Why is homosexuality wrong?

[Father Heathen]

Soooo

Hetero= opposite sex

Homo= same sex

Bi= both sexes

Pan= all the above plus..what..plants and animals?

Kitchenware.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

If you do not believe that to be the case, then there is little chance that further discussion would do anyone any good.

But perhaps, through discussion, I might come around to your point of view. And even if not, we might both learn something from the exchange of views.

 

[Father Heathen]

That Scripture does not say she must marry her seducer.

Wait. How the **** is a rapist a "seducer"? Odd choice of words on your part. Care to explain?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But what are you basing this on?

Maybe it's just me. I'm not going by religion; but, if I did, The Buddha does talk about sexual impurity. It's a culture thing.

Actually, let me ask you a question. Why would you think that you can use any body part anywhere and anyhow just because it feels good, fits, or (thinking of more than one action), anything else?

What it medical biology says that you can put anything anywhere in the human body and it is alright medical wise?

I know you said it doesn't harm, you can relieve hurt and tension, and so forth. That's not the point, to ease the pain and the meaning behind it etc.

I'ma use the food in nostrils again. What in human biology says that it's alright to put food in the nostrils to gain nutrition just because a. it fits b. with training and practice, I guess, one can do it successfully, and c. It reaches the stomach one way or another?

Why or how do these reasons have anything to do with whether or not we can eat food by putting it in our nostrils?

Same thing with sexual intercourse male/male or male/female whether it's the actual human body or artificial. Doesn't matter.

I honestly don't see how the reasons you mention make it alright to place anything anywhere. I just don't get that.

What do I base this on? I will have to think more because it just seems so common sense that I don't look into it or even want to think about it. Maybe a religious person can explain it better if he/she doesn't use religious terms, I don't know. Some things I agree with, I just don't agree with how and what authority gave them whatever conclusion they came to.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wait. How the **** is a rapist a "seducer"? Odd choice of words on your part. Care to explain?

The Bible verse uses it. It goes something like "seduced and seized her." Now, the verse about having sex with a virgin and paying off her dad to marry, that just says "seduces," and it mentions nothing of seizing.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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).

Where does the Qur'aan say that homosexuals should be put to death?

 

[SomeRandom]

Actually, let me ask you a question. Why would you think that you can use any body part anywhere and anyhow just because it feels good, fits, or (thinking of more than one action), anything else?

Because there's no logical reasoning I can see that should forbid it. Religion and cultural tradition isn't enough for me. I want to see logic and legitimate reasoning.

What it medical biology says that you can put anything anywhere in the human body and it is alright medical wise?

Because it happens millions of times a day WITHOUT harm. So why in the name of all things Science would Medical Biology be "against it?"
Assuming you are specifically referring to sex acts.
You know sexual relief is a stress reliever, right? Even male masturbation can reduce prostate cancer. It has biological benefits as a result of evolution.

I'ma use the food in nostrils again. What in human biology says that it's alright to put food in the nostrils to gain nutrition just because a. it fits b. with training and practice, I guess, one can do it successfully, and c. It reaches the stomach one way or another?

Ummm, where did you get that nonsense from? You are aware of the human anatomy right?
Ingesting food through the mouth bypasses a lot of important breathing processes the body has. It therefore has less likely a chance of blocking the airways. Plus taste buds are on the tongue. Taste buds are important for determining dangerous foods, like spoiled food or can even warn us about some poisons. Not to mention the nostrils and the sinuses are a lot smaller than the throat so food can more easily become lodged in the airways.
There is a logical and biological reasoning behind the notion that one should not ingest food through the nose or even the ears.
Where is that logical or biological reasoning behind the whole "anal sex is unnatural?"

