Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Kirran]

I will make a secular argument against homosexuality but before I do, if anyone has logical reasons to think I am wrong then bring them on, but if as in most cases your objection is simply your emotional preference dressed up in a mere veneer of logic then please do not respond to me.

1. Homosexual acts produce far more damage than any potential gains can justify. For example 4% of the US population are homosexual yet they create 60% of new aids cases, and homosexual life spans are drastically shorter than heterosexual life spans. That is just the tip of the ice burg.

2. Heterosexual acts do cause some damage but far less than homosexual acts do and unlike homosexual sex heterosexual acts are necessary to perpetuate the human race.

That is my preliminary argument. Again don't bring emotion to a logical debate, these discussions are always disappointing and at this point I will no longer waste evidence on an emotional position.

I was also asked to post some evidence and I gave a few examples in post# 268 I believe. I will not spend time going through past posts after this point.

I'm glad someone's done this, a nice development. OK:

1) The association of the spread of HIV with the homosexual population is of course associated with men, not women, for starters. And it is preventable - the propensity to partake in risky behaviour and to suffer depression are features of what is called minority stress. The more we accept people whose attractions are towards the same sex, the less these problems will exist.

2) No they're not, we have modern technology.

 

[JustWondering]

Please, go back and do a little homework into my recent posts. Oh the heck with it, I don't want you to half heartedly make the attempt and cause me to do even more work because you spent too little time investigating. I went back and copied my arguments below.

Well to start with I can give an answer that is perfectly justified. God created the institution of marriage as a type of analogy which exhibits the arrangement between the Church (the bride), and Jesus (the bride groom). His revelations also condemn homosexual acts as an abomination. That justification is perfectly valid but it isn't much fun so lets go a little deeper.

I will make a secular argument against homosexuality but before I do, if anyone has logical reasons to think I am wrong then bring them on, but if as in most cases your objection is simply your emotional preference dressed up in a mere veneer of logic then please do not respond to me.

1. Homosexual acts produce far more damage than any potential gains can justify. For example 4% of the US population are homosexual yet they create 60% of new aids cases, and homosexual life spans are drastically shorter than heterosexual life spans. That is just the tip of the ice burg.

2. Heterosexual acts do cause some damage but far less than homosexual acts do and unlike homosexual sex heterosexual acts are necessary to perpetuate the human race.

That is my preliminary argument. Again don't bring emotion to a logical debate, these discussions are always disappointing and at this point I will no longer waste evidence on an emotional position.

I was also asked to post some evidence and I gave a few examples in post# 268 I believe. I will not spend time going through past posts after this point.

You're getting ahead of yourself. What supposed secular moral is being violated by engaging in homosexual sex?

 

[1robin]

I'm glad someone's done this, a nice development. OK:

Lets see how glad you are after a few posts. Just kidding, but I hope you have a good argument, so far I have yet to be meaningfully challenged. I come here among other reasons to be challenged, lets see if you can do so.

1) The association of the spread of HIV with the homosexual population is of course associated with men, not women, for starters. And it is preventable - the propensity to partake in risky behaviour and to suffer depression are features of what is called minority stress. The more we accept people whose attractions are towards the same sex, the less these problems will exist.

I only gave evidence for aids so far. However, as what I posted contained I know very well that MSM sex is far more dangerous than lesbian sex but my points were about homosexual acts which includes both. I can not keep segmenting homosexual data for each year of age, for each act involved, for each race, or for each sex, etc..... I must stop segmenting at some point. The most obvious place in this context is to compare homosexual behavior with heterosexual behavior. Even if you arbitrarily segment what the data covers somewhere else that is not binding on me. However there is a massive amount of data beyond merely aids cases and which condemn female homosexual behavior quite readily. However I will be overly generous here, if you make a sound argument as to why I should draw distinctions any differently than between homosexuality and heterosexuality to show my arguments are valid then I will provide you with data that applies to female homosexual behavior specifically.

It is either your preference or your emotional position that is causing you to try and resurrect unjustifiable behavior by artificially subdivide the behavior in the attempt to excuse the behavior as a whole. I am quite certain that you will not, for example condemn MSM homosexuality even if we were to subdivide homosexuality that way but I will suspend judgment until I am more familiar with your position.

