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

[RedhorseWoman]

I own a male dog and have seen male dogs hump each other. However, I have never seen a male dog actually penetrate another male dog, like they will with a female dog. What is called homosexual behavior in animals is all dry hump. They do not close the deal.

This humping behavior is used, not for love, affection or reproduction, but for pack dominance. It is a form of aggression. I noticed that this behavior is more common among male dogs who have been fixed. Dogs that are not fixed, but who can reproduce, tend to display dominance aggression more with sport fighting.

It is sinful for humans because humans take this behavior beyond natural or beyond dry hump. This is why only human create VD this way.

There are many instances of real homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom that have absolutely nothing to do with dominance. For instance, Skip and Ping, two male penguins in the Berlin zoo, have adopted an abandoned egg and are taking care of it. These two penguins have a bonded relationship that has nothing to do with dominance.

Also, several years ago there was an article about two male condors in a captive breeding program that refused to mate with females. Scientists at the breeding facility finally decided that they would take an egg from a heterosexual pair and give it to the homosexual pair. The result was that the two male condors successfully hatched those eggs and raised the chicks.

Your recognition of the fact, however, that male-to-male sexual interaction in dogs is indicative of dominance behavior harks back to the invalid claim that Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned because they were all "homosexuals." The men of Sodom who demanded that the male angels be turned over to them was definitely not for anything other than showing dominance by male-on-male rape and had nothing to do with homosexuality. Thank you for highlighting this.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Because man is NOT an animal unless they choose to act like one. Then in that case they are intellectually and morally than an animal

Do you believe that humans are plants or minerals, then?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Except that God's word, I think, has the ultimate wisdom and say about what harms another and what constitutes the best loving relationship.

"Permanent, faithful, stable relationships are beautiful. And essential to human flourishing – as Stegner reminds us. So what could possibly be wrong with a permanent, faithful, stable same-sex relationship? Indeed this sort of relationship is now recognised as a marriage by a number of states throughout the world."
What's wrong with a stable gay relationship? | Living Out

Could you, then, quote the scripture and/or scriptures that specifically state that a monogamous same-sex relationship is harmful? Just something that explicitly states that and not a scripture that you have to manipulate and massage in order to try to imply that that is what it says.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Just for Reference - Romans 1:26-27

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That part is in the Bible at least

Please note that these scriptures very definitely state that these people were HETEROSEXUALS who exchanged their HETEROSEXUAL relationships for homosexual relationships. It says nothing about homosexuals.

 

[Glaurung]

"Though shalt not kill"; unless it is a witch, then "though shalt not suffer a witch to live". Or an incorrigible child. Or if, like Jepthah, you swore on oath to God (in which case you sacrifice your daughter as a burn offering unto God). Not to mention the dozens of times killing and genocide are commanded and recorded; in which case, killing thy neighbor was moral in order to preserve the souls of the Israelites. So whether or not to kill is relative to the situation.

Christianity asserts that there exists a moral law independent of any human opinion. It does not assert that the application of the moral law demands the same thing in all circumstances. Murder is categorically immoral, but not all killing is murder. Therefore there is no contradiction between the fifth commandment (sixth under Jewish and Protestant numbering) and the possibility of the lawful taking of human life.

Monogomy? Job, Abraham, David, Solomon were polygamous; and in each case, these "marriages" were ordained by God. Yet today, based on a few passages, Christians hold polygamy to be immoral today. So whether or not polygamy is moral or not is relative to the traditions of the people and culture and time; or which "covenant" we fall under.

The prohibition against polygamy lies in the divine decree of Christ, not in any reality of the natural law. Thus absent any prohibition of divine law it was not immoral to take multiple wives. God overlooked it as a temporary concession to a primitive age. This concession has been revoked. Thus it is now immoral by decree, not by inherent nature.

No one in their right minds, in a 1st world nation, would consider arranging the marriages of young people and borderline force them into that marriage according to customs and religions. Yet this was common practice in the "olden days"; so the "age of consent" or "age of marriage" is a moral code relative, again, to the traditions of the people and culture and time.

There is nothing inherently immoral in arranged marriages. Validity requires the consent of both bride and groom. It does not require the bride and groom to have chosen each other independently of any parental arrangement.

Most would hold slavery immoral; yet Jesus himself said, "Slaves, obey your masters" and never condemned it. So whether or not it is okay to own people as property is relative to the time and traditions and politics of the time and place.

Obey your masters (except in sin) is no more an endorsement of slavery than bless those who persecute you is an endorsement of persecution. Many of the particulars of Scripture were written for particular people in particular times. In the time of the New Testament's composition, slavery was a given. Christians still have to navigate within the times and circumstances in which they find themselves.

