Homosexuality - Sin? Why?

[Sothenes]

Here are some sickening statistics on Homosexuality:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

 

[Novum]

And you weren't under the opinion that there were no scientists or credentialed people who can hold such a position?

Here, I state that I believe there exist many scientists or "credentialed people" (a term you have not defined) that believe homosexuality to be genetic.

"Nope. Every shred of scientific evidence we have suggests that homosexuality is genetic. Environment should have a minimal role, if any at all."

Here, I state that our best science indicates homosexuality to be genetic.

What's the problem, Sothenes?

 

[Novum]

They can read just as well as I can. I have a college degree and I am guaranteed all the rights and privileges that the degree provides which means that I can disagree with you.

Would you like us to throw a celebration for you and your degree? Perhaps we can all chip in to buy you a better frame for it? My god Sothenes, get over yourself!

You are equating all those who disagree with you as 'not serious'

BZZT! Sorry Sothenes, you couldn't be more wrong. Go back and reread my post again. In case it's still not hitting you, I'll summarize things in easily readable, numbered form:

1. Your website's credibility is questionable, at best.

2. Regardless of its credibility, the website itself lists three or four strong reasons to call the results of that study into question, not the least of which is that

A) Its results have not been replicated, which indicates serious foul play, and

B) At least one study has been conducted that flatly contradicts this study's results.

It's fake. Claptrap. Hogwash. All the signs are there.

 

[Novum]

Here are some sickening statistics on Homosexuality:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

First, your website doesn't appear to be online. Can't connect.

Secondly, your use of the term "sickening statistics" is very revealing. It's clear that you'll adamantly oppose homosexuality regardless of any scientific or physiological evidence that indicates it may (or may not) be genetic. You are completely, utterly unwilling to change your position for any conceivable reason. This is the highest form of intellectual dishonesty.

What you're doing is no better than the actions of the child on the playground who, hearing something he doesn't like, covers his ears and shouts "NA NA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

I see no reason to continue this discussion. You are certainly allowed to develop your own opinion, but trying to pass off unsupported claims is where I draw the line.

 

[fResH]

The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a SIN. As much as people claim to be born gay, that is false. Homosexuality roots from a sin, as it is a sin.

 

[Sothenes]

1. Your website's credibility is questionable, at best.

2. Regardless of its credibility, the website itself lists three or four strong reasons to call the results of that study into question, not the least of which is that

A) Its results have not been replicated, which indicates serious foul play, and

B) At least one study has been conducted that flatly contradicts this study's results.

It's fake. Claptrap. Hogwash. All the signs are there.

First of all, it is not the responsibility of the critic to prove there is a genetic link. The responsibility rests on those who are trying to prove a link between genetics and homosexuality. Not being able to replicate a study is not foul play.

I was reading a message from a woman whom is one of two identical twins. Her sister is gay but she is not. If you looked at their blood under the microscope, they are the same genetically.

Unless your messages have more reasons or content, they are just ad-hominen to me which is just a logical fallacy.

 

[Sothenes]

Here are some sickening statistics on Homosexuality:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

First, your website doesn't appear to be online. Can't connect.

Secondly, your use of the term "sickening statistics" is very revealing. It's clear that you'll adamantly oppose homosexuality regardless of any scientific or physiological evidence that indicates it may (or may not) be genetic. You are completely, utterly unwilling to change your position for any conceivable reason. This is the highest form of intellectual dishonesty.

How can you say what I've written is wrong if you can't get online to the webstite to read it? It just proves that you see things one way. Why shouldn't I be sick of the statistics? Wait..You haven't read it because you haven't been online.

What you are saying is that if I have an opinion contrary to yours, that my opinion is intellectual dishonesty. I have a right to my own opinion. I'm allowed to make my own choices. Your bully tactics won't work on me but continuing to talk to me so that I respond to you in like fashion will only encourage the moderator to lock the discussions.

 

[Novum]

Your bully tactics won't work on me but continuing to talk to me so that I respond to you in like fashion will only encourage the moderator to lock the discussions.

You're hardly innocent yourself of "bully tactics".

Incidentally, I do hope that this thread gets locked. Nothing good can come from the head-butting going on here.

 

[Sothenes]

Incidentally, I do hope that this thread gets locked. Nothing good can come from the head-butting going on here.

Other people have spent time on this discussion and it is only fair to them that they are free to discuss the issues.

 

[Novum]

I think that a very compelling plausibility case can be made that there indeed exists a set of behaviours {B-optimal} that is indeed objectively "the best" moral code to implement for any human society.

Hmm. My knee-jerk reaction is to disagree, but we'll see where you go with this.

