Homosexuality and The Bible

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

You don't know any of that. Have you been to one? If not, then all you've heard is hearsay from the very people who object so strongly, on ideological grounds, to the work of NARTH. Let people make their own choices about their mental care. Some psychologists say homosexuality is healthy and normal, others say it makes you sad and offer to help.

This is good background reading.

Its a pretty straightforward statement to say that people are often forced to go to these reparitive therapy sessions.

Furthermore its the vast majority of Mental Health Professionals and all the major Professional Bodies who dont see it in itself as requiring treatment.

Finally as someone who I'm quite certain would know a lot more gay people than you I can categorically state that a huge amount of the unhappiness is caused by discrimination (state sanctioned, church sanctioned and some still socially acceptable). Im sure it would be much better for Christians to at least accept LGBT individuals rather than say "you have to be fixed".

Donatello

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've still never heard a compelling reason as to why homosexuality is actually condemned. I know it's mentioned in the Bible, but that's not the root of my concern (as an aside, there's plenty more condemned in the Bible that doesn't get the same disdain as homosexuality does). To get a little bit philosophical: why would God create a person gay (and he does, it's not a lifestyle choice before somebody jumps in with that), yet condemn him from acting upon his nature. You can say it's a test for him, yet it seems an unfair test when others aren't subjected to the same.

No trial has come to you but what is human. God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to bear it. - 1 Cor. 10:13

The inclination itself is not typically consciously chosen, however, unless one is out of one's mind, the choice is made when a person decides to act on their attractions.

Does God create people born without arms or legs? Does God make people born with half their skull missing? We are a fallen race. We suffer and are afflicted in so many ways. Redemption comes through Christ who can make all things new.

Additionally, you do not know about the inner crosses other persons carry, and there are a multitude of crosses.

lst wrote: »

Its a pretty straightforward statement to say that people are often forced to go to these reparitive therapy sessions.

Furthermore its the vast majority of Mental Health Professionals and all the major Professional Bodies who dont see it in itself as requiring treatment.

Finally as someone who I'm quite certain would know a lot more gay people than you I can categorically state that a huge amount of the unhappiness is caused by discrimination (state sanctioned, church sanctioned and some still socially acceptable). Im sure it would be much better for Christians to at least accept LGBT individuals rather than say "you have to be fixed".

If people want to freely avail of these services, they must be allowed.

The Church does not require that people 'fix themselves' through therapy. One can live as a chaste person who happens to have same-sex attraction and who can become a great saint. That is the teaching of the Church:

CCC 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Christian perfection = sainthood.

The CDF released a document on sexual ethics in 1975. You may find the relevant extract useful:

PERSONA HUMANA

DECLARATION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS
CONCERNING SEXUAL ETHICS

[...]

VIII

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

philologos

lst wrote: »

I'm sure it would be much better for Christians to at least accept LGBT individuals rather than say "you have to be fixed".

Churches don't refuse anyone at the door. Rather the churches have a Christian message to preach. An part of that Christian message is that sexuality is best expressed in a marriage. This teaching might be offensive to many straight people also, but ultimately it is what God calls us to do. Disagreement with how people act doesn't mean "not accepting LGBT individuals" or as some more hysterical interpretations would lead to "hatred".

philologos

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But the root cause is still religion. I mean, if some segments of Christianity didn't condemn homosexuality people wouldn't feel forced to try and change themselves, and if people didn't feel forced to try and change themselves organisations that sold the "cure of homosexuality" wouldn't exist.

A key distinction needs to be made. Christianity condemns homosexual activity, or how we deal with our inclinations. It doesn't condemn people for having inclinations themselves. For example, as a heterosexual male, I have heterosexual inclinations. This doesn't mean that I should use every possible opportunity to express these inclinations, but rather it means I should control them.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've still never heard a compelling reason as to why homosexuality is actually condemned. I know it's mentioned in the Bible, but that's not the root of my concern (as an aside, there's plenty more condemned in the Bible that doesn't get the same disdain as homosexuality does). To get a little bit philosophical: why would God create a person gay (and he does, it's not a lifestyle choice before somebody jumps in with that), yet condemn him from acting upon his nature. You can say it's a test for him, yet it seems an unfair test when others aren't subjected to the same.

