Why is homosexuality wrong?

[Greatest I Am]

Why is homosexuality wrong?

We all know what gays are and what they do. All of God’s laws are responses to a victim of some sort.

The one lied to is deceived.
The one who is killed is deprived of life.
The one stolen from looses his goods.

In the case of homosexuals there does not appear to be a victim or anyone hurt by the actions of the participant.

Why then does God discriminate against homosexuals?
It appears to go against His usual justice.

Regards
DL

[Vladd44]

I have never really understood why homosexuals, feminists or democrats would want to be associated with Biblical Christianity.

What a horrible insult for ANYONE to utter in a forum like this, let alone for a "moderator" !
I am so flabbergasted by the enormity of the ignorance betrayed by this statement that I'm not going to try to answer it.

Bad McCulloch, Bad :D:D

I apologize for him Rayosun, what he really meant to say was that he never really understood why anyone would want to be associated with biblical christianity. Other than Ted Haggard ofc.

[jgh7]

This is a hard topic for me to discuss. I tend to believe that many people are born gay, and that it's not neccesarily that they choose to do it. At the same time, I'm also suspicious that many people do actually choose to do it because it's their nature to be sexually lustfull in one way or another. This is one of the verses that I have been studying about homosexuality:

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator- who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed endecent acts with other men, and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Romans 1:24-27)

Paul is extremely harsh towards homosexuality here and in the verses following. But I think the kind he's talking about is the literal lust to have sex with anything just for the pure pleasure of sex, and wanting the rest of the world to embrace that. I don't think most homosexuals are that way, but their flamboyant gay pride parades sometimes make me question...

In any case, what seems to be the main sin that homosexuality stems from is lust. I can sort of understand this. Many girls at clubs or partieds often make out with each other just for pleasure, even though they like guys. This is a lustfull corrupt nature, but at the same time one would be more inclined to call them a "tramp" rather than homosexual. (Im sorry if I've offended any women who do this. I'm speaking merely for the sake of the argument at hand.)

So the question is still begged, is homosexuality a form of lust and sexual immorality? I'm not quite sure. For all I know, it's possible that two homosexuals can have true innocent love for one another just the way two heterosexual people can. So then where does the lust come from?

The language here gets really mature. I think it boils down to how their sexual relations work. I think an example of pure sexual relations is when a man and women have sex purely out of love and not lust. I don't know exactly how to describe that, but perhaps we can all sort of see the difference between loving sex and lustfull sex. Using toys or doing it in weird positions probably would be considered lust more than love. Okay, with that in mind, the only way I see that two males have sex is anally or orally. My argument is that I don't see any way in which that is a form of pure love. It always seems to me to be a form of lust, of sexual immorality. And that is one of the main reasons I see for homosexuality being sinful. I could be wrong. Perhaps homosexuals can have anal sex and truly be doing it with love instead of lust for one another. I doubt it.

With this in mind, I still can't deny that I view it more corrupt for two people of the same sex to engage in lustfull sex rather than two people of the opposite sex. I'm sorry, I can't really give a reason for this. I guess I just feel that it's unnatural for two men or women to do that.

[Zzyzx]

.

So the question is still begged, is homosexuality a form of lust and sexual immorality? I'm not quite sure.

After saying you are not sure, your argument from here on seems to make it clear that you consider homosexual sex to be immoral. Are you thinking one thing and writing another?

For all I know, it's possible that two homosexuals can have true innocent love for one another just the way two heterosexual people can. So then where does the lust come from?

Since no one can truly understand the relationship between ANY two people, why make assumptions?

What, exactly, is the meaning of “innocent love”? Is that, whatever it is, a good thing or a bad thing? Does “innocent” mean “naïve”?

I think an example of pure sexual relations is when a man and women have sex purely out of love and not lust. I don't know exactly how to describe that, but perhaps we can all sort of see the difference between loving sex and lustfull sex.

It is illogical to assume that “we can all sort of see the difference between loving sex and lustful sex”. Perhaps you would be good enough to explain.

Using toys or doing it in weird positions probably would be considered lust more than love. Okay, with that in mind, the only way I see that two males have sex is anally or orally.

Are you saying that “missionary position” is the only way to have “loving sex”?

What positions are “approved” and by whom are they approved?

Who, exactly, has authority to “approve” some sexual positions or activities and to disapprove others?

My argument is that I don't see any way in which that is a form of pure love.

Is all sexual activity between heterosexual couples, even married couples, “a form of pure love”?

If not, how can one approve of marital, heterosexual sex that is not “pure love” and disapprove of homosexual sex because it is not “pure love”. That makes no sense at all.

It always seems to me to be a form of lust, of sexual immorality. And that is one of the main reasons I see for homosexuality being sinful. I could be wrong.