I certainly do have assumption, naturally enough. I think that the biggest assumption is the following: There exists a set of properties {P} of any and all human societies that all mentally well people (this qualifier is perhaps a little vague, I admit)

It certainly is vague. It poses some very difficult questions, which I'll limit to just two for now:

1. Who is "mentally well"? What are the criteria?

2. What is to be done with those who do not meet the criteria?

in that society will recognize as fundamentally desirable. These include, for example: freedom, peace, security, comfort, pleasure, intellectual fulfillment, physical health, efficiency, wealth, etc. etc.

Fair enough, but I see disagreement even within these fundamental desires. Freedom and security, for example, have a long history of conflict. While we can agree that people will value freedom and security alike, how much of one are we willing to sacrifice to secure more of the other? Does an 'objective' answer exist? I'm not sure.

My argument is basically that all socieities are composed of people placed in an environment of limited resources - limited space, natural resources, time,etc. Accordingly, there is a requirement for cooperative behviours among all the people in order to maximize the likelihood that an arbitrary person will experience all the things in {P}.

Sure. But I see fundamental disagreements between people with respect to the best way to maximize that likelihood. Consider the freedom vs. security answer above - does an objective answer exist?

This is a somewhat technical point - while I am not presently able to rigourously defend this view, I think that it is fairly obvious that there are certain sets of individual behaviour standards {B} that are objectively better than other candidate sets at producing a society where as many people get as much of {P} as possible. This is purely a "technical" point and is based on my intuition that any "system" can have its free variables tweaked to certain settings in order to optimize some specified state of the system.

We could spend literally the rest of our lives attempting to draw up a list of these "free variables" in society. We could easily spend a few lifetimes more attempting to assign values or weights to these variables. This is to say nothing of the problem of the fundamentally different mindsets that exist between societies, which questions the conclusion that we can even compare two (or more) societies in the first place.

So just like there exists an objectively optimal method for designing a jet aircraft, so there exists an objectively best moral code for any human society. If you do not think there exists an optimal method for designing airplanes, I would like to understand why you think that way. I am not saying that we fully know these optimal principles for designing planes, but rather that they exist.

I can see no reason to think that they do. But instead of something complicated like a jet airplane, let's think about something simpler (and more 2-D ;)) - a paper airplane.

A simple search of the internet will reveal no shortage of websites that list varying designs for paper airplanes. It should be noted that, of the results returned in your search, the subjective opinions you find about the "best" paper airplane will vary wildly with respect to design, look, number of folds, size of paper, and even paper type.

But we're trying to optimally design an optimal paper airplane. What does this mean?

1. Do we seek to develop the paper airplane that can fly the farthest? Using what means of propulsion - a human arm, or a mechanical device? (We can ask many further such questions about the nature of this device...)

2. Do we seek to develop the paper airplane that is the most durable, surviving a maximal number of "flights"?

3. Do we seek to develop the paper airplane that is the most aesthetically pleasing? What qualities - color, size, shape - should we take into account?

4. How should the above qualities be weighed? If our paper airplane has a sub-optimal flight distance, is that an acceptable sacrifice if we gain a great deal in durability?

Survey six billion people and you'd get close to six billion different answers (including many who have never heard of or seen a paper airplane). The sheer difficulty - if not impossibility - of even defining what "optimal" means with respect to a paper airplane, to me, suggests that an optimal paper airplane cannot possibly exist.

This is to say nothing of the optimal means of designing such an airplane. Even assuming that we are somehow able to agree on a set of optimal qualities, we face the same insurmountable challenge when attempting to decide how to go about designing it.

Now I am not saying that the set of optimal human behaviours might not be complex in the sense that there might be a lot of "special cases" and qualifiers. And I recognize that if the behaviour set is too heavily qualified, it essentially ceases to be "general" enough and therefore ceases to be any kind of a standard. But I suspect there are indeed some "general" moral rules that, if followed, tend to produce societies where people are much more likely to get {P}.

Yes, and to this I have never disagreed. But what you're saying here is a lot different from saying there exists an objectively "optimal" set of moral rules for a given society.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Spute, I don't believe SDA people agree with you!!! How about it Jay T or other SDA members?

With all due respect to other SDAs on this board as well as with all due respect to you too, gingercat, I am not a programed robot. Affiliating myself with the SDA Church did not mean that I had to forfeit my brain and reasoning skills in the process. I agree with a number of the doctrines of 'Adventism' - not so sure about a couple of others - but I'm still my own man. Should other SDAs disagree with me on this issue, that's fine. I hope they are not programed robots either. As long as we can differ on some issues then it makes those issues that we DO agree on so much stronger. In other words, there is no collusion going on.

I still feel the points that I've made are somehow going over your head, gingercat, and I'm wondering why. If someone is genetically 'wired' with a sexual disposition toward the same gender ...do you believe that to be a sin? Could you just respond to that question first?