Indeed, there is much more condemned in the Bible. This is why I mentioned that earlier that churches need to be far more objective in terms of what is good and evil in terms of Christianity. At the same time, this doesn't mean that we have a valid reason to ignore the Scriptural position as Christians. I personally believe that marriage as the place of sexuality has to do with the family and children having both male and female influences. It presumably also has to do with the fact that males and females in and of themselves can bear children whereas homosexual couples can't.

As for God creating people homosexual that is a subject of dispute even within the scientific field. There is no evidence to suggest that sexuality is biologically determined that I've come across. If I'm wrong, give it a go. I remember someone on here a few years ago tried to present the case and at that time there was nothing to say that it was biologically determined. There was however evidence to suggest that homosexuality did occur in nature, but there was also evidence to suggest that it occurred for very different reasons in some cases (to increase fertility in beetles for example).

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The only answer I ever get is that "we can't know the mind of God", or some such variant guised in more elaborate language.

Today's your lucky day . Tell me what you have issue with and I'll do my best to respond to it!

JimiTime

Just received my copy of 'A Queer Thing Happened To America'. Here's one review:

"As a former homosexual who was a "gay" activist for a decade in the 80's and early '90's I know that what Dr Michael Brown is saying is correct & well researched. In fact I could add more evidence to substantiate the TRUTH that Brown has reported."

It seems like a good read. I've got through the first 2 chapters, and its certainly been an education so far. I listen to the authors radio shows a lot, and have much respect for him. It defo seems like a good read for anyone interested in the subject matter, whatever side of the fence you're on.

wolfsbane

TheReverend wrote: »

Its sad that in this day and age people still think being LGBT is a "sin" or "wrong".

Yea, imagine, Christians believing the Bible!

****************************************************************************
Matthew 22:23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

WarnerT

I use to be a commited member of a catholic christian community comprised of both lay people and religious priests and nuns.
It was a very well recognised and respected community of the catholic church.
I loved it but knew I was gay.
Somehow by a process of denial and belief that Jesus understood my love I was able to sustain a loving relationship for four years while I was a member of the community.
It was only when the relationship ended because my partner simply couldnt take the strain anymore and opted to try to be straight that I found I had to confront fully what I was doing.
My work was suffering I was upset all the time and couldnt focus on anything so I went to my community looking for support.
Funny thing was at first everyone I went to wound up telling me about their sexual problems.
Finally it was decided that I needed to see a priest who had the gift of healing.
He put me through some weird recession therapy. I say weird because I was to imagine myself and my partner being in bed together and then Jesus was to walk in.
The scenario was suppose to end in my saying that Jesus was sad or upset or something but I had already imagined Jesus with us and felt he understood our love.
The priest nearly had a fit, he banged the table and ranted if I wasnt ready or did not want to be cured there was nothing he could do.
I submitted as I was so upset I thought there was nothing else to do.
When the priest felt happy enough with his treatment of me, which looking back on it was full of him discussing his own fantasies he decided to give me the sacrament of the sick.
He asked me if I had ever had any contact with the occult, which surprised me and then went on to say that when he works with people who have had contact with the occult he gets depressed and has to get help from a nun in the community ( weirder and weirder)
Then he anointed my hands against masturbation and gave me the oil to anoint my genitals to cure me of homosexuality.
Its ok it doesnt get any worse, but I have met guys since who have had the priest anoint their genitals for them. :mad:
This really isnt something I wanted, I was just looking for help.
I now know you do not go to the catholic church when you are vulnerable.
I was lucky and I was able to get that hatred/homophobia out of my head even though it has taken a long time.
I feel like I was taken advantage of.
I feel like that ritual was ritual abuse. I mean that. The catholic church was a church I loved. I loved ritual. Now it makes me feel sick.
And you know what they probably have me down as one of the ones they cured.

PDN

DubArk wrote: »

I think it’s a pity that the thread was moved in here because I knew it would be hijacked by the Bible junkies who have little to say, then copy and paste scripture as a defence for their own bigotry and contempt for others. Like a fix that gets them high on self-righteousness resulting in self elevation, to a misguided higher moral ground.

Moderator warning

Less of the hysteria, please!

How awful that a thread about the Bible and homosexuality should be moved to a forum where people who are interested in the Bible might post.