That X is described does not imply that X is endorsed.

"You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye', but I say to you .... " so whether mercy or reciprocation or moral depends entirely on the age in which we live?

Reciprocation is in and of itself just. That in certain regards the moral law has been made stricter by Christ does not imply error in the Old Law. Not everything required by divine law is strictly required in the natural law.

No one denies that the Old and New laws differ. Christianity does not assert that the application of the moral law was always and everywhere exactly the same. It asserts that the moral law is not dependant on human opinion. And that man will be judged by God by the law He has given.

Not only is moral relativism worldview you hold and accept; but moral relativism is a worldview you must hold for you to maintain your religious beliefs.

Moral relativism asserts that morality is dependent on the subjective responses of human agents. It is our opinion that there is nothing immoral in sodomy, or in abortion, or in the use of pornography. Christianity emphatically denies this. It states that there is a moral law that prohibits all three and your opinions otherwise do not matter. That God demands a moral life on His terms is an objective reality.

With such moral relativism rife among the scriptures, I find it necessary to dismiss all passages which either condemn homosexuality or promote mercy and tolerance for them; and try a different standard.

The Scriptures never affirm moral reality as a human construction. In fact Genesis 3:5.

It was a lie in the beginning and it remains a lie now.

So I ask again:

Why is homosexuality

The answer has not changed. Whether you like it or not:

Lifelong, fecund monogamy between a man and a woman was and remains the divine will. Sodomy is intrinsically wrong in and of itself by reason of natural law. And note, natural in this sense does not mean natural in the modern sense of existing in nature.

​

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Do you believe that humans are plants or minerals, then?

That was never said. We are, by definition, animals.

Christians still have to navigate within the times and circumstances in which they find themselves.

And this is moral relativism: That morality is relative to the situation.

Moral relativism asserts that morality is dependent on the subjective responses of human agents.

Yes. And you are the human agent. You are told of biblical accounts of actions that are otherwise immoral. Your subjective response to this, based on indoctrination, is that this can't be moral because god commanded it. So you scamper around to find some reason to "moralize" this immoral behavior. That, in itself, is immoral.

Sodomy is intrinsically wrong in and of itself by reason of natural law. And note, natural in this sense does not mean natural in the modern sense of existing in nature.

Soooo .... it is against natural law, but a natural law that doesn't exist in nature.

Gooooot iiiiiiit ......

Lifelong, fecund monogamy between a man and a woman was and remains the divine will.

I don't believe the bible, so therefore, nothing from the bible will convince me.

I don't believe in divinity, so I certainly don't believe in "divine will". This assertion is not convincing.

You're going to have to come up with better assertions to convince the disbelieving heathen that homosexuality is immoral. Without a basis in what the disbeliever considers "reality" for the condemnation of homosexuality, you will never convince them.

 

[Glaurung]

it is against natural law, but a natural law that doesn't exist in nature.

Natural in this instance refers to final causality. Everything that exist serves an end also called a final cause or telos. Any kind of sexual act not ordered towards the telos of sex (procreation) is disordered and therefore a sin. Sodomy (homosexual or heterosexual) is by its very nature disordered because the final cause for which sex exists is frustrated. Obviously, disordered acts exist 'in nature' but that's not what is meant.

You're going to have to come up with better assertions to convince the disbelieving heathen that homosexuality is immoral. Without a basis in what the disbeliever considers "reality" for the condemnation of homosexuality, you will never convince them.

I haven't attempted to convince you of anything. I commented on the question which must assume (for argument) the validity of concepts of sin to be even intelligible. Arguing my beliefs then complaining that I haven't convinced you of anything is being silly.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Lifelong, fecund monogamy between a man and a woman was and remains the divine will.

Missed this the first time around.
You threw in "fecund".
Whow.
OK.

So, an elderly couple fall in love late in life, and it is against divine will for them to marry. Got it!
My Mom was unable to have children when she married my Dad. So, this marriage was opposed to divine will. Got it!

It is thus a sin to marry when you can't bear children or produce sperm; it is a sin to marry someone who can't bear children or produce sperm; it is a sin to marry someone who is past their their child-bearing years. Got it!

Because they are not a fecund couple and are thus living a life opposed to the divine will. Got it!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I haven't attempted to convince you of anything. I commented on the question which must assume (for argument) the validity of concepts of sin to be even intelligible. Arguing my beliefs then complaining I haven't convinced you of anything is being silly.

