It's not a problem for animals to have sex with the same sex

[Shadow Wolf]

Although, the hand can murder, God's word says humans are NOT to murder.

Most people are just fine with that without needing a book to tell them. According to god, thou shalt not murder, but you can kill people over numerous, petty, and trivial reasons that no one in their right mind would agree is deserving of death, and outside of the obvious don't murder and steal the Bible gives us "morality" about worshiping god, not allowing eunuchs in the tabernacle, and making sure to not cook goat meat in the milk of its mother. "Love thy neighbor" is good, but we can find it in sources that are utterly devoid of commandments such as "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." "Do unto to others," it's flawed when you draw it out to its ends, but most people get it, and it's a fine idea. But we can find better in sources that lack "kill those who worship other gods."
The killings of what the Bible mostly does allow, to most people it would be murder. Such as sending to bears to maul children to death for calling a prophet "baldy."

 

[InChrist]

Unless, of course, "God" tells "his people" to murder men, women and children--even infants, but take captive the young virgins for you to rape--as well as horses and other livestock, simply because they happen to have settled on land that "God" has decided to give to "his people."

Then murder is perfectly fine, right? Or could it be that men simply absolve themselves of blame for horrendous acts by claiming that "God" instructed them to act that way?

You may want to re-read the scriptures you have in mind. God never gave "His people" any directive to take virgins and rape them. Rape and fornication was forbidden. As far as the battles and killing involved with the promised land...it was God's judgement, not murder, for the gross sins of the people of the land before God gave it to the Israelites. Those people were given 400 years of opportunity to repent. They knew of the God of Abraham, they knew God's judgement of sin, yet chose to escalate in their wickedness. God always gives people time and opportunity to turn and repent, yet He knows when they are set in their refusal.

 

[InChrist]

Say what? One-sided? Monogamous, long-term, same-sex relationships where both partners are committed to each other and have their spiritual and emotional (as well as physical) needs met are one-sided? I think you need to reconsider what you just said here.

I'm not referring to "one-sided" between the people involved. I mean that two men or two women together is a one-sided, unbalanced representation of the image of God.

 

[InChrist]

Most people are just fine with that without needing a book to tell them. According to god, thou shalt not murder, but you can kill people over numerous, petty, and trivial reasons that no one in their right mind would agree is deserving of death, and outside of the obvious don't murder and steal the Bible gives us "morality" about worshiping god, not allowing eunuchs in the tabernacle, and making sure to not cook goat meat in the milk of its mother. "Love thy neighbor" is good, but we can find it in sources that are utterly devoid of commandments such as "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." "Do unto to others," it's flawed when you draw it out to its ends, but most people get it, and it's a fine idea. But we can find better in sources that lack "kill those who worship other gods."
The killings of what the Bible mostly does allow, to most people it would be murder. Such as sending to bears to maul children to death for calling a prophet "baldy."

I really see no point in getting into an in depth discussion with you about this because I doubt you actually care about knowing what the scriptures you are referring to are trying to get across in context.

But I will say that those mauled by the bears in the account about the prophet, were not little children. More like a huge gang of rebellious, unruly, possibly dangerous youths. There is much more going on than just a few small kids calling someone names. But again, I doubt you care to understand.

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. 2 Kings 2:23-24

You'll notice the text says 42 were mauled by the bears...that means this mob was even larger than 42, which were likely of the age between late teens through their twenties, mocking and going after the one prophet, Elisha.

 

[InChrist]

If you're going to take this tack, perhaps you should look at it in a slightly different way. God created humans and animals--not as robots that perform in lockstep--but as individuals with differences...and sexual orientation is not because of a "fallen state" but is something that God, obviously, intended.

Things would be pretty boring if all flowers were red and all trees were oaks...creation is diverse and that is a good thing and not a "sin" or because of a "fallen state."

Clearly God created everyone differently and not as robots. Nevertheless, that does not mean anything goes. Some people are oriented toward having sex with children or animals, but God, I believe has not only the right, but the wisdom as Creator and Designer to determine what works and what doesn't, what is right or what is wrong.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I think we should stick to the place this thread is gravitating and go from there: Why is homosexuality considered sinful?

I see the religion bashing, and I'm not entirely opposed to it (anti-theist here), but in this topic, I find it inappropriate, especially when we have so many theists asking the question (at least somewhat) critically rather than dogmatically clinging to a few passages in their texts that denounce it. I think that the timing of that kind of confrontation of overall religious beliefs is counterproductive to the conversation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

More like a huge gang of rebellious, unruly, possibly dangerous youths.

