman. Anyone who's willing have a "sex change" operation is dealing with severe issues and needs psychiatric help asap. Unfortunately, some people are so determined to chase such perverted sexual desires , under the false belief that God made them this way, that they won't even entertain the possibility that they need help.

I'll take that as - no you wouldn't be revolted if finding out ex-partner was not gender you thought they were, when you were dating / doing "it."

Thank you for your direct response.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I'll take that as - no you wouldn't be revolted if finding out ex-partner was not gender you thought they were, when you were dating / doing "it."

Thank you for your direct response.

Actually I was just going off on a rabbit trail. I gave my answer before you even proposed the unlikely scenario. Remember me saying that for a heterosexual even the thought of sex with a man is revolting? That doesn't all of a sudden change based on some wierd experience.

 

[Acim]

Remember me saying that for a heterosexual even the thought of sex with a man is revolting? That doesn't all of a sudden change based on some wierd experience.

Even for a heterosexual female?
JK

Well, I am appealing to the experience / enjoyment of sexuality for heterosexual males, and so my bet or experiment still stands. You seem to be saying that in my experiment, if you thought it was a male, it would be revolting, regardless of the feeling(s) you experienced. Yet, what if it were 3 people who are in room, 2 female and 1 male, and one of them will give you oral sex. Now, if it were female, but you thought it was male, then you are saying that just the thought would have you revolted / withdrawing from the experience, regardless of how much you liked it. Is this correct?

Furthermore, sex can be described in many ways. If you are only thinking of it from male-on-male way in say 3 ways, and calling that sex, I could understand how there is no way I could persuade you to possibly find sense of joy / pleasure in say 2 out of 3 of those ways. While the one way I brought up, I believe it would be exception to rule you might have. But if open to idea of sexual relations could be say 77 different things, and let's say way down on totem pole is "hugging." I would find it odd that you couldn't hug a man, in a sexual way. I realize that gets tricky, and I'm not talking 'groping,' but also not talking about the 1 to 2 second hug. I'm talking about embracing a male body out of feeling of love and appreciation for that person. Holding the hug let's say a good 8 seconds. Feeling the warmth and the embrace from the other person. Would you care to address how revolting that might be for you?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Remember me saying that for a heterosexual even the thought of sex with a man is revolting?

:sarcastic
Speaking as a male heterosexual, I can say that I do not find the thought of sex with a man revolting.
I just don't find men to be sexually attractive.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Even for a heterosexual female?
JK

Well, I am appealing to the experience / enjoyment of sexuality for heterosexual males, and so my bet or experiment still stands. You seem to be saying that in my experiment, if you thought it was a male, it would be revolting, regardless of the feeling(s) you experienced. Yet, what if it were 3 people who are in room, 2 female and 1 male, and one of them will give you oral sex. Now, if it were female, but you thought it was male, then you are saying that just the thought would have you revolted / withdrawing from the experience, regardless of how much you liked it. Is this correct?

Furthermore, sex can be described in many ways. If you are only thinking of it from male-on-male way in say 3 ways, and calling that sex, I could understand how there is no way I could persuade you to possibly find sense of joy / pleasure in say 2 out of 3 of those ways. While the one way I brought up, I believe it would be exception to rule you might have. But if open to idea of sexual relations could be say 77 different things, and let's say way down on totem pole is "hugging." I would find it odd that you couldn't hug a man, in a sexual way. I realize that gets tricky, and I'm not talking 'groping,' but also not talking about the 1 to 2 second hug. I'm talking about embracing a male body out of feeling of love and appreciation for that person. Holding the hug let's say a good 8 seconds. Feeling the warmth and the embrace from the other person. Would you care to address how revolting that might be for you?

hehehe....I can't believe some of these scenerios you are coming up with. There so in-depth and detailed. I'm not sure what you're sexuality is but my guess is that you're a bisexual. My enjoyment of sex is dependant on my knowledge of what gender the partner is as well as how they look. I doubt I'd even enjoy oral sex if I was blindfolded and didn't know who was servicing me. It's when my mind is convinced that it's a woman that I get excited. I can't explain why it works that way. I'm sure only biology could explain that.