Read your posts. You did not qualify any statement as an "opinion" or according to your "religious orthodoxy". You stated them as fact, even including "rather I like it or not". Making a claim on an open forum, knowing full well that the forum in question is a place where people of different religious beliefs go to converse, discuss and argue -- and then expecting that the claim go unchallenged -- that is just being silly.

I'm tired and will refrain from posting for a bit as I'm getting a bit snippy.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Everything that exist serves an end also called a final cause or telos.

Stalemate.
I wholly and totally reject teleological thinking.

 

[Glaurung]

So, an elderly couple fall in love late in life, and it is against divine will for them to marry. Got it!

No. Incidental sterility is not the same as sterility by design or nature. An act must be ordered towards its proper end. That does not mean that the procreative end must be assured to happen with each and every act. A man and woman who come together are always in principle procreative unless they engage in acts that frustrate the telos intentionally. Sin lies in the will. A wilful act of sex which is sterile by intent is where the sin lies.

My Mom was unable to have children when she married my Dad. So, this marriage was opposed to divine will. Got it!

No again. And you are no doubt smart enough to understand why. Although Catholic teaching does assert the indissolubility of marriage. A civil marriage after a divorce is invalid.

It is thus a sin to marry when you can't bear children or produce sperm; it is a sin to marry someone who can't bear children or produce sperm; it is a sin to marry someone who is past their their child-bearing years. Got it!

Again, that's a strawman.

Read your posts. You did not qualify any statement as an "opinion" or according to your "religious orthodoxy". You stated them as fact, even including "rather I like it or not". Making a claim on an open forum, knowing full well that the forum in question is a place where people of different religious beliefs go to converse, discuss and argue -- and then expecting that the claim go unchallenged -- that is just being silly.

I did not expect to go unchallenged. But demands that I convince you of anything are absurd given the question. Why are same-sex acts sinful if same-sex acts are observed in animals? Under a materialist worldview the question is meaningless. The question assumes a religious starting point otherwise it's unintelligible.

I wholly and totally reject teleological thinking.

I don't.

 

[Earthtank]

Are you seriously suggesting that VD is because of anal penetration?



Okay. Let's hear more. If nothing good comes out of homosexuality, then that, I could consider, a good basis on calling it immoral; much like nothing good comes out of drugs abuse, and is thus, imho, immoral. (Please don't derail this by going on a drug legalization kick).

So please enlighten us on the harm that homosexuality does.

The fact that there are drugs out there to be taken by homosexuals specifically designed to help low the risk of STDs from homosexuality is all you need to know about how disgusting and bad it is.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Again, that's a strawman.

You asserted fecund; so no, none of my statements were "strawmen". What you have is an asserted belief in "fecund" relationships being divine will, but make exceptions for heterosexual relationships (unless, apparently, they engage in anal sex -- which, by the way, not all gay couples do). It was a direct response to a part of your direct claim.

Why are same-sex acts sinful if same-sex acts are observed in animals? Under a materialist worldview the question is meaningless. The question assumes a religious starting point otherwise it's unintelligible.

Great! I'll concede that according to your religious beliefs, homosexuality is "sinful".

So on to the next:

Why is it "wrong?"
Why is it "immoral?"

The fact that there are drugs out there to be taken by homosexuals specifically designed to help low the risk of STDs from homosexuality is all you need to know about how disgusting and bad it is.

Reallu?
Googled.
Can't find drugs taken by anyone to lower the risk of STDs.
Can't find any drugs advertised to lower the risk of STDs.
Need a link please.

Even if your claim is true (which I doubt it is):

Not all heterosexuals engage in safe sex practices. Some are quite promiscuous and reckless in their sexual endeavors. We'd both agree that judging the entirety of the heterosexual community based on those who are not would be bigotry.

So.

Not all gays engage in safe sex practices. Some are quite promiscuous and reckless in their sexual endeavors. We should agree that judging the entirety of the gay community based on those who are not should be considered bigotry.

 

[Earthtank]

You asserted fecund; so no, none of my statements were "strawmen". What you have is an asserted belief in "fecund" relationships being divine will, but make exceptions for heterosexual relationships (unless, apparently, they engage in anal sex -- which, by the way, not all gay couples do). It was a direct response to a part of your direct claim.



Great! I'll concede that according to your religious beliefs, homosexuality is "sinful".

So on to the next:

Why is it "wrong?"
Why is it "immoral?"



Reallu?
Googled.
Can't find drugs taken by anyone to lower the risk of STDs.
Can't find any drugs advertised to lower the risk of STDs.
Need a link please.