There is none. Anal and vaginal don't pass anything. They are straight forward canals, so to speak. Both of them. The only real difference is a female can become pregnant through vaginal sex. But if you're going to use that difference as an indicator for "unnatural sex" then that still includes heterosexual anal sex.
Anal sex can physically stimulate the male G spot, can sexually stimulate a woman and the only precautions one should take are basic hygiene and safe sex practices. You can't just say, anal is unnatural because prolapse can occur. Because it's a double standard. You'd have to say that vaginal sex is unnatural because the vagina can tear. Everything should be scrutinized the same, or else it's unfair.

Why or how do these reasons have anything to do with whether or not we can eat food by putting it in our nostrils?

Human anatomy. Evolution. Biology. Learn it, live it, love it. As they say. Like come on, mate. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but your comments indicate such a lack of knowledge regarding basic human biology that one might wonder if you passed the subject at even a primary/elementary school level. And I say that as an idiot layman myself.

Same thing with sexual intercourse male/male or male/female whether it's the actual human body or artificial. Doesn't matter.

So all sex is therefore unnatural? I can come up with just as many detriments for all sex acts as you can for male/male intercourse. Maybe even more, I don't know. Like this is basic sex ed stuff.

What do I base this on? I will have to think more because it just seems so common sense that I don't look into it or even want to think about it.

Common sense? What's common about it?

Maybe a religious person can explain it better if he/she doesn't use religious terms, I don't know. Some things I agree with, I just don't agree with how and what authority gave them whatever conclusion they came to.

Perhaps. But you could have just said you don't like it and leave it at that. Like trying to back that up with some logic leaves you wide open to criticism.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Soooo

Hetero= opposite sex

Homo= same sex

Bi= both sexes

Pan= all the above plus..what..plants and animals?

There are more than two sexes. So pan=those of any sex (or gender) (not other animals).

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

There are more than two sexes.

Interesting. I am already familiar with the male and female genitalia, can you please describe the other ones and how they function?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because it happens millions of times a day WITHOUT harm. So why in the name of all things Science would Medical Biology be "against it?"
Assuming you are specifically referring to sex acts.
You know sexual relief is a stress reliever, right? Even male masturbation can reduce prostate cancer. It has biological benefits as a result of evolution.

I still don't get it. It doesn't matter if it doesn't cause harm. I don't see the biological benefits of it (not the intercourse, the act to get to the intercourse). People have interest in a lot of things. Some I just plain out don't understand. Porn channel has enough of it. (This isn't talking about the meaning behind it, the result of the action, and how it makes one feel)

So all sex is therefore unnatural? I can come up with just as many detriments for all sex acts as you can for male/male intercourse. Maybe even more, I don't know. Like this is basic sex ed stuff.

I didn't say all sex is unnatural. I said I don't see how the action putting anything anywhere to derive sexual excitement is, well, natural. We use a lot of things to excite ourselves. I mean, I can read a good porn book and it would do the same thing as someone else who masturbated. It has nothing to do with the sex. It's the action getting to that and what is used. Not the reaction. Not the meaning behind it. Not whether it's unhealthy or not (since you have already said it wasn't unhealthy).

Just for some reason, that small second of time point A goes into point B to do point C just doesn't click as natural. Whether or not the intercourse is, people do what they want. That's not my preference. I'm not talking about preferences.

Perhaps. But you could have just said you don't like it and leave it at that. Like trying to back that up with some logic leaves you wide open to criticism.

I was telling Frank, I don't like it because it's unnatural. It has nothing to do with preferences.

-
Can't think of another way to put it. It has nothing to do with the intercourse itself. Nothing to do with the result (excitement whatever). Has nothing to do with whether its unhealthy or not (you just shown me it is healthy. I will give you that). Has nothing to do with morals (It's not my preference but that has nothing to do with the topic objectively speaking).

It's just that second of point A to point B. Nothing more.