2) No they're not, we have modern technology.

What on earth are you talking about? The only thing I could think of is that your saying because we have in vitro fertilization that no sex is justifiable. I sincerely hope I am misunderstanding you. I will await your response to tear that argument apart. However I have to leave in a minute so it will have to be tomorrow.

 

[dgirl1986]

It's all going to end up into the abyss. I could care less if people want to pervert themselves. I'm a hermit and sometimes go over a year before someone knocks on my door, and that's the way I like it. I don't want the homosexual influence around my grandchildren or their children. I'm both homophobic and Islamophobic and that's the way it's going to stay. We shouldn't have to deal with or tolerate either one. It's not that I hate Muslims, I hate Islam. It's not that I hate homo's, I hate what they do. I worked with a few for several years before retiring and they are nasty mouthed people. You can have them all.

So you are willingly ignorant and hateful. Lovely. This tells me I should not take you seriously.

 

[Kirran]

I only gave evidence for aids so far. However, as what I posted contained I know very well that MSM sex is far more dangerous than lesbian sex but my points were about homosexual acts which includes both. I can not keep segmenting homosexual data for each year of age, for each act involved, for each race, or for each sex, etc..... I must stop segmenting at some point. The most obvious place in this context is to compare homosexual behavior with heterosexual behavior. Even if you arbitrarily segment what the data covers somewhere else that is not binding on me. However there is a massive amount of data beyond merely aids cases and which condemn female homosexual behavior quite readily. However I will be overly generous here, if you make a sound argument as to why I should draw distinctions any differently than between homosexuality and heterosexuality to show my arguments are valid then I will provide you with data that applies to female homosexual behavior specifically.

It is either your preference or your emotional position that is causing you to try and resurrect unjustifiable behavior by artificially subdivide the behavior in the attempt to excuse the behavior as a whole. I am quite certain that you will not, for example condemn MSM homosexuality even if we were to subdivide homosexuality that way but I will suspend judgment until I am more familiar with your position.

Very well. We will maintain overall comparison. The remainder of my point still stands.

"resurrect unjustifiable behaviour" - I take issue with two out of these three words.

What on earth are you talking about? The only thing I could think of is that your saying because we have in vitro fertilization that no sex is justifiable. I sincerely hope I am misunderstanding you. I will await your response to tear that argument apart. However I have to leave in a minute so it will have to be tomorrow.

You said "heterosexual acts" are necessary to perpetuate the human race. This is an incorrect statement.

 

[dgirl1986]

So you agree that marriage should be only between a man and a woman who believe in the Christian God since Christian law dictates that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

You can protest marriages between people of the same genders when you start protesting non Christian marriages.

 

[dgirl1986]

A little limp in the wrist are you! It's time for me to go. I need to get away from all the idiots and ******** on this forum so please ban me NOW.
Homo's are the scum of the earth. See Ya!

Thou doth protest too much.

 

[columbus]

. Homosexual acts produce far more damage than any potential gains can justify. For example 4% of the US population are homosexual yet they create 60% of new aids cases, and homosexual life spans are drastically shorter than heterosexual life spans. That is just the tip of the ice burg.

~90% of HIV cases are the results of heterosex. People keep pointing this out to you and you keep ignoring the data.
Straight people are twice as likely to contract AIDS as gay people. And gay women practically never contract AIDS from sex.

People keep posting this stuff to you. We have for years. But you seem unwilling to let facts get in the way of your beliefs.
Tom

 

[dgirl1986]

I'm not sure why these arguments are so obsessed with male homosexuality, anyway. There's lesbians, you know. I mean, I can guess but...

*points to self*

 

[dgirl1986]

Why do you care if we care?

Because its not just the fact that these people care about who us queer people are and what we do in the bedroom, but we constantly have to hear about it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A little limp in the wrist are you! It's time for me to go. I need to get away from all the idiots and ******** on this forum so please ban me NOW.
Homo's are the scum of the earth. See Ya!

Such a Christ-like attitude you have. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[columbus]

You can protest marriages between people of the same genders when you start protesting non Christian marriages.

Or starting legislation against divorce.
Jesus was very clear on that subject. Homosex not at all.