Christians and non-Christians alike are welcome to post in this thread, but it will facilitate better discussion if those on both sides accept that people hold different opinions from themselves. Lumping people together with pejorative terms like 'bigots' and 'Bible-junkies' makes you no different from those who use pejorative terms against gay people.

If you, or anyone else, can't maintain a modicum of politeness and courtesy towards those with whom they disagree then this is the wrong place for you to post. Any instances of homophobic language, or of generalised slurs against Christianity or religion, will be moderated robustly. I hope that is clear to everyone.

mcmoustache

I have never really understood why gay/bi people would want to partake in Christianity. The bible is quite clear on the status of gay/bi people. They can be gay but once they act on it, they have sinned against God. It's written there in black and white and you can't just go editing that stuff out of the bible.

If a gay person wants to be a Christian, they have to stop all homosexual acts in order to be a Christian. Why would they want to do that? I just don't get it.



Disclaimer: I am not Christian and I don't subscribe to their views on homosexuality. I support full equality including adoption and marriage. I was just pointing out where Christianity stands on the issue of homosexuality.

philologos

mcmoustache wrote: »

I have never really understood why gay/bi people would want to partake in Christianity. The bible is quite clear on the status of gay/bi people. They can be gay but once they act on it, they have sinned against God. It's written there in black and white and you can't just go editing that stuff out of the bible.

People are people are people as far as Christianity is concerned. Actions are actions are actions as far as Christianity is concerned. There is no need to demarcate. For example as a heterosexual single male I'm much in a similiar position until a point if (hopefully when) I find the right person to marry.

mcmoustache wrote: »

If a gay person wants to be a Christian, they have to stop all homosexual acts in order to be a Christian. Why would they want to do that? I just don't get it.

You could say that of anything though. If I enjoy getting drunk, why would I want to become a Christian?

Keylem

mcmoustache wrote: »

I have never really understood why gay/bi people would want to partake in Christianity. The bible is quite clear on the status of gay/bi people. They can be gay but once they act on it, they have sinned against God. It's written there in black and white and you can't just go editing that stuff out of the bible.

If a gay person wants to be a Christian, they have to stop all homosexual acts in order to be a Christian. Why would they want to do that? I just don't get it.



Disclaimer: I am not Christian and I don't subscribe to their views on homosexuality. I support full equality including adoption and marriage. I was just pointing out where Christianity stands on the issue of homosexuality.

Catholic christians (I'm sure it's much the same in all other christian denomiations), whether gay or straight are meant to remain celibate until marriage, but many don't!

Penn

philologos wrote: »

You could say that of anything though. If I enjoy getting drunk, why would I want to become a Christian?

Because the blood of Christ has an alcohol content of about 12%

philologos

I didn't realise this was you, Jakkass.

philologos wrote: »

A key distinction needs to be made. Christianity condemns homosexual activity, or how we deal with our inclinations. It doesn't condemn people for having inclinations themselves. For example, as a heterosexual male, I have heterosexual inclinations. This doesn't mean that I should use every possible opportunity to express these inclinations, but rather it means I should control them.

Yes, but as a heterosexual male you're not condemned for acting upon your inclinations, provided you're married. It's rather cruel to "build" a person with certain inclinations, then forbid them from acting upon their very nature. There are very few people who can completely control their natural inclinations. So, "letting somebody be made" with certain inclinations, then condemning them for acting upon those inclinations, seems tantamount to entrapment. This is one of the many, many, many things which can't, to me, be reconciled with the idea of a loving God.

Indeed, there is much more condemned in the Bible. This is why I mentioned that earlier that churches need to be far more objective in terms of what is good and evil in terms of Christianity.

Yes, it'd be nice to see some consistency in what certain religious groups and churches condemn. Nitpicking certain aspects and using the Bible as a basis for condemning them, while basically ignoring others, seems to me to be a way to voice a person's own prejudices without having to feel guilt or face reprecussions for doing so.

At the same time, this doesn't mean that we have a valid reason to ignore the Scriptural position as Christians. I personally believe that marriage as the place of sexuality has to do with the family and children having both male and female influences. It presumably also has to do with the fact that males and females in and of themselves can bear children whereas homosexual couples can't.

