Why is homosexuality wrong?

[Shadow Wolf]

Also, according to a theory or hypothesis, childern do that to sense their environment, not to eat mud.

Actually, it's not sensing their environment, but learning about it. And even in adults, geophagy is not unheard of, it has been practiced in many cultures around the world and throughout history (in contemporary America it's more common in the South), and eating some types of mud and clay may actually be beneficial for your health.

I said that, those who can not eat meat..., not those who do not like to eat meat.

There are certain allergies that prevent people from eating certain meats, but allergies happen, and few of them are potentially fatal like nut, bee sting, or seafood allergies. But the inability to orgasm from penile-vaginal intercourse is not an allergy, and, in fact, it's not unusual for some women to be unable to have an orgasm from vaginal penetration alone. And it's not unusual for a man to not enjoy vaginal intercourse either, and not have any interest in it. And it still stands that you presented nothing more than a straw man of an argument that is a very illogical metaphor.

 

[SomeRandom]

I reas all your post. This got me:


Deify nature? I dont understand how that connects.

Its natural that my neurons go haywire sometimes because the brain does silly things. Its unhealthy given the affects causing sezuires. I guess Im using not natural for unhealthy. Then that wouldnt make sense given male/male i tercourse. Cant see how that relates to cancer, down syndrome, and seizures.



It's natural to have the senation from whatever action is performed.

Its unnatural by "some ways" of How that reaction came about.

Not talking about the result (sensation) or meaning of it (doing It because of commitment), just the physical action itself. Not talking about right or wrong. Not ethics.

I can put food in my nustrils because they have holes just as my mouth and ear canal. If it makes me happy to put food in my nostrils and try to sniff it down my throat, I cant say thats wrong just odd. What I can say is that food doesnt get to the right place without ill affects if you are eating food (no pun) that way. Its not natural (or not healthy?). We put food in our mouths (unless feed by IV).

Noy saying its wrong. Not saying that the person who "eats" that way, his happyiness from that action is unhealthy, just saying the action itself.

There are a lot of examples. Male/male i tercourse isnt an exclusion from these examples no more than my going down to the local backstore to buy toys. I dont agree with it. May I should say its unhealthy.

People like it. Its not wrong. The feelings are not unnatura. Talking about the actions

Well nature isn't exactly kind. So yeah.
You're putting natural on a pedestal and using unnatural interchangeably with unhealthy before switching the definition of unnatural to something that the "body is not supposed to do." But everything our bodies do are how they are "supposed to work." That doesn't mean that the results will always be healthy but it does mean that medical professionals can usually predict it. If you have an illness your heartbeat will often raise as a survival mechanism. That probably won't always be beneficial (depending on the illness) but regardless your body is doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
Your body can work against you even if it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
We can certainly "malfunction" but to call that unnatural is just weird. Unless that is the specific definition you are using? Malfunctioning? In which case why single out man on man anal sex? Plenty of heterosexual couples have anal all the time. Is that a malfunction?
Well I'd argue no because reaching the male g spot with penile penetration is working in tandem with human anatomy. And since females can enjoy anal sex then it can't be a malfunction, it's also working exactly how sex is supposed to work. To stimulate pleasure.
Basic hygiene and safety precautions is just being responsible not a reason why it's "not working like it's supposed to."

When we have cancer our body works exactly as it's supposed to. Just because it's detrimental doesn't automatically mean that it's unnatural. Unhealthy certainly but it literally cannot go against nature. Nothing that exists can flout the laws of nature. Just like nothing can randomly decide to flout the law of Gravity. If it exists its natural. Whether that is detrimental, beneficial or neutral is not dependent on being natural or unnatural.

Putting food up one's nose doesn't result in the same way putting it in your mouth will. But as for sex acts the result is the same wherever you erm "stick it" so that analogy doesn't work.