 

[gingercat]

If someone is genetically 'wired' with a sexual disposition toward the same gender ...do you believe that to be a sin? Could you just respond to that question first? [/color]

Spute, thank you for your explanation of your position, you make very good point about following everything about your denomination's interpretation :D

Like I said before I trust the Bible and is cleraly stating that homosexuality is sin. So I believe it is curable with His help if they choose too.

Science has been unreliable many times, and I believe this is one of them.

About the divorce: It is tempting to agree with what you are saying but we are compromizing and lowering Jesus' standarad too much; we are paying huge price for it at His expence. I don't want to be one of the contributers of this kind of bad results.

 

[Vic C.]

Just let me begin with saying that I am heterosexual. Now... if someone could give me a reason as to why homosexuality is bad, a sin, or is evil, let me know and I will certainly consider it. I'm not going to say whether I object or accept homosexuality in society until someone has made at least one argument for or against it.

If you have Bible references to object to or promote this lifestyle, then list them. If you have facts from modern scientific tests, list them. I eagerly await any response. Note that I have done a little research myself and some thinking on this topic.

I don't see how anyone in their right mind cannot respect and value love in all it's incarnations, this includes love between two people reguardless of what anatomy they have, anatomy is meaningless, gender is a social construct and of transparent value.

This is why you should accept homosexuality as the valid lifestyle it truly is.

What you fail to grasp is English has only one word for love. Greek has like four or five; each one describes a different kind of love. What you are referring to is agape (unconditional) love but you are interjecting eros love into your statement.

When God set the guidlines for this kind of love when He said:

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him....

...Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh....

Lets back up a moment:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

God blessed the union between man and woman. Please show me ONE place in the Bible where He ever blessed a union between same sexes. He ordained sex primary for the purpose of procreation. He ordained marriage so that sex between a man and woman would be sanctified. Sex between same sexes and sex outside of a lifelong committed relationship is against God's will, thus it is a sin in His eyes.

Since any deviation of this is "Active promotion of sinful behavior and will not be permitted" as stated in our rules, we cannot allow this line of thinking to continue. You, when signing up here, automatically agreed to our TOS. If you haven't read them, please become familiar wwith them here:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=9219

Thanks,
Vic

 

[JM]

2) Negative side effects. Attending homosexual practice is a disproportionately high rate of negative side effects as regards (a) health (sexually transmitted disease, mental health problems, and shortened life expectancy) and (b) relational dynamics (short term relationships, high numbers of sex partners). These problems are, in the first instance, attributable to the non-complementarity of homoerotic unions: the extremes of one's sex are not moderated and gaps are not filled. Approving homosexual behavior will also contribute to the gender identity confusion of adolescents and, by virtue of denying any significance or value to male-female differences, will bring about the destruction of all gender norms and societal endorsement of transvestism and transgenderism. See The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 452-60, 471-85.

5) The destruction of marriage. Granting civil union status or, worse, marriage to homosexual unions will ultimately weaken marriage for everyone. The introduction of same-sex registered partnerships in Scandinavia has coincided with a sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births. Granting gay marriage or its functional equivalent has not helped marriage in these countries; it has made marriage increasingly superfluous. When eroticism is perceived as merely "more intimacy" rather than as a means to a "one-flesh" reintegration with a sexual other into a sexual whole, when the only requisite for sexual unions is commitment and fidelity (and a truncated definition of commitment and fidelity at that), when "lifelong" becomes "long-term" and "long-term" is thought of as a 5-10 year-union, when even the concept of "serial monogamy" is called into question by the high incidence of "open relationships" among male homosexual unions, when sexual unions are once and for all severed in society's perception from a commitment to have and raise children, and when society rejects as bigotry the notion that a mother and father are both needed for the optimal development of children--when all these elements are in place, consistent with the pro-homosex agenda, the general public will cease to value marriage as a special and even sacred institution. "The profanation of marriage" will have gone full circle--both its secularization and debasement. Imagine society granting marriage licenses to any union that met the conditions of a committed friendship and ask yourself how long marriage can survive as an institution.

http://www.robgagnon.net/SecularCase.htm


JM

 

[Novum]

http://www.robgagnon.net/SecularCase.htm

"Robert A. J. Gagnon
Associate Professor of New Testament
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary"

Oh, the irony of this guy trying to make a "secular case" against homosexuality. :smt082

 

[AHIMSA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

The problem with just throwing these kind of statistics around and using them to demonstrate how homosexuality is " and inherently immoral lifestyle" is that it does not take into account the context from which these statistics stem.

Before anyone uses these statistics as weapons there needs to be a thorough examination of the effects of marginalizing those with a homosexual orientation all throughout history. We must be willing to ask, how did the homosexual community come into existence? Under which pressures? How did the marginalizing and shunning of this entire community, both socially and legally, affect the pysche and sexual practices of its members? How does the repression of sexual feelings, particularly through adolesence, affect that person's sexual behavior when his or her sexuality is brought to light?