Surprisingly I used to be of a similar opinion. A few months back there was a thread in A&A about a gay couple's rights to adoption. I didn't believe it was right; I didn't believe a homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt. But, as I followed the discussion, I realised that I actually had no reasonable basis for that opinion, that my only basis for it was my own preconceived ideas about how a family should be, along with the influences of the culture that I (that most) grew up in. I therefore had to change my view. It's a very liberating thing to do.

I realise that you have the Bible as a basis for your opinion above. But, it'd be worth trying to figure out what basis your views have if you temporarily ignored the Bible.

As for God creating people homosexual that is a subject of dispute even within the scientific field. There is no evidence to suggest that sexuality is biologically determined that I've come across. If I'm wrong, give it a go. I remember someone on here a few years ago tried to present the case and at that time there was nothing to say that it was biologically determined. There was however evidence to suggest that homosexuality did occur in nature, but there was also evidence to suggest that it occurred for very different reasons in some cases (to increase fertility in beetles for example).

I don't have sources to hand at the moment. But, I believe I've read that there's plenty to suggest homosexuality has a biological basis, whether genetic or due to chemicals and hormones the embryo is "exposed" to in the early stages of development (if that sentence comes across as negative then I apologise, I didn't mean it so). I realise it's a hotly debated area. I don't know enough about the field to come to any solid conclusions, if I said otherwise I'd only be feigning it. I'm sure others reading will know a lot more about this than I do, so can step in if needs be.

But that's neither here nor there. It's enough to say that a very significant proportion of most populations are homosexual. And so, they have, as I described above, in the eyes of Christianity, an unfair burden to bare.

Today's your lucky day . Tell me what you have issue with and I'll do my best to respond to it!

Most of my issues are expressed above, I believe. I probably didn't do a very good job of making them clear, though.

Donatello wrote:

Does God create people born without arms or legs? Does God make people born with half their skull missing? We are a fallen race. We suffer and are afflicted in so many ways. Redemption comes through Christ who can make all things new.

Additionally, you do not know about the inner crosses other persons carry, and there are a multitude of crosses.

Yes, but people who are born without arms or legs or with half of their skull missing don't face condemnation and eternal torture for acting upon their natural inclinations. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Donatello

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes, but as a heterosexual male you're not condemned for acting upon your inclinations, provided you're married. It's rather cruel to "build" a person with certain inclinations, then forbid them from acting upon their very nature.

I don't have sources to hand at the moment. But, I believe I've read that there's plenty to suggest homosexuality has a biological basis, whether genetic or due to chemicals and hormones the embryo is "exposed" to in the early stages of development (if that sentence comes across as negative then I apologise, I didn't mean it so). I realise it's a hotly debated area. I don't know enough about the field to come to any solid conclusions, if I said otherwise I'd only be feigning it. I'm sure others reading will know a lot more about this than I do, so can step in if needs be.

But that's neither here nor there. It's enough to say that a very significant proportion of most populations are homosexual. And so, they have, as I described above, in the eyes of Christianity, an unfair burden to bare.

Yes, but people who are born without arms or legs or with half of their skull missing don't face condemnation and eternal torture for acting upon their natural inclinations. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Maybe 2% of the population according to latest studies. The 10% figure has long been debunked.

Everybody must exercise chastity according to their state in life. The only place for sexual union is within marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, open to the generation of new human life. Sex is for the generation of new human life and the union of the spouses. Any other use of human sexuality is disordered.

We have 'natural' inclinations. Some people like to steal or kill - should they also be free to act on their inclinations? Of course you say, 'They harm the rights of others.' True. And those who commit homosexual acts harm themselves and those they engage with, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.

This is good background reading - just click the links:

But sex is natural. How can you deny that?

What’s wrong with sex? God created me the way I am, with all my desires. Celibacy is just a medieval attempt by the Church to repress homosexuality.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

Maybe 2% of the population according to latest studies. The 10% figure has long been debunked.

Its the 2% figure thats been trashed.

The 2% is the figure that is cited by some groups as thats those who admit it when questioned, ie those who are out.

Even in Ireland we cant get accurate figures - even if it was a census question well over 3/4 of the gay guys I know would be marked as hetrosexual owing to not being out at home. Even in Sports - Theres only one "out" GAA player? does that mean theres only one? Far from it - most teams I know well I can think of 2+ guys out of the twenty in the team....