The results for all sex acts are the same and having to use basic hygiene (flushing etc) doesn't mean it's unnatural or unhealthy sex. Everyone has to keep their personal areas clean and any sex act, vaginal, oral or anal regardless of orientation can have rather unpleasant results. All sex acts can result in some pretty nasty reactions. If we defined sex acts unnatural the way you are using it ALL sex would be unnatural.

 

[mojtaba]

There are certain allergies that prevent people from eating certain meats, but allergies happen, and few of them are potentially fatal like nut, bee sting, or seafood allergies. But the inability to orgasm from penile-vaginal intercourse is not an allergy, and, in fact, it's not unusual for some women to be unable to have an orgasm from vaginal penetration alone. And it's not unusual for a man to not enjoy vaginal intercourse either, and not have any interest in it. And it still stands that you presented nothing more than a straw man of an argument that is a very illogical metaphor.

Please get the point of the example and do not make it an sophisticated one. Indeed, examples elaborate one point, while they can far away people from other points.

I accepted that there are some men and women that do not enjoy vaginal intercourse. But I believe that this issue do not help those who defend from homosexuality. Because the spouses can enjoy from other manners of sexual intercourse, like those can not eat or do not like eating meat, so that they only eat vegetables.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Please get the point of the example and do not make it an sophisticated one. Indeed, examples elaborate one point, while they can far away people from other points.

I accepted that there are some men and women that do not enjoy vaginal intercourse. But I believe that this issue do not help those who defend from homosexuality. Because the spouses can enjoy from other manners of sexual intercourse, like those can not eat or do not like eating meat, so that they only eat vegetables.

But you're trying to compare a food allergy to sexual preferences. It's not a valid comparison.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well nature isn't exactly kind. So yeah.
You're putting natural on a pedestal and using unnatural interchangeably with unhealthy before switching the definition of unnatural to something that the "body is not supposed to do." But everything our bodies do are how they are "supposed to work." That doesn't mean that the results will always be healthy but it does mean that medical professionals can usually predict it. If you have an illness your heartbeat will often raise as a survival mechanism. That probably won't always be beneficial (depending on the illness) but regardless your body is doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
Your body can work against you even if it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
We can certainly "malfunction" but to call that unnatural is just weird. Unless that is the specific definition you are using? Malfunctioning? In which case why single out man on man anal sex? Plenty of heterosexual couples have anal all the time. Is that a malfunction?
Well I'd argue no because reaching the male g spot with penile penetration is working in tandem with human anatomy. And since females can enjoy anal sex then it can't be a malfunction, it's also working exactly how sex is supposed to work. To stimulate pleasure.
Basic hygiene and safety precautions is just being responsible not a reason why it's "not working like it's supposed to."

When we have cancer our body works exactly as it's supposed to. Just because it's detrimental doesn't automatically mean that it's unnatural. Unhealthy certainly but it literally cannot go against nature. Nothing that exists can flout the laws of nature. Just like nothing can randomly decide to flout the law of Gravity. If it exists its natural. Whether that is detrimental, beneficial or neutral is not dependent on being natural or unnatural.

Putting food up one's nose doesn't result in the same way putting it in your mouth will. But as for sex acts the result is the same wherever you erm "stick it" so that analogy doesn't work.

The results for all sex acts are the same and having to use basic hygiene (flushing etc) doesn't mean it's unnatural or unhealthy sex. Everyone has to keep their personal areas clean and any sex act, vaginal, oral or anal regardless of orientation can have rather unpleasant results. All sex acts can result in some pretty nasty reactions. If we defined sex acts unnatural the way you are using it ALL sex would be unnatural.

I understand. I'm not saying it's wrong or unhealthy. Male/Male intercourse doesn't cause illnesses or long lasting affects depending if it's abuse and so on. My position isn't only reading books and assumptions.

I guess a simple question. I'm trying to figure out how to ask it on this forum, on RF for that matter.

