lava said:
i still think the same. because it is twisted.
women are created to attract men.
why would a man go to another man?
women are certainly more esthetic and more attractive than men.
Heya lava,
I feel that, firstly, your argument does not adequately answer the question and, secondly, you have treated a secondary quality as if it were a primary quality.
Before we get to that, your argument can be simplified. You have answered the question "Who does God care about homosexuality?" by stating "it is twisted" and then go on to justify this conclusion. However, I think that this is an unnecessary step in your argument because you have not done enough to sufficiently define "twisted" as a seperate concept from "wrong" which is implied in the question. Therefore, this cannot adequately answer the question and it must be your justification for it which contains the answer.
Your justification is "women were created to attract men". If we accept this as true then I believe you have still not sufficiently explained how this entails "homosexuality is twisted/wrong".
The other day, my mp3 player broke and I wanted to open it up in order to fix it. I didn't have access to a screwdriver so I used my pen knife instead. The people who made my pen knife did not make it for the same purpose as a screwdriver yet it can still be used in this way. At the same time, it does seem reasonable to state that I am wrong to use it in this way. In order to justify this added condition, I would need an additional premise.
Therefore, returning to homosexuality, you require an additional premise that relates "women were created to attract men" to "homosexuality is twisted" and without, assuming you don't think I was wrong to use a pen knife as a screwdriver, also forming the same relationship in that similar argument.
Now turning to my second point, you state that "women are certainly more esthetic and more attractive than men." However, the qualities you state are secondary, not primary, qualities and so cannot be inherent in "women".
If I like chocolate ice cream then I might be tempted to say that "chocolate ice cream is certainly more tasty than vanilla ice cream". The existence of many people who have the opposite preference indicate that "tastiness" cannot be an inherent property of ice cream but is given to it by whoever is tasting it. Therefore, a particular flavour of ice cream is only tasty if the person who is tasting it thinks that it is tasty.
Similarly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Male heterosexuals will find women to be more attractive. Female heterosexuals will find men to be more attractive. Therefore, attractiveness cannot be inherent in either sex and must be a product of the attitude of the observer to a particular sex (i.e. their own sex + their own sexuality).
A_E said:
Homosexuality is prohibited in the Bible because the ancient patriarchal/agrarian societies that produced it depended on heterosexual marriage for the integrity of the state (producing warriors) and economy (legitimate children to inherit property).
Now our democratic free-market capitalist society, in a culture that highly prizes individualism, we can pretty much get along fine with any family structure.
Heya A_E,
Do you think the Bible is justified in taking these measures to protect heterosexual marriage? In other words, are you saying, therefore, that if our society suddenly reverted to similar conditions under which homosexuality was prohibited in the Bible, it would be morally right to support the prohibition of homosexuality?
If, on the other hand, this is not your position, then I do not feel you have adequately answered the question since you would have provided an answer that you do not think is justified.
Godsluv said:
because he didnt create us that way, But he still loves them thats the important thing
Heya Godsluv,
I believe you have answered "why" on a particularly trivial level.
Q: Why did you deliberately run over that person in your car?
A: Because my foot was on the accelerator and my car was going in the direction of that person
Similarly
Q: Why is homosexuality wrong?
A: Because God didn't make us that way
Yes but, more importantly,
why?
Luke said:
Is it indeed?
If evolution is true, then all that matters is survival and procreation.
In reality, only religious people can justly (not hypocritically) say that homosexual behaviour is alright -because they believe there's more to life then survival and procreation.
Heya Luke,
Your argument rests on the premise that "non-religious people believe that life is only about survival and procreation". I am not religious. I believe there is more to life than survival and procreation. Therefore, this premise is not true.
Reverand Rick said:
Heya Rick,
My response to Godsluv applies here as well. Why does Paul say so?
You are largely correct in your point derived from the bestiality analogy and it is a fair and accurate analogy for the purposes you are utilising it. However, it does not resolve this more pertinent complaint.
madhatter85 said:
Because, if you believe in the God of the Bible. you would realize that he created Adam and Eve, Man and Woman to multiply and replenish the earth. human physiology was not designed with homosexuality in mind. things were desinged to work and funcion in a certain manner, everything else is, in one form or another, a perversion from the way God intended.
I think this argument is much stronger than the one presented by lava because it overcomes the objection which I raised. However, I still feel it isn't completely valid.
Lets assume that God did create man and woman with the intention that man and woman would reproduce with each other. There is no logical law that allows us to to infer from this that God did not intend for us to reproduce in any other way. More generally, you can't infer not q from p. Also it should be noted that an argument from ignorance is an especially tempting method for justifying this inference but it is also not valid. Therefore, you require an extra premise which asserts that utilising science to allow 2 men to reproduce is also wrong.