But you can't get Christians to launch campaigns against divorce because then there would hardly be any Christians.
Tom

 

[1robin]

You're getting ahead of yourself. What supposed secular moral is being violated by engaging in homosexual sex?

This could be perhaps the only relevant point anyone has made in response to my positions and arguments concerning homosexuality. However this is another subject all together. I have no problem what so ever debating it but your going to have to desire a long an in-depth discussion on a separate subject from homosexuality before we can get back to it. I am in a hurry, so I will assume you are interested in that debate and make a very brief post until tomorrow.

You asked about secular morality, you are definitely right to question what morals exist without God. I have an will give massive arguments that show that no objective moral values or duties exist without God. Only what is better described as ethics or legality exist without God and even this is subjective in nature. In a debate with secularists I simply assume they believe that certain moral duties exist though they should be labeled ethics instead. I usually assume that secularists would agree that they think taking lives and the property of other without sufficient justification to be wrong. However this is only common ground in secularisms case because no moral absolutes exist without God. Regardless common ground is about the best we can do in a secular context.

So, whether you consider it as moral or merely ethical common ground my argument would center of the necessity to sufficiently justify with good that which is evil. Good being monetary or gain in a persons health which justifies the associated occurrence of evil which is to deprive another of the good I mentioned. I am happy to entertain your attempt to state the ethics involved in my argument. I will check back tomorrow to see your response. Have a good one.

 

[JustWondering]

This could be perhaps the only relevant point anyone has made in response to my positions and arguments concerning homosexuality. However this is another subject all together. I have no problem what so ever debating it but your going to have to desire a long an in-depth discussion on a separate subject from homosexuality before we can get back to it. I am in a hurry, so I will assume you are interested in that debate and make a very brief post until tomorrow.

You asked about secular morality, you are definitely right to question what morals exist without God. I have an will give massive arguments that show that no objective moral values or duties exist without God. Only what is better described as ethics or legality exist without God and even this is subjective in nature. In a debate with secularists I simply assume they believe that certain moral duties exist though they should be labeled ethics instead. I usually assume that secularists would agree that they think taking lives and the property of other without sufficient justification to be wrong. However this is only common ground in secularisms case because no moral absolutes exist without God. Regardless common ground is about the best we can do in a secular context.

So, whether you consider it as moral or merely ethical common ground my argument would center of the necessity to sufficiently justify with good that which is evil. Good being monetary or gain in a persons health which justifies the associated occurrence of evil which is to deprive another of the good I mentioned. I am happy to entertain your attempt to state the ethics involved in my argument. I will check back tomorrow to see your response. Have a good one.

Morals/ethics are agreed upon rules for how people in that society should/can act. Since we are discussing Secular ethics your god doesn't fit into this discussion. If a society agrees that an act is acceptable than logically that act does not go against the morals of that society. In America, homosexual acts are not illegal, in fact, homosexual marriage is legal. So, Homosexual acts and marriage do not go against the morals of American secular society. If portions of American society do not believe such acts are moral they do not have to participate in homosexual acts, attend homosexual weddings, or approve of them. However, simply not agreeing with someone else in America does not give the right to harass, assault, discriminate or deny rights that everyone in America who is a citizen should have.

Do you agree?

 

[Skwim]

When I was a kid people who were gay didn't broadcast it, and they were frowned upon by others. They kept it to themselves and people in town knew who the 'gays' were. Since then, the gay community tells people that "it's OK to be gay" and it's just an alternative lifestyle. They have been pushing their agenda like wild fire.

They push their homo crap as much as they can in schools and wherever they can...

And don't think it isn't working.

Heh! Heh! Heh!

More recently, we have the very hateful Dan Savage, who is most famous for berating an auditorium full of high school kids, basically spitting on their Christian beliefs with his hateful bile, seemingly rooted in his own self-hatred.

*Spit* *Spit*-- He! He!

​

Ironically, Savage is behind a number of schemes to further brainwash and indoctrinate your sons and daughters into thinking that immoral and grotesque sexual acts are as normal as the sunrise and the sunset.

After me now,

"Go, Go, Ho Mos"​

In the Concord Monitor about 20 years ago the lesbian community had an add for a gathering that went something like this...

"Choosing the lesbian lifestyle and receive a free bag lunch."

I don't want their influence on our society. It's nothing but a scourge.