If I'm doing a puzzle, why would I think that a circle would fit into a square whole? You know you have some puzzles that the piece kind of fits. Then, if you twist it enough, you can make it fit. That doesn't mean it's supposed to be there according to the picture and directions of how to put the puzzle together. Some people leave it that way. Some find it more attractive being out of place. Like Impressionist Art or things of that nature. I don't know.

Whatever reason they can fit a circle in a square hole, it's not my say. I don't see it right or wrong. It's just not my preference and it bothers me.

What I can say a circle is not a square no matter how well it fits and why or what is the meaning behind the picture when the circle is twisted to be in the square's place is irrelevant that a circle is not a square.

It's not a religious thing. Not even morals or ethics. I do some things religious would say is unnatural while I don't go around he corner store because I find things other people do is unnatural. That's just me.

But simply put, it's like putting a circle in a square hole, then knowing it fits and liking the result, then they keep the habit of fixing the puzzle that way. Wrong, no. Just a circle is not a square no matter how much we want to put reasons behind it.

I can flip this around to my point of view so it won't be so personal for the otherside; but, I'd have to go to the eros room. It's not too big of a deal as long as you get my point.

 

[mojtaba]

But you're trying to compare a food allergy to sexual preferences. It's not a valid comparison.

When we say that, for instance, 'the example of Jon is like the example of a lion', this sentence means that he is a brave man. But if you do not try to get the point of the example, you can say that Jon is human and lion is an animal, so this example is not valid and it is not a valid comparison.
Get the point of the examples and keep in mind that as much as they can close you to the truth, they can far away you from it, if you do not try to get the point.

 

[SomeRandom]

I understand. I'm not saying it's wrong or unhealthy. Male/Male intercourse doesn't cause illnesses or long lasting affects depending if it's abuse and so on. My position isn't only reading books and assumptions.

I guess a simple question. I'm trying to figure out how to ask it on this forum, on RF for that matter.

If I'm doing a puzzle, why would I think that a circle would fit into a square whole? You know you have some puzzles that the piece kind of fits. Then, if you twist it enough, you can make it fit. That doesn't mean it's supposed to be there according to the picture and directions of how to put the puzzle together. Some people leave it that way. Some find it more attractive being out of place. Like Impressionist Art or things of that nature. I don't know.

Whatever reason they can fit a circle in a square hole, it's not my say. I don't see it right or wrong. It's just not my preference and it bothers me.

What I can say a circle is not a square no matter how well it fits and why or what is the meaning behind the picture when the circle is twisted to be in the square's place is irrelevant that a circle is not a square.

It's not a religious thing. Not even morals or ethics. I do some things religious would say is unnatural while I don't go around he corner store because I find things other people do is unnatural. That's just me.

But simply put, it's like putting a circle in a square hole, then knowing it fits and liking the result, then they keep the habit of fixing the puzzle that way. Wrong, no. Just a circle is not a square no matter how much we want to put reasons behind it.

I can flip this around to my point of view so it won't be so personal for the otherside; but, I'd have to go to the eros room. It's not too big of a deal as long as you get my point.

What are you talking about?
Anal sex works fine, vaginal sex works fine, oral sex works fine. They all work as they're "supposed" to. People have their preferences, that's fine. But there's nothing odd or ill fitting or anything of the sort with male/male sex. Guys (often gay) have sex, that's it. Variety is the spice of life. Some people like savory, some sweet and some both.
I'm not sure why it should bother you. Male anal sex is like the least interesting bedroom activity out there. I mean there are some really out there quirks mate. Anal sex is pretty vanilla, really.

 

[rusra02]

Explain how stoning someone to death for wearing mixed fabrics is integral to my happiness?

And where does the Bible say you would be stoned for wearing mixed fabrics?

 

[rusra02]

Do you not realize how bad you make your creator god look with the above quoted post?