 

[Acim]

I doubt I'd even enjoy oral sex if I was blindfolded and didn't know who was servicing me. It's when my mind is convinced that it's a woman that I get excited. I can't explain why it works that way. I'm sure only biology could explain that.

The experiment though with blindfold would allow you to think it is most beautiful female ever. Enjoy it at that level. Picture her, enjoy the pleasure and tell me after the experiment how it went.

I know of several heterosexual males, most married, who have admitted out loud (with almost no prompting) that they sometimes think of some other female when having sexual relations with their spouse / significant other. I don't know how common this actually is, but if is say around 10%, that would be interesting, especially given the experiment I'm putting forth. Point being, heterosexual males (at least some of us) will go to great, imaginary lengths, to enhance the experience.

Another way to look at this, though I don't expect you to budge, is what about female who is prototype 'tomboy.' Say you know her, are familiar with her and everyone, including yourself, thinks of her as pretty much a guy or like a guy. Now let's picture effeminate male. Dresses like female, carries himself like female, etc. Parts down below are female for the female, male for the male. I'm not even going to mention either person's sexual orientation. But question is, which one are you more attracted to, and why? I realize you might need more info, but if you could go with hypothetical, that would be good. If you want me to google pic images and paste here because your hetero self demands it, I may oblige.

 

[Agnostic75]

Quite simply, if a God exists, there is not any credible evidence that he has publicly stated anything about homosexuality by any means, but there is credible evidence that the Bible contains lots of errors, and lots of questionable claims.

If a God exists, I am not aware of any good reasons why he would communicate with humans via human proxies claiming to speak for him instead of directly communicating with humans himself. Millions of people have died without ever hearing the Gospel message. That shows that human effort alone would never be enough to allow everyone to hear the Gospel message. Only a God could accomplish that.

 

[waitasec]

I am not aware of any good reasons why he would communicate with humans via human proxies claiming to speak for him instead of directly communicating with humans himself.

neither am i.
the human proxy element is very suspect...and prone to be used as a tool for abuse.

nature communicates with us in a very direct way, so much so, that we don't argue with it...

 

[tumbleweed41]

neither am i.
the human proxy element is very suspect...and prone to be used as a tool for abuse.

nature communicates with us in a very direct way, so much so, that we don't argue with it...

Amen:clap

 

[Mudcat]

Skwim, on this deal with homosexuality. As a Christian, I feel that God has spoken through his word that such actions are sinful.. against nature and so forth.

Given the length of the thread, it's likely already been proffered but...

If all, only had orgasmic relations with their own gender we would die out as a species without some special pleading , like in vitro or something.

You may want to argue the special pleading. Feel free.

Please don't bother with the notion that it is okay for some in the species.

 

[Songbird]

Skwim, on this deal with homosexuality. As a Christian, I feel that God has spoken through his word that such actions are sinful.. against nature and so forth.

Given the length of the thread, it's likely already been proffered but...

If all, only had orgasmic relations with their own gender we would die out as a species without some special pleading , like in vitro or something.

You may want to argue the special pleading. Feel free.

Please don't bother with the notion that it is okay for some in the species.

Special pleading isn't the only thing to argue here. And good thing we're not all likely to have "orgasmic relations" with our own gender anytime soon. Or ever.

 

[darkendless]

Skwim, on this deal with homosexuality. As a Christian, I feel that God has spoken through his word that such actions are sinful.. against nature and so forth.

Given the length of the thread, it's likely already been proffered but...

If all, only had orgasmic relations with their own gender we would die out as a species without some special pleading , like in vitro or something.

You may want to argue the special pleading. Feel free.

Please don't bother with the notion that it is okay for some in the species.

Amusingly in order for humanity to survive in the current boom of population increase, homosexuality (in the non-breeding sense which isn't exactly realistic) is necessary to offset over-breeding in huge resource using countries such as China and India.

I heard the other day that in order to guarantee the survival of Australia until 2050 we would all have to cease breeding now and close our doors to immigrants. Scary thought really. It seems appropriate not to discourage homosexuality (for non-breeding purposes) to somehow offset the stupidity of people who think they need 5 kids or more even.