Figures from some of the conservative groups in the states, taken from churchgoing young people, state about 9% of females and 13% of males. It was in print and I cant find the document and obviously cant reference online.

Ironically it was an organisation from "your side" of the fence who had done the research and came up with the 9 and 13%. The anonymous nature of the survey allowed people to be honest.

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

Maybe 2% of the population according to latest studies. The 10% figure has long been debunked.

It doesn't matter if it's 2% or 10%, 2% is still a very, very significant proportion of a population. Even if it existed for a tiny fraction of a percentage of a population, they should still be afforded equal rights. The rights afforded to a person or a group shouldn't be dependent on their numbers. Rights should be equal and ubiquitous.

Donatello wrote:

Everybody must exercise chastity according to their state in life. The only place for sexual union is within marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, open to the generation of new human life. Sex is for the generation of new human life and the union of the spouses. Any other use of human sexuality is disordered.

With absolutely no offence intended, we shouldn't be basing our views of sexuality on the beliefs of individuals who lived many millennia ago. It's your opinion, and the opinion of people who lived thousands of years ago, that any other use of human sexuality is disordered. You're absolutely entitled to hold this belief, of course. I have no objection to that. But, where I do have an objection, is when people with your beliefs force their beliefs onto the young via indoctrination, or the general population via governmental influence.

We have 'natural' inclinations. Some people like to steal or kill - should they also be free to act on their inclinations? Of course you say, 'They harm the rights of others.' True. And those who commit homosexual acts harm themselves and those they engage with, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.

That's an absolutely absurb claim on so many levels. Firstly, as you rightly acknowledge, comparing those who engage in homosexual activity to those who steal or kill is comparing apples to oranges. I imagine it's also very insulting to a gay person.

Secondly, if two consenting adults engage in whatever activity they wish to, so long as it doesn't affect others around them, what difference if it harms them spiritually, emotionally or physically? Not that that's even the case. I don't know of any rational person who'd say that homosexuals are harming themselves and their partner in any fashion whatsoever. The counter is probably true: if they don't acknowledge and act on their inclinations they're probably more inclined to harm themselves, be that emotionally or physically.

This is good background reading - just click the links:

But sex is natural. How can you deny that?

What’s wrong with sex? God created me the way I am, with all my desires. Celibacy is just a medieval attempt by the Church to repress homosexuality.

I really wish you'd stop linking to that site. I've read articles on it before, and it couldn't be less biased.

My opinion can simply be boiled down to this: any belief system which encourages the discrimination, condemnation, segregation and hatred of any set of individuals is erroneous, and should be scrapped.

rainbow kirby

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I imagine it's also very insulting to a gay person.

Very much so.

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That's an absolutely absurb claim on so many levels. Firstly, as you rightly acknowledge, comparing those who engage in homosexual activity to those who steal or kill is comparing apples to oranges. I imagine it's also very insulting to a gay person.

What is about this subject that seems to make posters, on both sides of the argument, lose the ability to think and write logically?

I am so sick to the backteeth of this balderdash that always follows the lines of: "Homosexuality is natural, therefore it must be right." (or 'God made me this way')

Then someone, very logically, responds by pointing out that what feels natural isn't necessarily right. That point is most easily made by pointing out something very different from homosexuality - something that all of us agree is wrong - but that people say comes naturally to them. So, for example, some people feel stealing is natural, or paedophilia ('God made me attracted to children'). Now, try to concentrate here, the whole point of this mode of argument is that it is most definitely not equating homosexuality with the example being used (be it theft or paedophilia). The example was chosen specifically because it is something we all consider to be worse - but which demonstrates that something 'being natural', or feeling God made you that way, has no bearing at all on whether the act is right or not.

It is a good logical argument. It is not equating homosexuality with theft or paedophilia, nor is it comparing them. It simply skewers some very poor and fluffy thinking by pointing out where the same bad logic can take you.

Yet, with eye-watering predictability, someone starts bleating nonsense about "Oh, but you're comparing gays to paedophiles! How dare you! I'm so offended."

What the hell is wrong with this country's education system? Don't they treat kids to think properly any more? Are we condemned to a future of people getting offended because they can't grasp a simple logical argument?

I wouldn't mind so much if this was a one off, but it isn't. It happens every bloody time. And the crying shame is it derails threads and makes it impossible to have a proper discussion about Christianity and homosexuality.