How so? This world is not the doing of the true God, IMO. To the contrary, the Bible unmasks the real ruler of this world; "We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." (1 John 5:19)

 

[rusra02]

Explain how forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker is integral to lasting happiness.

And why would I need to do that? Where does the Bible say a rape victim must marry her attacker?

 

[rusra02]

So whose benefit and happiness was god thinking of when he censured homosexual acts? And how would this benefit them? Or to bring it closer to home; how do you benefit and derive lasting happiness from god's law against homosexual acts?


.

I believe that as our Creator, Jehovah has the absolute right and authority to determine what is good and bad for his creatures. God's Word makes it clear that homosexual acts are detestable to him, as are other acts of sexual immorality. Knowing God's view helps us avoid such degrading practices or stop doing them. Since "men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom", I believe keeping God's laws will enable us to avoid such an unhappy outcome to ourselves. (1 Corinthians 6:10)

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

For those of you who believe that homosexuality is sinful/wrong, why do you believe so? What is sinful/wrong about it, and why?

Relatedly, some people, even those who do not have a problem with homosexuality (whether they identify as homosexual or not), do have something of a problem with bisexuality/pansexuality. If you do, why?

I appreciate that this is for many people an emotionally-charged topic. This is a debate forum, so all those participating in this thread or reading it should be prepared to be challenged and for a suitably robust exchange of views. But do please keep in mind that many of us identify as homosexual and it is a fundamental part of our identity. Some of us may also have been abused, persecuted and/or had some other kind of traumatic experience by virtue of our sexual orientation/sexuality. And by the same token, insofar as sexuality is central to many/most (all?) religions, and for many of us our religion is a fundamental part of our identity, please try to keep that in mind also. Many thanks.

I am pansexual.

Interesting OT Ya'quub. Usually before I respond to a new thread I check out the authors profile. I see your religion is Islam. Mine is Christian and I am straight and have enjoyed many kinds of fun and sharing pleasure, and see no real reason to suspect that homosexuality is a major sin for red letter Christians. I say from a moral point of view indulge in almost any type sex as long as its consensual. Jesus Christ never condemned homosexuality in his ministry, however I am not saying he approved it just that I hope it was a minor thing. Anyway this takes me back to the second sentence in my reply. How can you be Muslim and a homosexual or bisexual etc? I have been reading the Quran and related documents and texts and I can say unequivocally Islam has no new testament equivalent and the book according to nearly all interpretations calls for homosexuals to be put to death, much liek the okld testament books of the bible (before Jesus came back to enhance the law).

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

The issue with homosexuality is typically to do with viewing heterosexual relations as built on procreation and capable of making children. Heterosexual relationships can therefore be seen as fulfilling as biologically necessary role or one that it necessary for religious and social reasons as part of the family.
The flip side is the view that sex for pleasure is sinful or wrong, and as homosexuality does not produce children, it is wrong or unnatural or bad for the species or violates gods laws etc.

Note I hope my reply makes sense I cut and pasted and general brutalized the thing....

True. Two to five or more thousand years ago the world was not over populated it was under populated. The most common religious trinkets and art was of the fertility Gods and the mother. To be fertile was a number one priority. I think during the dawn of humanity's existence homosexuality did seem an aberration, wasteful and wrong, even without a bible to tell early man the obvious, that a homosexual relationship would not create children.

Later when religion and agriculture acted as a kind of social glue to bring people together and create the first cities and towns fertility was still a iffy thing. Children especially male children were treasured. So homosexuality or a homosexual lifestyle may have been seen as wasteful and endangering the community viability by spending a lifetime in an non(re)productive manner (ha ha I couldn't resist!). I feel much of the bibles writing is practical, and I think some information was supernaturally gifted to the bible via revelation. Of course the bible is not a science text book etc so the microbiology was written as the do's and don't and as the laws (or mitzvots) for the Jewish people, all 613 of them! So for example, before germ theory and the life cycle of parasites and such was known the early people didn't know why swine gave them trichinosis, they just knew the bible said it was wrong to eat pork, as was homosexuality so they followed the law.