I also realise my arguement has a huge hole given that homosexuals are often parents through various means.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim, on this deal with homosexuality. As a Christian, I feel that God has spoken through his word that such actions are sinful.. against nature and so forth.

Given the length of the thread, it's likely already been proffered but...

If all, only had orgasmic relations with their own gender we would die out as a species without some special pleading , like in vitro or something.

You may want to argue the special pleading. Feel free.

Please don't bother with the notion that it is okay for some in the species.

The fact of the matter, as god would be well aware, is that the small percentage of people who engage in homosexual activities is nowhere near enough to affect the survival of the species. And even if they never engaged in such activity but simply retained a homosexual orientation, they still wouldn't have intercourse with the opposite sex, leaving the population in no different shape. And as has been pointed out, god seemingly has no problem with this; he only condemns homosexual activity, not homosexual orientation.

So why come down on homosexual activity? It doesn't negatively impact society or the survival of the species. Why make it a sin?

 

[Agnostic75]

Skwim, on this deal with homosexuality. As a Christian, I feel that God has spoken through his word that such actions are sinful.. against nature and so forth.

But no one knows what all of the originals said. On the other hand, it is well-known even by some conservative Christian Bible scholars that the Bible contains errors and interpolations. And that is just the obvious errors and interpolations. The originals might not have said anything about homosexuality, and even if they did, it cannot be reasonably proven that God inspired those texts.

Do you believe that a global flood occured, that the earth is young, and that creationism is true?

If [everyone] only had orgasmic relations with their own gender we would die out as a species without some special pleading, like in vitro or something.

Since the world is seriously overpopulated, not underpopulated, it is amazing that anyone still uses that argument.

Almost all bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual. Apparently, bi-sexuality has not threatened the survival of bonobo monkeys.

Are you aware that sexual identity (sexual urges) is not a choice? If so, why are you criticizing homosexuality? What do you want homosexuals to do, practice abstinence for life?

You are looking for practical, secular arguments against homsoexuality, but there aren't any. Do you have any practical, secualar arguments against divorce?

 

[Mudcat]

The fact of the matter, as god would be well aware, is that the small percentage of people who engage in homosexual activities is nowhere near enough to affect the survival of the species.

I don't see the validity of a "some not all" defense. According to scripture, God has put forth that homosexual acts are against nature and wrong in his sight.

God's command was to be fruitful.. multiply.

If all preferred their own sex, this would certainly be counter reproductive for the species. The human race would have died out shortly after it's inception, if such were the case.

In the case of a limited percentage of homosexual preference, then less of the species will reproduce. This has a cascade effect as you span it across time. Just using the example of 5% that do not reproduce because of sexual preference, and assuming a total population of 100 billion people across time.. then minimally 5 billion people, were never born due to same gender preference.

That is nearly the size of our present population on Earth. Even though only some practice homosexuality, the long range effect is significant.

And even if they never engaged in such activity but simply retained a homosexual orientation, they still wouldn't have intercourse with the opposite sex, leaving the population in no different shape.

Assumptive.

And as has been pointed out, god seemingly has no problem with this; he only condemns homosexual activity, not homosexual orientation.

There is a general Christian principal that a person can sin in their heart as well as through action. So I don't agree.

 

[blackout]

I don't see the validity of a "some not all" defense. According to scripture, God has put forth that homosexual acts are against nature and wrong in his sight.

God's command was to be fruitful.. multiply.

If all preferred their own sex, this would certainly be counter reproductive for the species. The human race would have died out shortly after it's inception, if such were the case.

In the case of a limited percentage of homosexual preference, then less of the species will reproduce. This has a cascade effect as you span it across time. Just using the example of 5% that do not reproduce because of sexual preference, and assuming a total population of 100 billion people across time.. then minimally 5 billion people, were never born due to same gender preference.

That is nearly the size of our present population on Earth. Even though only some practice homosexuality, the long range effect is significant.

Assumptive.

There is a general Christian principal that a person can sin in their heart as well as through action. So I don't agree.

Which of course means no birth control.