Donatello (someone I rarely agree with on anything by the way) did not compare those who engage in homosexual activity to those who steal or kill. He pointed out, using stealing and killing as an extreme example, that it does not logically follow that it is bad to restrain a natural inclination.

wolfsbane

-JammyDodger- said:

My opinion can simply be boiled down to this: any belief system which encourages the discrimination, condemnation, segregation and hatred of any set of individuals is erroneous, and should be scrapped.

I assume you mean each of those items - discrimination; condemnation; segregation and hatred of individuals is erroneous. Christianity does not teach us to hate the sinner, but it certainly does teach us to discipline those of our church who practice sinner things.

You yourself believe some individuals should face discrimination, condemnation, segregation by the State - at least, that is what I take by your suggesting that their belief systems 'should be scrapped'. I leave 'hatred' for you to comment on.

So it's just a matter of deciding what is and is not 'erroneous', and therefore liable to such treatment.

Why do you think your moral standards are superior to those of, say, Christianity, Judaism and Islam? Why are you sure that it is not immoral to have sex with all and anyone willing, but it is immoral to condemn such actions?

****************************************************************************
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

What is about this subject that seems to make posters, on both sides of the argument, lose the ability to think and write logically?

I am so sick to the backteeth of this balderdash that always follows the lines of: "Homosexuality is natural, therefore it must be right." (or 'God made me this way')

Then someone, very logically, responds by pointing out that what feels natural isn't necessarily right. That point is most easily made by pointing out something very different from homosexuality - something that all of us agree is wrong - but that people say comes naturally to them. So, for example, some people feel stealing is natural, or paedophilia ('God made me attracted to children'). Now, try to concentrate here, the whole point of this mode of argument is that it is most definitely not equating homosexuality with the example being used (be it theft or paedophilia). The example was chosen specifically because it is something we all consider to be worse - but which demonstrates that something 'being natural', or feeling God made you that way, has no bearing at all on whether the act is right or not.

It is a good logical argument. It is not equating homosexuality with theft or paedophilia, nor is it comparing them. It simply skewers some very poor and fluffy thinking by pointing out where the same bad logic can take you.

Yet, with eye-watering predictability, someone starts bleating nonsense about "Oh, but you're comparing gays to paedophiles! How dare you! I'm so offended."

What the hell is wrong with this country's education system? Don't they treat kids to think properly any more? Are we condemned to a future of people getting offended because they can't grasp a simple logical argument?

I wouldn't mind so much if this was a one off, but it isn't. It happens every bloody time. And the crying shame is it derails threads and makes it impossible to have a proper discussion about Christianity and homosexuality.

Donatello (someone I rarely agree with on anything by the way) did not compare those who engage in homosexual activity to those who steal or kill. He pointed out, using stealing and killing as an extreme example, that it does not logically follow that it is bad to restrain a natural inclination.

Well said!

I'm sure for some it is more than poor logic, however - deliberate evasion of the truth, so that one can keep a flawed argument.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Well said!

I'm sure for some it is more than poor logic, however - deliberate evasion of the truth, so that one can keep a flawed argument.

PDN is right to denounce such reactionary responses, and the argument that it is natural and therefore good is flawed.

A good piece by NT Wright, an excellent theologian, about natural urges and debate regarding homosexuality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpQHGPGejKs

I would instead say that it is more than just about what is and isn't natural. We all agree that natural urges are often bad. But a committed homosexual relationship is more than just satisfying an urge. It is an expression that resonates with our sense of love, just as deeply as a committed heterosexual relationship. This sense of requited affection and social bonding is unique to homosexual and heterosexual relationships, and is not present in any other relationship, nor is it present in acts of promiscuity, or polygamy, or paedophilia, or drug abuse, or fast-food binging, or killing, or stealing.

The only argument against homosexuality that stands up to scrutiny is that a well-informed interpretation of the Bible supports the claim. Christians must accept that the feelings homosexuals have are identical to heterosexuals, distinct from other urges.

twinQuins

PDN wrote: »

[...]

The problem is the drawing of a moral equivalence between actions either every society throughout history have viewed as wrong (theft, murder, etc.) or have come to realise are wrong (paedophilia as children can't consent); and those a very narrow section of society view as wrong.