 

[McBell]

No. You are not right.

I give you an example,

Think about a person who has a disorder and likes to eat soil and mud(~ homosexuality). But he can not eat meat(~ those who do not enjoy vaginal penetration and who cannot orgasm from it.). Finally, he does not have any problem with vegetables and likes to eat them(~enjoining from other sexual manners with the husband).
According to the reason, he shouldn't eat mud, while he likes to do, and because he can not eat meat, he should eat vegetables to reply to his inner need, i.e., the need to eat.

Have you got the point or it needs to more elaboration?

I hope he did, cause I sure didn't.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Think about a person who has a disorder and likes to eat soil and mud(~ homosexuality).

Not really a disorder. People crave dirt, chalk, and other things when they have certain nutritional deficiencies, plus it can be used to reduce toxins in your stomach. It's why we pump people full of charcoal if they've been poisoned. Same diff.

Regardless of believing in evolution or not, according to evolution theory, because people needed to reproduce for maintaining their generation and so because the sexual intercourse between men and women had a good benefit, or let us say the most important benefit for the developmental competence, i.e. maintaining the generation, so the sexual pleasure preserved in humans and natural selection did not eliminate it.

Overpopulation is quite a thing, plus this is the 21st century and technically women need men less than we used to in order to reproduce. Once artificial wombs are available, it will be mutual with men.

Indeed, sexual pleasure is created through evolution to force the creatures to mate and save their generation.

Evolution also can make gays in order to slow down overpopulation frustrations. So can God, really.

Anyway, mating for sexual pleasure is not prohibited in Islam, but one of the its ways, i.e. homosexuality has been prohibited.

But with what logic? We shouldn't ban something unless there is provable harm.

Are men who love their boy friends and say this to them( say them that I love you ) and when they meet their boy friends kiss and hug them without lustful and ill intentions, called gay?

I'm from the South US. I have been called lesbian slurs just because I held hands with or hugged my own mother. Right or wrong, it's become dangerous and frightening just to show affection anymore. At least for me.

We are talking about adults.

'
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/mental-health-pica

When we say that, for instance, 'the example of Jon is like the example of a lion', this sentence means that he is a brave man.

Or he likes to invade a house, rape the women, and kill their children.

Get the point of the examples and keep in mind that as much as they can close you to the truth, they can far away you from it, if you do not try to get the point.

To be honest, I've yet to see a valid point.

And where does the Bible say you would be stoned for wearing mixed fabrics?

It's an abomination, just like eating shellfish and being gay. For a population constantly under threat of genocide, you'd think they'd have better priorities...

This world is not the doing of the true God, IMO.

Since you don't ask God and continue to ask a book by arrogant xenophobes, how would you know?

Where does the Bible say a rape victim must marry her attacker?

You don't read the bible, do you? Are you like many Christians, so stuck on Paul and Gospel John and Revelations John that you forget the rest of the books?
edit:
I'm sorry. You DO read more than just Paul and John. Having reskimmed the entire thread, here's the quote breakdown:
Paul 5
Leviticus 1
Gospel John 2
James 1
Genesis 2
Psalm 2
Luke 2
Matthew 3

What I find fascinating is that you only quote Leviticus for the thing about gays, but you have no idea about clear mandates for rape, no idea that pedophilia was a thing (it's common in the ancient Middle East for grown men to wed tweens or younger and is outright mandated after a particular battle or two), no idea that "abominations" include wearing multiple fabrics and tattoos and eating shellfish, etc...

Still, based on the breakdown, it's easy to see your favorite author, isn't it?

Since "men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom", I believe keeping God's laws will enable us to avoid such an unhappy outcome to ourselves. (1 Corinthians 6:10)

Again, someone clearly has a problem with the concept of consent and harm. Until you master the definitions of these words, they will continue to all look the same to you.