What is this based on?

that means this mob was even larger than 42,

What is this based on?

 

[Valjean]

Heathens and infidels! Their perverted rebellion against God is spreading like a plague.
A gay penguin couple adopted an egg in a Berlin zoo - CNN

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Humans copying animals generally doesn't lead to the most civilised behaviour.

Even if you support homosexual sex, this argument is bad.

I think this is giving animals a bad rap. Sure there are crazy things that happen - hamsters eating their young in meager times, sharks eating their siblings in the womb, chimp armies marching into rival territory and killing and even sometimes eating their enemies. But we humans have used our imaginations to devise even more grandiose ways of eliminating and hurting one another than animals could ever fathom. Bombs that wipe out entire cities of our own kind. I'd be interested to know if there are any other species of animal that torture their own kind - that is, keep a member of their species alive and restrained while purposefully causing it harm repeatedly. With our levels of communication and intelligence, we're one of the only species that can lie/deceive, and we most often do so with members of our same species. We have polluted huge swaths of the planet, and no animal has ever even come close in any way to our proclivity to do this - nowhere near. We devised slavery with the intent to extract labor from members of our own species while holding them under duress. Mass killing ending in the suicide of the perpetrator is probably unique to the human species. We have the intellectual capacity to understand our feelings like hate, anger, etc. and even though we have this understanding, we feel and act on these things anyway.

None of these things do we do because we're "copying animals." In fact, I'm not exactly sure what behaviors we do engage in that see us specifically "copying animals." It's sort of a foolish notion anyway if one accepts that we ARE animals, isn't it? I certainly think so.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think this is giving animals a bad rap. Sure there are crazy things that happen - hamsters eating their young in meager times, sharks eating their siblings in the womb, chimp armies marching into rival territory and killing and even sometimes eating their enemies. But we humans have used our imaginations to devise even more grandiose ways of eliminating and hurting one another than animals could ever fathom. Bombs that wipe out entire cities of our own kind. I'd be interested to know if there are any other species of animal that torture their own kind - that is, keep a member of their species alive and restrained while purposefully causing it harm repeatedly. With our levels of communication and intelligence, we're one of the only species that can lie/deceive, and we most often do so with members of our same species. We have polluted huge swaths of the planet, and no animal has ever even come close in any way to our proclivity to do this - nowhere near. We devised slavery with the intent to extract labor from members of our own species while holding them under duress. Mass killing ending in the suicide of the perpetrator is probably unique to the human species. We have the intellectual capacity to understand our feelings like hate, anger, etc. and even though we have this understanding, we feel and act on these things anyway.

None of these things do we do because we're "copying animals." In fact, I'm not exactly sure what behaviors we do engage in that see us specifically "copying animals." It's sort of a foolish notion anyway if one accepts that we ARE animals, isn't it? I certainly think so.

Humans are just arrogant and fool themselves into thinking we're better than other animals or not even animals at all. I'm not sure why people think animals live this hellish life in the wild, either. They play, explore, care for their loved ones, grieve, help others, etc. similarly to how we sometimes do. They have well-rounded lives that aren't all killing and violence. So do we.

 

[Rise]

Why is it sinful for man?

Are there any homosexual animals?

Who says it's not a problem for animals?
You're basing your argument on an assumption that isn't actually true.

Animals currently do a lot of things God never designed or intended for them to do because sin entered the world through Adam and creation was subject to a curse.

Romans 8:19-22
Genesis 3:17-18
Romans 5:12
Isaiah 11:6-9

For instance, the reason animals won't attack humans or eat each other, as we see in Isaiah after the return of Christ, is because God's original order to the world is restored in that respect. Animals were never intended to kill humans or each other to begin with, they didn't in the Garden of Eden, and one day they will be returned to the state of peace that was lost.

You would be wrong to conclude that just because animals do currently attack and kill humans that that makes their behavior ok. The Old Testament law actually says animals that kill humans must be put to death. Exodus 21:28-29

 

[RedhorseWoman]

You may want to re-read the scriptures you have in mind. God never gave "His people" any directive to take virgins and rape them. Rape and fornication was forbidden. As far as the battles and killing involved with the promised land...it was God's judgement, not murder, for the gross sins of the people of the land before God gave it to the Israelites. Those people were given 400 years of opportunity to repent. They knew of the God of Abraham, they knew God's judgement of sin, yet chose to escalate in their wickedness. God always gives people time and opportunity to turn and repent, yet He knows when they are set in their refusal.