Out of a wide range of actions which are (practically) universally held to be morally wrong he picked the worst which does say something, whether you realise it or not.

Can I draw a moral equivalence between the Christian disdain of homosexuality and the KKK's hatred of black skin and get away with it using your reasoning?
After all, I'm not saying it's the same thing I'm just using it as an analogue, right?

And it wasn't a natural-vs-unnaturall argument it was saying "these actions cause harm and I believe this also causes harm therefore it's wrong".
For someone so well versed in the precepts of logic you should have picked up that the premise of homosexuality actually causing harm hadn't even been established.

PDN

twinQuins wrote: »

The problem is the drawing of a moral equivalence between actions either every society throughout history have viewed as wrong (theft, murder, etc.) or have come to realise are wrong (paedophilia as children can't consent); and those a very narrow section of society view as wrong.

It would be a problem if someone had drawn such a moral equivalence - but I don't see who here has done so.

Out of a wide range of actions which are (practically) universally held to be morally wrong he picked the worst which does say something, whether you realise it or not.

Yes, it says that he chose something that everybody would agree is morally wrong. That is required by the logical device.

To imply any other motive, without any evidence whatsoever, is the kind of hysteria and personalising of a debate that hinders calm and rational discussion.

Can I draw a moral equivalence between the Christian disdain of homosexuality and the KKK's hatred of black skin and get away with it using your reasoning?

You could use such an example, without asserting a moral equivalence, if you were using logical reasoning. Indeed I have done so myself.

For example, if a Christian working in a bookstore were to say he didn't think he should sell books that advocated homosexual relationships because that made him uncomfortable, then I would certainly challenge him by asking if he thought it would be OK for a KKK member in a similar job to refuse to sell books that portrayed black people in a positive light. The point (which you appear unwilling or incapable of grasping) is that in neither case is anyone proposing moral equivalence. The point is that you have to ask yourself whether your logic, if applied in another area, leads to an absurd conclusion.

And it wasn't a natural-vs-unnaturall argument it was saying "these actions cause harm and I believe this also causes harm therefore it's wrong"

That is untrue.

The reference to murder and theft was in reference to whether it is OK to ask people to resist natural inclinations.

For someone so well versed in the precepts of logic you should have picked up that the premise of homosexuality actually causing harm hadn't even been established.

And since I've never made any such assertion I fail to see why I should have 'picked up' what is going on in your head and somehow made reference to it even though it wasn't what I was discussing.

There's no need for such a condescending tone, PDN. There's no need to be insulting. I didn't give my previous post enough time, I can see how my argument, as it was, is fallacious. I didn't mean to imply I believed Donatello was comparing one to the other. My objection is in the origin: I'd say that inclinations towards, say, murder are psychological, whereas an inclination towards homosexuality may very well be biological. So the former wasn't necessarily "made" that way. But, this is a pretty weak argument with no strong foundations either way.

Morbert expressed it better than I could. It's more than satisfying an unconscious and primival urge. It's about two individuals trying to satisfy and fulfil themselves on many levels. There's no point in my repeating what he's said, but I'd agree with it completely.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote: »

I assume you mean each of those items - discrimination; condemnation; segregation and hatred of individuals is erroneous. Christianity does not teach us to hate the sinner, but it certainly does teach us to discipline those of our church who practice sinner things.

I probably wasn't clear enough in my previous post. I believe that any belief system or institution which doesn't explicitly condemn, let alone condone, any of the above actions (discrimination, etc.) shouldn't be adhered to. Christianity mightn't necessarily condemn homosexuals, but you'd have to agree that, if even indirectly, it encourages discrimination towards homosexuals.

You yourself believe some individuals should face discrimination, condemnation, segregation by the State - at least, that is what I take by your suggesting that their belief systems 'should be scrapped'. I leave 'hatred' for you to comment on.

Scrapped was a bad word to use. People should of course be entitled to their beliefs. I'd just argue against people adhering to institutions or belief systems that encouraged hatred or discrimination, be it religion, nationalism or anything else.

Why do you think your moral standards are superior to those of, say, Christianity, Judaism and Islam? Why are you sure that it is not immoral to have sex with all and anyone willing, but it is immoral to condemn such actions?