 

[Skwim]

So whose benefit and happiness was god thinking of when he censured homosexual acts? And how would this benefit them? Or to bring it closer to home; how do you benefit and derive lasting happiness from god's law against homosexual acts?

I believe that as our Creator, Jehovah has the absolute right and authority to determine what is good and bad for his creatures. God's Word makes it clear that homosexual acts are detestable to him, as are other acts of sexual immorality. Knowing God's view helps us avoid such degrading practices or stop doing them. Since "men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom", I believe keeping God's laws will enable us to avoid such an unhappy outcome to ourselves. (1 Corinthians 6:10)

Look. If you're not going to bother to reply to my questions why bother replying at all?


.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When we say that, for instance, 'the example of Jon is like the example of a lion', this sentence means that he is a brave man. But if you do not try to get the point of the example, you can say that Jon is human and lion is an animal, so this example is not valid and it is not a valid comparison.
Get the point of the examples and keep in mind that as much as they can close you to the truth, they can far away you from it, if you do not try to get the point.

It's called a false analogy/faulty comparison (I was using the incorrect term by saying straw man). You are trying to say that something that is normal, natural, and no way unhealthy with something that is abnormal and potentially fatal. A who is sexually and romantically attracted towards men is nothing like a peanut allergy, or lactose intolerance, or shellfish, or anything else like that. Sex with a woman is just unappealing and enjoyable for a gay man, and sex with a man isn't going to require medical attention, treatment, or a trip to the ER. Now, someone like Richard the Lionheart, he got the name allegedly for his bravery, and that is ascribing an attribute of his characteristics. It has nothing to do with saying he is actually like a lion, just as a Celiec Disease just is not in anyway like a sexual orientation. For those with Celiac Disease, even just crumbs of gluten can cause abdominal pain, constipation, damage to the intestines, and nerve damage to the arms and legs. Homosexuality causes no damage, and comes with no additional risk that heterosexual sex doesn't have.

And where does the Bible say you would be stoned for wearing mixed fabrics?

While there is no punishment indicated, it is forbidden under Leviticus.

And why would I need to do that? Where does the Bible say a rape victim must marry her attacker?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not sure why it should bother you. Male anal sex is like the least interesting bedroom activity out there. I mean there are some really out there quirks mate. Anal sex is pretty vanilla, really.

In my opinion and I don't know how else to put it, I do not believe the actual action (not the result of the action) of anal sex is natural anymore than, as I mentioned, eating food by using my nostrils. Not bad. Not wrong. That is just not a part of the body the penis is supposed to go. Each part of the body has different functions and reasons for those functions. People do whatever they want with their bodies. Like my other example about the gymnast. There are many people who can wrap themselves up in such a knot that even though it may pay good for their career, they are literally harming their body in the process of whatever they are doing. After practice, of course they get used to it and it because natural; however, that doesn't replace the fact that it harms the body. (I'm talking about the action not the harm)

That's my view. Not wrong. Not unhealthy (it doesn't cause harm, illnesses, or anything like that). Just unnatural.

Can't think of another way to explain it.

 

[McBell]

That is just not a part of the body the penis is supposed to go.

based on what, exactly?

Just unnatural.

Please define natural and unnatural.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In my opinion and I don't know how else to put it, I do not believe the actual action (not the result of the action) of anal sex is natural

Then why do both men and women report having an orgasm from being anally penetrated, as well as having a heightened orgasm? It would seem "unnatural" for the nipples to receive any sexual attention, but many men and women enjoy having their nipples played with.
As for harm, even some men have went the hospital because their penis broke while having vaginal sex with a woman. STIs do not know sex or gender. And so many things that people get concerned about with anal intercourse (such as fecal matter entering the blood stream) are not medical concerns with conditions that cause anal and rectal tearing. And even a vagina can be damaged and a penis hurt from the vagina being under lubricated.