What are the consequences for a person when their entire social foundation is torn from under them, having been rejected by both society and their family? What effects could this have on their personal moral standards?

We can not simply examine the promiscuous lifestyles of the gay community and then leave it that, using that information alone to condemn them. The fact that most people here do so gives a revealing insight into how unwilling you are to actually examine this issue. You take anything you can to show how "sinful" gay people are. What we need to do is examine the influence of outside factors and see how this affects sexual behavior, and I do believe you will find a plurality of factors that has had this effect on the gay community.

Lastly, there is without a doubt, many gay people who are not promiscuous and who have a set of moral standards. I believe this will be on the rise so long as homosexuality continues to be accepted. The normalization of homosexuality will lead to the normalization of homosexual behavior, and I believe that connection is clear.

* As I continue to read these statistics I find myself disgusted by the clear bias exhibited by whoever put these together. For example, he notes that 59 % of homosexuals are college graduates, compared to 18% of the general population, and then says "Too bad they aren't smart enough to listen to God". It is statements like this that calls someone credibility into question.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Intelligent post, AHIMSA. I hope that a just as intelligent response will be forthcoming from those who would normally 'slam' the issue.

 

[Sothenes]

Lastly, there is without a doubt, many gay people who are not promiscuous and who have a set of moral standards. I believe this will be on the rise so long as homosexuality continues to be accepted. The normalization of homosexuality will lead to the normalization of homosexual behavior, and I believe that connection is clear.

My pastor talks about moral standards. They said,"When I was selling drugs, I gave everyone a fair count." "I only slept with the women I loved" when they were really abusing women. You can have a moral standard but the Homosexual is still in open sin.

 

[AHIMSA]

Yes, well, YOU consider it to be an open sin, but not everyone holds that its "inherent immorality" is self-evident. Many try and use statistics of homosexual promiscuity as evidence against the orientation, however, I am simply pointing out that such tactics do not truly form a cohesive argument, one which can only be applied to the gay community, but not to the gay individual.

 

[SputnikBoy]

If someone is genetically 'wired' with a sexual disposition toward the same gender ...do you believe that to be a sin? Could you just respond to that question first? [/color]

Spute, thank you for your explanation of your position, you make very good point about following everything about your denomination's interpretation :D

Like I said before I trust the Bible and is cleraly stating that homosexuality is sin. So I believe it is curable with His help if they choose too.

You do realize that the term "homosexuality" was not the word in the original texts, don't you? I'm not necessarily saying that the texts don't infer this but the words "homosexual/homosexuality" were later editions.

We are NEVER told that these texts are saying anything about - here I go again - one's genetics that might result in the practice of sex between two of the same gender. In fact, one could well logically assume that the texts are referring to heterosexuals who are practicing acts that are against THEIR 'natural' desires. If a 'gay' man has NEVER had 'natural desires' toward the opposite sex, then how could these texts be referring to him? I mean ...really?

I was given an enquiring mind (God-given, evidently) and there are some things - scriptural or not - that I cannot simply accept blindly or at face value. I HAVE to question them. And, homosexuality is one of those things. To some of you this is a clear-cut issue. To others - me, for instance, it CERTAINLY is not. Should I eventually arrive at the place where some of you are now, then I will have done so based on my own research and by having used my God-given reasoning abilities.

As for Jesus helping some change their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual ...? I can't (don't want to) say much here (and this is not about me) but I can assure you that one can wear out their knees praying to God without any such results. This then puts an even greater burden on them because they hear from other Christians that Jesus can change them ...but He hasn't. Do you know how many 'gays' (who Christians say 'are responsible for their orientation') commit suicide? I don't either but I would guess that MANY teen suicides where the causes are not clearly known were based on 'gender issues'. And Christians contribute to this shocking state of affairs!

Science has been unreliable many times, and I believe this is one of them.

Could be. But just ask yourself ...honestly ...is this a black and white issue? Should we at least give scientific research the benefit of the doubt, even if we don't like it? SCIENCE IS NOT NECESSARILY AT ODDS WITH GOD. Science looks at issues in a nonbiased way. It is not going out of its way to make excuses for homosexuality but is basing its findings on pure scientific research. God not only created the scientist but He also enabled the scientist to explore the 'science' that He also created. We should marvel at this rather than reject it because - from my perspective anyway - it continually proves the existence of an all-powerful God.

About the divorce: It is tempting to agree with what you are saying but we are compromizing and lowering Jesus' standard too much; we are paying huge price for it at His expence. I don't want to be one of the contributers of this kind of bad results.

Is one's salvation dependent on how much misery one can put themselves through? Some people seem to think so, it would seem. I'm not saying that this is you, gingercat, but ...is it? Human beings make mistakes and one of the biggest mistakes they make - it would seem - is having married the wrong partner. Should one be penalized for the rest of their lives for having made a silly mistake? Just asking.