What is this based on? It's like, um, that puzzle piece example. Sticking a circle in a square whole and saying that because it fits, shares he colors of it's neighbors, doesn't disrupt the puzzle, nor does it tear it up, it's alright. Whether it is alright or not is someone's preference. People do what they do. The fact that a circle doesn't go into a square whole is a fact. Sides don't match. I don't know how else to base this on other than the shape of both the whole (the square) and the circle (the puzzle piece). In the male/male or male/female case, I see it the exact same way. I don't know how to see a circle as a square so it can fit just because it looks good with the colors and still can ease itself in the spot. I don't have directions like religious people do. I don't care for puzzles, for purpose of debate. That doesn't make the circle a square no matter what I say or anyone says for that matter.

People do what they do. I don't know how to explain it medically because, as you said, once you ease the pain, everyhing works fine. That's like chipping the edges of the circle to make it a square.

It doesn't make sense to me and many other people. Maybe that would need to be my preference to understand, I don't know. Just what it is.

 

[Father Heathen]

The Bible verse uses it. It goes something like "seduced and seized her." Now, the verse about having sex with a virgin and paying off her dad to marry, that just says "seduces," and it mentions nothing of seizing.

Ah. Dirty goat herders. Gotcha.

 

[Etritonakin]

But perhaps, through discussion, I might come around to your point of view. And even if not, we might both learn something from the exchange of views.

My point of view is not greater than your point of view -especially from your own position -though God may have revealed his point of view to me about certain things. Perhaps you should ask God to allow you to see from God's point of view.
Perhaps you know you better -and God better -and how God views you -better than I do -It is not my point of view that matters.

 

[SomeRandom]

I still don't get it. It doesn't matter if it doesn't cause harm. I don't see the biological benefits of it (not the intercourse, the act to get to the intercourse). People have interest in a lot of things. Some I just plain out don't understand. Porn channel has enough of it. (This isn't talking about the meaning behind it, the result of the action, and how it makes one feel)

If it does not harm, medical science tends to not care about it. You asked what medical science has to say on it, I answered.
So again, what the hell are you basing this on? Holy Scripture? I don't know if you can claim biology, since biology only answers in detrimental, beneficial and neutral. It doesn't really seem to care about anything else. So if you are basing this on Biology but can't point out an inherent detriment unique to male/male sex, you really don't have a leg to stand on.

I didn't say all sex is unnatural. I said I don't see how the action putting anything anywhere to derive sexual excitement is, well, natural. We use a lot of things to excite ourselves. I mean, I can read a good porn book and it would do the same thing as someone else who masturbated. It has nothing to do with the sex. It's the action getting to that and what is used. Not the reaction. Not the meaning behind it. Not whether it's unhealthy or not (since you have already said it wasn't unhealthy).

How? If that's the case everything man made would be not natural. We can't fly without a plane, we need a special pressurized cabin to ensure our survival at that altitude. Using your exact logic of "our bodies aren't meant to do" a plane would be just as not natural. You can't just single out something you don't personally like and apply a label of not natural or unnatural upon it without solid reasoning. You run the risk of looking ill informed about.....well nature.

Just for some reason, that small second of time point A goes into point B to do point C just doesn't click as natural. Whether or not the intercourse is, people do what they want. That's not my preference. I'm not talking about preferences.

If placing point C in point B results in the exact same reaction as it does putting it in Point A, again, you have no real leg to stand on. At least Biologically speaking. Give me evidence, give me solid reasoning, give me sound logic. Not understanding something is not sound reasoning. It's certainly human and understandable, but not logical.

I was telling Frank, I don't like it because it's unnatural. It has nothing to do with preferences.

Define unnatural.
You made the argument/statement, you have to back it up.

What is this based on? It's like, um, that puzzle piece example. Sticking a circle in a square whole and saying that because it fits, shares he colors of it's neighbors, doesn't disrupt the puzzle, nor does it tear it up, it's alright. Whether it is alright or not is someone's preference. People do what they do. The fact that a circle doesn't go into a square whole is a fact. Sides don't match. I don't know how else to base this on other than the shape of both the whole (the square) and the circle (the puzzle piece). In the male/male or male/female case, I see it the exact same way. I don't know how to see a circle as a square so it can fit just because it looks good with the colors and still can ease itself in the spot. I don't have directions like religious people do. I don't care for puzzles, for purpose of debate. That doesn't make the circle a square no matter what I say or anyone says for that matter.