Are you condemning “lust” (which means intense sexual desire)?

What about intense sexual desire is immoral?

Why is intense sexual desire immoral? Who says so?

Perhaps homosexuals can have anal sex and truly be doing it with love instead of lust for one another. I doubt it.

If a man and a woman who are married do not love one another (not unknown to occur), but they LUST for one another, is sex between them immoral?

With this in mind, I still can't deny that I view it more corrupt for two people of the same sex to engage in lustfull sex rather than two people of the opposite sex. I'm sorry, I can't really give a reason for this.

Here you are being honest. You don’t know why you view homosexual sex as “more corrupt” than heterosexual sex.

I guess I just feel that it's unnatural for two men or women to do that.

THIS is a summation of the arguments against homosexuality – “I just feel that it is unnatural”.

That is pure emotion. It is not reasoning.

Your post indicates a great deal of confusion about sexual attitudes. That is not uncommon in a society that glorifies sex but maintains Victorian attitudes based on religious dogma.

Rather than passing judgment upon the sexual preferences of others, wouldn’t we all be well advised to mind our own business?

[Fallibleone]

Perhaps homosexuals can have anal sex and truly be doing it with love instead of lust for one another. I doubt it.

You made a very long post, and here I am responding to just one small part of it, but this part in particular really jumped out, so I hope you will forgive me.

What makes you doubt the motive in this instance? I realise that it is commonly believed that homosexual men are promiscuous, specialising in sex with strangers and bed-hopping. There are indeed many homosexuals who behave in this way, just as there are many heterosexuals who do. However, there are actually homosexual men (and women) who are in long relationships, some spanning decades, in fact, some who have managed to stay together far longer than many heterosexual marriages last. Why do you doubt that those homosexuals in long-term relationships can have anal sex with love instead of lust?

Also, how does one perform a sex act resulting from love without lust? Unless you are aiming for a totally platonic relationship, my opinion is that you would find it fairly difficult.

[Goat]

"I have never really understood why homosexuals, feminists or democrats would want to be associated with Biblical Christianity."

What a horrible insult for ANYONE to utter in a forum like this, let alone for a "moderator" !
I am so flabbergasted by the enormity of the ignorance betrayed by this statement that I'm not going to try to answer it.

Considering the 'biblical' Christianity, as practiced by many, condemns and rejects
those people who are gay and lesbian, and have, through it's ignorance, cause much pain and suffering to many of them, I have to agree with McCulloch. I would narrow it down to the 'conservative' Christianity.

Not all Denominations are like that, but many are. Look at the way that Biker and Easyrider react to homosexuality. They will proclaim their attitude is the biblical Christianity.

If you were gay, would you want to face that continually?

[McCulloch]

Easyrider,

The question is not, "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?" The question is, "Why is homosexuality wrong?" When you simply assert that it is wrong, because the Bible says that it is wrong, you are not addressing the right question.

IMO it's the OP's assumption that is flawed, because it's assuming a position contrary to scripture and traditional American values.

It is the assumed truth of scripture and traditional American values that is being challenged here.

The problem with their cause is that there's not one gay relationship in the Bible that's presented in a favorable light, or approved by God. No gay marriages, no mention of God-approved gay unions, or anything like that.

I am willing to concede that the Bible does not condone homosexuality. I know that there are those who call themselves Christians who disagree with me on that. I will let them bring forth their own case. But I am not willing to concede that it is wrong because the Bible says that it is wrong.

And their pro-gay agenda is based on what? At least our side has the Word of God on its side, and a long tradition in American history.

Not quite. Your side has the Bible. If you can demonstrate that the Bible is the Word of God, then you can claim to have the Word of God on your side. As to traditional American values, freedom and toleration are traditional American values are they not? However, it must be true because it is a traditional American value is a fallacious argument.

It's what the Bible teaches. I'm not prepared to throw out the Bible just because some don't like what it says.

And I am not prepared to condemn an apparently victimless activity as morally wrong based on religious faith.

[McCulloch]

I have never really understood why homosexuals, feminists or democrats would want to be associated with Biblical Christianity.

What a horrible insult for ANYONE to utter in a forum like this, let alone for a "moderator" !
I am so flabbergasted by the enormity of the ignorance betrayed by this statement that I'm not going to try to answer it.

Homosexuals as represented in the Bible

On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate ,nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

This is how Biblical Christianity presents its view about homosexuality. I fail to see why a homosexual would want to be associated with Biblical Christianity.

Feminism Contrasted with Biblical instruction

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

If this is what the Bible teaches about women's relationship with men then I fail to see why any feminist would want to be associated with Biblical Christianity.

Fundamental Principles of Democracy Contrasted with the Bible

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's.