It's a good question. I suppose it's subjective and relative. I'd argue that it's not immoral to have sex with all and anyone willing, within reason, because it's a completely natural and integral part of our life and of our own constitution. Possibly the most natural behaviour of all, a behaviour we've exhibited and practiced for far longer than religion has been around. Condemning such is forbidding that which is most natural of all.

The above isn't a great answer. I definitely have to give it a lot more thought.

twinQuins

PDN wrote: »

It would be a problem if someone had drawn such a moral equivalence - but I don't see who here has done so.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Saying "this is wrong because it causes harm so this is also wrong because it causes harm" looks pretty clearly like a moral equivalence to me.

Yes, it says that he chose something that everybody would agree is morally wrong. That is required by the logical device.

So you do agree that his argument was one of equivocating homosexuality with murder, theft, etc.?

Otherwise why bring those into it if not to draw some form of equivalence?

To imply any other motive, without any evidence whatsoever, is the kind of hysteria and personalising of a debate that hinders calm and rational discussion.

When the practice of conversion therapy is trotted out as a viable treatment and defended as such I think we've passed the point of rational discussion.

For example, if a Christian working in a bookstore were to say he didn't think he should sell books that advocated homosexual relationships because that made him uncomfortable, then I would certainly challenge him by asking if he thought it would be OK for a KKK member in a similar job to refuse to sell books that portrayed black people in a positive light. The point (which you appear unwilling or incapable of grasping) is that in neither case is anyone proposing moral equivalence. The point is that you have to ask yourself whether your logic, if applied in another area, leads to an absurd conclusion.

Well yes, in your example there is no moral equivalence but Donatello's very pointedly does.

That is untrue.

The reference to murder and theft was in reference to whether it is OK to ask people to resist natural inclinations.

No it is not untrue.

Donatello's point was that murder, theft, et al. harm the rights of others and that homosexuality, by the same token, also harms the rights of others with no explanation of how it harms those rights.

It is, essentially, a bald assertion.

And since I've never made any such assertion I fail to see why I should have 'picked up' what is going on in your head and somehow made reference to it even though it wasn't what I was discussing.

You were discussing Donatello's post, yes? Defending what he said as a logically valid argument?

You rather pointedly ignored his point that homosexual acts, apparently "harm themselves and those they engage with, spiritually, emotionally, and physically".

That it causes any kind of harm has not been established.

yawha

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The above isn't a great answer. I definitely have to give it a lot more thought.

You don't really.

It doesn't hurt anyone, therefore it is not immoral. Simple.

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

There's no need for such a condescending tone, PDN. There's no need to be insulting. .

Actually I think there is a need for my exasperated tone. This is not the first time this stroke has been pulled. It has happened dozens of times - in fact, just about every time the subject gets discussed on here. And there's no need for it.

PDN

twinQuins wrote: »

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Saying "this is wrong because it causes harm so this is also wrong because it causes harm" looks pretty clearly like a moral equivalence to me.

And that is not what we were talking about. :rolleyes:

Donatello made a point that it was not necessarily unreasonable for the Church to ask those with natural homosexual inclinations to exercise restraint. And, in order to demonstrate his logic, he pointed out other areas where we would all expect people to exercise restraint as regards their natural inclinations.

That was what Jammy Dodger responded to, and I in turn responded to Jammy Dodger.

I'm not sure where you're getting this stuff about moral equivalence and causing harm, but it is irrelevant to the point I was making.

So you do agree that his argument was one of equivocating homosexuality with murder, theft, etc.?

No, I think anyone with even a rudimentary ability to follow a logical argument can see that was not his argument.

Otherwise why bring those into it if not to draw some form of equivalence?

I've pointed that out twice already in pretty simple language and terms.

When the practice of conversion therapy is trotted out as a viable treatment and defended as such I think we've passed the point of rational discussion.

You're entitled to your opinion, but that has nothing to do with anything I was saying.

Well yes, in your example there is no moral equivalence but Donatello's very pointedly does.

Not if you try thinking about it.

Donatello

twinQuins wrote: »

You rather pointedly ignored his point that homosexual acts, apparently "harm themselves and those they engage with, spiritually, emotionally, and physically".

That it causes any kind of harm has not been established.

How come there are mad levels of promiscuity among the homosexual community, much greater than among heterosexual fornicators?