People do what they do. I don't know how to explain it medically because, as you said, once you ease the pain, everyhing works fine. That's like chipping the edges of the circle to make it a square.

It doesn't make sense to me and many other people. Maybe that would need to be my preference to understand, I don't know. Just what it is.

But if the puzzle piece fits then the puzzle functions exactly as it's intended to. Is it different? Certainly, but if, as you say, it fits perfectly fine, doesn't disrupt anything, doesn't harm, doesn't mess with it's neighbors etc, then what logical reason would there be to dismiss the specific fitting of said puzzle piece as "unnatural" "not natural" or otherwise?

You see, you need something more substantive than just "I don't like/understand it" to call something unnatural, not natural or something like that. Because especially in a debate surrounding homosexuality, the "unnatural" argument, whether innocently intended or not, comes with a lot of baggage. If you can't back it up with sound logic, then why even hold onto that position? I mean, in art I could understand. You kind of have to be abstract by default. But with issues like this, I think you need logic and reasoning.

I suppose in a philosophical debate you could get away with it.

 

[mojtaba]

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.

Hi.
Yes. It, itself is not a disorder, but implies a nutritional disorder which should be treated not by eating dirt!
Dirt and mud are one of the best habitats of harmful bacteria and other microbes.
Anyway, such cravings shuold be treated.

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.

Aging population is also a problem.
Artificial wombs or injection of semen to the womb are for those who suffer from sexual ills.

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

Not a good idea.
Gays can not trasfer their genes which control their sexual orientation. So, making gays in order to slow down the overpopulation frustration couldn't be a good means. Indeed, evolution is against the gays. So, natural selection eliminate homosexuals from the population and then heterosexual will be scaped.
Also, because homosexuals have a less evolutionary competence, so their problem seems a disorder which theaters them and their progeny!

Also, consider the aging of population.

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

please keep in mind that whatever results in going away from God, and spiritual failures, is the most harmful thing in the religious viewpoint.
I am not a materialist.

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.

I am sorry!
I am from Iran and even if I say to my friends that I love them, or if I huge and kiss them, I am not be called a gay. This doings are recommended by Islamic traditions in order to make the religious brotherhood between Muslims stronger.

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

It says that such doings should be treated.

Thanks.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But if the puzzle piece fits then the puzzle functions exactly as it's intended to. Is it different?

I think this is my overall point, it doesn't fit exactly as it is intended to. We make it fit, work with it, do whatever we want whether or not it's medical or biologically sound or not. I guess it's human nature.

I get your point. I don't understand it. It's a ethic or however you call it that just plan sticks. You can tell me that it's healthy, natural, five million people do it, it's written in history, and a whole boat load of things. I don't think I can back it up objectively. If it fits, it fits. If people like it, they like it.

I just can't think of another word but unnatural. Is it natural to put anything anywhere because it fits? (Not an analogy, anything anywhere in the human body) regardless if it's an item or not?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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

Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

"28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

 

[firedragon]

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).

You yourself said that Jesus did not comment on homosexuality. And Paul, in the bible calls for sin, Malakoi and Arsenokoites. Soft men and those men who covet men.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Roll up, roll up, another chance to justify your bigotry!!

 

[Sister Cyber]

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

Every living being was created to reproduce after it's own likeness, and all of nature follows this except mankind. Men cannot procreate with men and women cannot procreate with women. The continuance of the unnatural practice is causing the extinction of the races of people who indulge in it.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The continuance of the unnatural practice

Something found in nature (as in animal species other than our own) is by definition not 'unnatural'.

is causing the extinction of the races of people who indulge in it.

The global human population is over 7 billion. It won't be homosexuality that kills our species but something actually harmful.

On the subject of races, there are LGBTs among every ethnicity, including those that are increasing most quickly. LGBTs aren't all white, you know