The girls don't stand a chance.

HA! Ha!​

The Traditional Values Coalition states regarding the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) that co-sponsored a workshop where "instructors encouraged children as young as 14 years of age to engage in life-threatening sex acts.": GLSEN targets children for recruitment into the homosexual lifestyle...through GLSEN chapters that sponsor hundreds of Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) clubs on junior high and high school campuses across the United States.

GLSEN gets into schools by claiming that homosexual and transgender students need to feel safe and encouraged; and that so-called homosexual/transgender teens have high rates of suicide and need a support group. When this tactic fails, GLSEN then threatens legal action against school districts that refuse to allow these recruitment clubs on campus. The American Civil Liberties Union has volunteered to serve as the enforcement arm of GLSEN to impose a homosexual agenda on the nation's public schools.

BAN IT!

And America doesn't stand a chance either.

.................................

Muahahaha!


.​

 

[SomeRandom]

They aren't refusing to work with them because of what they believe.
They aren't merely providing products or services that could be misused by someone to sin.
They are being asked to personally participate in sin.

I thought I already made that distinction clear in the post you quoted.

A Jewish photographer will turn down your request to work at a wedding if it is held on a Saturday, based on religious convictions - And you don't get to sue them for that. You can't pass a law forcing them to violate the Sabbath by working on it, and therefore sin before God. They don't give up their individual religious liberty just because they participate in the marketplace.

If your job "forces" you to commit what you call a sin, change jobs. Or better yet advertise that you do not serve certain people.You can't just be open for the public but then decide not to serve certain people. Not only is that against most anti discrimination laws, it's misleading to the public. If I walk into a store I expect to be served. Not be denied access to public services just because I'm a different religion, for example, to the store owners. That's just unprofessional and rude to boot.
Now the Saturday thing, that's just a matter of advertising your trading hours. Some businesses are not open on certain days for whatever reason. That's an entirely different thing to refusing service to gay people.
Sure people nowadays would be more prone to be disgusted at such discrimination and word of mouth might hurt you or help you, depending on your location. But advertise, make it clear you are an ******* who refuses services to gay people to protect your precious fee fees. (Never mind the fact that it's really only the Christians who throw tantrums like this, every other religious person, even if they disagree religiously with homosexuality, can act like grown ups suck it up and do the job they're paid to do. You know, that thing of separating your professional life and your personal one? But whatever.)
If you want to flaunt the law that applies to everyone equally, at least have the balls to do it upfront.

 

[Prestor John]

There's lesbians, you know.

No. You are wrong. They don't exist.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No. You are wrong. They don't exist.

Yeah, they do. Stop being ignorant.

 

[Prestor John]

Hello Preston, I am trying to show that homosexual acts are not logically or morally justifiable in even a secular context.. I do not go around telling homosexuals what to do (even though they tell me what I am supposed to do, and they demand that I pay for the medical bills they incur as the result of behavior which I consider immoral and that I do not engage in) but I do engage in argumentation. Homosexuality in a Christian context is simply another sin, and we all commit sins of different kinds. The difference in my case is that I will not defend my own sinful actions and I expect others who act immorally to at least admit that what they do is immoral, and that they do not demand that I must agree with what they do if it is not justifiable. I do not really find homosexuality demands challenging because I seldom get even a rational argument in defense of the practice. The only reason I comment in this type of debate is I personally set out to see if God's commands against homosexual behavior could actually be shown to be immoral. To my surprise I found it easy to show that even on a secular level the behavior was unjustifiable.

Also to my surprise again I can show that abortion is also morally unjustifiable in even a secular context. Every once in a while I put the arguments I discovered to the test in a debate just to see if they can stand the test of fire. So far they have withstood everything thrown at them. I did have a person effectively counter one of the dozens of premise' I use for my homosexuality and abortion conclusions but that still leaves me with a dozen or so sets of data that have never been shown to be incorrect so far.

Yeah ok, but don't you get that you are not going to convince anyone this way?

Don't you understand that your methods are causing people to reject God's Word even more than they were before?

I mean, I agree with you, but I still feel like punching you in the face.

 

[Prestor John]

Yeah, they do. Stop being ignorant.

I'll stop being ignorant the moment you develop a sense of humor.