Even if your claim is true (which I doubt it is):

Not all heterosexuals engage in safe sex practices. Some are quite promiscuous and reckless in their sexual endeavors. We'd both agree that judging the entirety of the heterosexual community based on those who are not would be bigotry.

So.

Not all gays engage in safe sex practices. Some are quite promiscuous and reckless in their sexual endeavors. We should agree that judging the entirety of the gay community based on those who are not should be considered bigotry.

Seems you need to google "how to google". Look up Truvado and how its mainly used for and in the Lgtbqapuiasklfhnslfjnhsalf community and how their commercials are advertised. Of course this is just one of many of these kinds of pills/drugs.

 

[Earthtank]

You asserted fecund; so no, none of my statements were "strawmen". What you have is an asserted belief in "fecund" relationships being divine will, but make exceptions for heterosexual relationships (unless, apparently, they engage in anal sex -- which, by the way, not all gay couples do). It was a direct response to a part of your direct claim.



Great! I'll concede that according to your religious beliefs, homosexuality is "sinful".

So on to the next:

Why is it "wrong?"
Why is it "immoral?"



Reallu?
Googled.
Can't find drugs taken by anyone to lower the risk of STDs.
Can't find any drugs advertised to lower the risk of STDs.
Need a link please.

Even if your claim is true (which I doubt it is):

Not all heterosexuals engage in safe sex practices. Some are quite promiscuous and reckless in their sexual endeavors. We'd both agree that judging the entirety of the heterosexual community based on those who are not would be bigotry.

So.

Not all gays engage in safe sex practices. Some are quite promiscuous and reckless in their sexual endeavors. We should agree that judging the entirety of the gay community based on those who are not should be considered bigotry.

Oh and stop justifying 1 wrong with another wrong.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Seems you need to google "how to google". Look up Truvado and how its mainly used for and in the Lgtbqapuiasklfhnslfjnhsalf community and how their commercials are advertised. Of course this is just one of many of these kinds of pills/drugs.

Truvada isn't only for LGBT people. It's for all people at risk of acquiring HIV. If you actually watched the damn commercials, you'd notice there's a black cis woman in it, too, since black women are a high risk group for HIV infection. Now let's see you use that information to be racist towards black people. Most people in the world with HIV are heteros who got it from hetero sex. But that's not a convenient fact for homophobes who hatefully use HIV as a bludgeon to beat gay people over the head with.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, I've been on Truvada (just not at the moment since I haven't been to the doctor in a bit) and I am not ashamed of it. You should be ashamed for trying to use it as an insult. Protecting yourself is never shameful. The only thing I find offensive is blatant stupidity and bigotry. I was correcting you because you were wrong, as you so often are.

 

[Rival]

Yes, I've been on Truvada (just not at the moment since I haven't been to the doctor in a bit) and I am not ashamed of it. You should be ashamed for trying to use it as an insult. Protecting yourself is never shameful. The only thing I find offensive is blatant stupidity and bigotry. I was correcting you because you were wrong, as you so often are.

Teaching safe sex to schoolkids etc. is mandated by law in the UK.

 

[Earthtank]

Yes, I've been on Truvada (just not at the moment since I haven't been to the doctor in a bit) and I am not ashamed of it. You should be ashamed for trying to use it as an insult. Protecting yourself is never shameful. The only thing I find offensive is blatant stupidity and bigotry. I was correcting you because you were wrong, as you so often are.

Sorry if it came off as insult as that's not how it was intended. I went back and read what i said, and honestly, you seem to be looking to get offended over nothing then, trying to deflect whatever built up feelings you got.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sorry if it came off as insult as that's not how it was intended. I went back and read what i said, and honestly, you seem to be looking to get offended over nothing then, trying to deflect whatever built up feelings you got.

You were being very insulting. Don't try to turn this around on me by playing armchair psychoanalyst. I hate it when people use the HIV epidemic as a weapon of hate against LGBT people (and some racists use it against black and brown people). You - people who speak like you were - don't really care about people who have the virus. You don't have empathy for them or want to help them. You're just judging them and tearing them down, while trying to act self-righteous. It's disgusting when people do that. People with HIV are just people and you don't know their circumstances. I had a friend who got it from being raped. I have another friend who got it because they weren't taught facts about sexual health and didn't know how to protect themselves. How dare you insult them, like they're dirty worthless people. You wouldn't dare say those things about people with any other disease.

You should never try to insult people for using PrEP. You should celebrate that we have such a powerful tool in the effort to end the HIV epidemic. It will save so many lives and also help end stigma. If anything, you should support making it more widely available and lowering the cost of it.