And, yes, people throughout history have always had the ability to make excuses for their behavior...i.e. God said to do it because "those people" were horrendously wicked.

It's still done today, don't you agree?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Clearly God created everyone differently and not as robots. Nevertheless, that does not mean anything goes. Some people are oriented toward having sex with children or animals, but God, I believe has not only the right, but the wisdom as Creator and Designer to determine what works and what doesn't, what is right or what is wrong.

There is a very big difference between engaging in an activity that harms another (forcing sex on children or animals) and committing to a monogamous relationship with someone whom you love. Don't go that route...it is ridiculous to even try to bring this up to justify your bigotry.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

There is a very big difference between engaging in an activity that harms another (forcing sex on children or animals) and committing to a monogamous relationship with someone whom you love. Don't go that route...it is ridiculous to even try to bring this up to justify your bigotry.

"Informed Consent".

This is a line that is not crossed in healthy gay relationships that is always crossed with the forms of sexual deviancy mentioned above.

When the line of "informed consent" is crossed in a gay relationship, the perpetrator stands to answer for his/her crimes, in the same fashion as any other crime is prosecuted.

So let's try again.

Two men or two women decide that they love each other. In all their dealings with each other, they treat each other with respect and dignity and compassion. They decide to spend the rest of their lives together as partners. When they engage in sexual intimacy, they do so when the burdens of "informed consent" are met and they do so in dignity and privacy. Later, they decide to build a family unit and bring into their home children needing a home. They live lives consistent with the laws of the land and are moral in character, even by Christian standards, except for (depending on the belief system of the observer) what they do in privacy.

Why is this kind of scenario wrong, immoral or sinful?

 

[Glaurung]

Why is it sinful for man?

Animals cannot sin because animals do not possess reason. Man does, and because of this man is held to account for his actions.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Animals cannot sin because animals do not possess reason. Man does, and because of this man is held to account for his actions.

That does not explain why homosexuality is sinful.

 

[Glaurung]

That does not explain why homosexuality is sinful.

The answer to that is implicit in Genesis 1:27. More explicitly stated: for the same reason Jesus forbids divorce and polygamy. Lifelong, fecund monogamy between a man and a woman was and remains the divine will. All sexual sin lies in concupiscence, which is a consequence of original sin. Nonetheless, despite this concupiscence, man retains the obligation to order his conduct in accordance with the divine will.

 

[Valjean]

Who says it's not a problem for animals?
You're basing your argument on an assumption that isn't actually true.

Animals currently do a lot of things God never designed or intended for them to do because sin entered the world through Adam and creation was subject to a curse.

Romans 8:19-22
Genesis 3:17-18
Romans 5:12
Isaiah 11:6-9

For instance, the reason animals won't attack humans or eat each other, as we see in Isaiah after the return of Christ, is because God's original order to the world is restored in that respect. Animals were never intended to kill humans or each other to begin with, they didn't in the Garden of Eden, and one day they will be returned to the state of peace that was lost.

You would be wrong to conclude that just because animals do currently attack and kill humans that that makes their behavior ok. The Old Testament law actually says animals that kill humans must be put to death. Exodus 21:28-29

And you're basing your argument on folklore.
Do you have any actual facts to back this up?

 

[Valjean]

The answer to that is implicit in Genesis 1:27. More explicitly stated: for the same reason Jesus forbids divorce and polygamy. Lifelong, fecund monogamy between a man and a woman was and remains the divine will. All sexual sin lies in concupiscence, which is a consequence of original sin. Nonetheless, despite this concupiscence, man retains the obligation to order his conduct in accordance with the divine will.

More folklore.
Have you considered what other religions' holy books have to say about this?
How about fact based books?

 

[Glaurung]

More folklore.

I disagree. And considering the thread tactically assumes an Abrahamic notion of sin your views about Christianity's validity are not relevant to the topic.

Have you considered what other religions' holy books have to say about this?

Islam and Judaism are pretty clear and I would be willing to bet that open homosexuality in a conservative Hindu, Buddhist or Confucius setting would be a bad idea.

How about fact based books?

By fact based books you mean books that affirm a naturalistic, progressive moral relativism. I reject such worldviews. As seductive and popular as such worldviews may be these days, they remain as lies. I firmly believe in the reality of divine judgement.