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

John Locke's idea of the consent of the governed echoed wonderfully in the United States Declaration of Independence is nowhere taught or supported in the Bible. In fact, the Bible can be used more easily against the ideas of democracy and toleration than for them. There is no support in the Bible for rising up against tyranny simply because it is tyranny. There is no support in the Bible for the idea that taxation without representation is wrong. For that reason I fail to see why any democrat (small d) would want to be associated with Biblical Christianity.

[Greatest I Am]

In the case of homosexuals there does not appear to be a victim or anyone hurt by the actions of the participant.

It just appears that way.

No harm?

First, "gay pride" (two sins). The pro-gay movement flaunts it in our faces and tries to legitimize it. You don't hear of "adultery pride" parades, do you? But even if there were we'd take an equally stellar stance against those.

GIA wrote
They parade not so much because they are Gay but because they have overcome unjustified discrimination. This is their pride. Not being Gay.

Second, most homosexuals I've encountered who claim to be Christian try to persuade others it's not a sin, leading many into perdition. We don't want to see even one soul lost.

GIA wrote
Let God worry about souls, after all He created them and gave them their nature.

Third (IMO), most homosexuals distort the scriptures in some fashion or another in order to try to justify their sin. The distort who Jesus is (saying he's not God so he never spoke out against gay sex sin); they make lengthy arguments against Leviticus, Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc. Generally speaking, they attack the Word of God and thus attack God himself.

GIA wrote.
Scripture that pertain to homosexuality should be scraped as not what God would advocate.

Fourth: Sin is a reproach to individuals and nations and brings God's disfavor on men and nations. Read Deuteronomy chapter 28 to see the curses of disobedience.

GIA wrote
God supplies our natures. We should have the good grace to thank Him and follow this nature to wherever it leads.

Fifth, many in the pro-gay movement attack those who hold traditional Biblical positions when we stand up for the truth of God's Word. We're often called bigots, homophobes, and all manner of names because we disagree with their stance.

GIA wrote
Let us know when you find any of these truths will you.

Sixth, many push their ungodly agenda into every corner of America. Suing the Boy Scouts and anyone else who disagrees with them, causing many to incur hefty legal expenses. They try and sometimes succeed in pushing their gay agenda in elementary schools and elsewhere where it doesn't belong. Eight year old children shouldn't have to hear that Billy's daddy is, in effect, doing another guy, or that it's ok to do it. I don't think we really need to know which way people perform sex acts.

GIA wrote
Exactly. If we minded our own business then they would not need to push back so hard. You have the log, they have the splinter.

Seventh: They (and heterosexual sinners) cost taxpayers untold billions in unnecessary health care costs to treat AIDS and other diseases derived from irresponsible sexual behavior. There's also the cost of missed productivity to employers. It costs us all money out of our pockets.

GIA wrote
You have little knowledge of all the VD that was common in the past. Morality should not be based on cost.

And eighth: They refuse to repent of it, making their own salvation and those who they lead astray a serious question mark.

GIA wrote
I have yet to meet a Gay who did not want to be Gay. Why should they repent when no sin is present?

And there's more but that's for starters.

Why then does God discriminate against homosexuals?
It appears to go against His usual justice.

Why does God "discriminate" against adulterers, or any other class of moral sinners? It's because he's God and he gets to make the rules.

GIA wrote
God, like anyone else must try to justifie His rules. When He does not, it hurts all the other rules, some good that He wants to implement.
If not then we call it tyrany.

Cheers...

You seem to want a tyrant more than a God.
Strange.

I have beenbrief in my replies because of other replies to you. If you need clarification, please get back to me.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

All of God’s laws are responses to a victim of some sort.

No, that's not true. Most of the laws regarding sex don't relate to victims. ie. sex before marriage. The OT is full of laws that involve "victimless crimes". (eg pride, laws regarding the sabbath)

In fact in the 10 commandments, only half of them, if committed, will likely result in hurting others.
Killing, lying, stealing, adultry, dishonoring parents.
Four are responses to God's ego.
The last - "coveting" is debatable who that hurts, if anybody.

Sex before marriage. There is most certainly a victim if pregnancy is a consequence.
Ask all the unwed mothers around.

Coveting hurts the one coveting. It is unpleasant to go about with unquenched desires.

As to God's pride, I think that those commandments were given to insure loyalty and assume that if the system breaks down then all are hurt by the chaos.

Justice usually requires a victim. So does sin.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

did I say it wasn't a sin? Go back and read what I wrote. I'd love to talk with you if you're willing to be reasonable.

If sin is the hurting of others then where is the hurt of homosexual activity.
We are speaking of consenting adults here.
Not pedophiles or rape or other sexual misbehaving.

Who do they hurt and why would we want to hurt them back?

Regards
DL