What's so wrong with being homosexual?

[Hans35]

Not that I'm gay, just wondering. I could understand that in the times when the bible was written, it was important to keep marriages between men and women, to keep up the population growth e. But now, as 7 billion people on the planet, I don't see any reason why gay people shouldn't be married?

Tell me pls!

[Haven]

[Replying to post 50 by lia15]

Welcome to the forum ! Glad to have you here.

I'm not convinced your god exists. Do you have evidence that she/he/it actually exists? Also, do you have any evidence that she/he/it disapproves of homosexuality? Keep in mind that simply quoting the Bible or Church doctrine isn't evidence; these things are the claim, they aren't the evidence. What is the evidence that these things are true? Is there something in the world you can point to that shows these things are true?

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 1 by Hans35]

The argument of us being "stable" population wise is not a very strong one. In many country's the government is paying people to inhabit villages cuz they are so under populated. And even if we are stable in population. it is morally wrong cuz God created marriage and he defined it to be between a man and a woman. why is it that we want what God created but not how he created it ?

HOW can the idea of two adult people who love one another and wish to spend their lives together be considered immoral? I really DO need a logical answer - and not merely a subjective belief - to this question!

Wow, I had thought this thread had gone the way of the dodo . . .

[lia15]

[Replying to Haven]

Think of it we are all dependant beings. Dependant beings cannot cause themselves, they are dependant on there causes. If there is no independent being/God the whole chain of dependence is broken. We would not exist.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to Haven]

Think of it we are all dependant beings. Dependant beings cannot cause themselves, they are dependant on there causes. If there is no independent being/God the whole chain of dependence is broken.

Unless the "chain of dependence" stretches back infinitely (a strong possibility). Or, was started by something/things other than a deity (another strong possibility, especially in light of recent cosmology/physics).

The bottom line is that the only reason to think that homosexuality is a sin is if you accept certain religious views, whose truth cannot be established to any acceptable degree (and indeed, in all probability and in light of all the relevant evidence are almost assuredly false). Given the superior, secular understandings of morality (in terms of help/harm of actions), it simply is incoherent to regard homosexuality as morally wrong (because it is neither volitional or an action), and false/untenable to regard homosexual acts as morally wrong (because they cause no harm).

[lia15]

[Replying to post 52 by KCKID]
Our culture today says that love is proven by sexual behaviour with one another. But its not. Love is wanting what is best for one another. are sexually transmited deseases What is best for one Another? No. Ergo its not real love. Also is homosexual behaviour natural? And please dont pull the "oh there a gay dogs!" Thing cuz the only reason that is, is cuz the lack of female presence. Dogs have desires. And when those desires arise half of there brain shuts off. They need somewhere to direct there sexuality and if there is no female they act like a male dog is a female. Infact the act as tho anything is a female. they are not gay they are seeking female company but cant have it. So they try to mimic it by getting intamit with other male dogs. So no homosexuality is not natural. The reason there are even sexually transmitted deseases today is because of homosexual behaviour . So far "love" isint a good enough excuse to be homosexual.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Also is homosexual behaviour natural?

Yes. That homosexual behavior is a natural variation of sexuality in both humans and non-human animals is well-established, and virtually every professional medical/psychiatric/psychological association has gone on record affirming as much.

The reason there are even sexually transmitted deseases today is because of homosexual behaviour .

And heterosexual behavior- a crucial omission on your part.

So far "love" isint a good enough excuse to be homosexual.

Well, it is, but that's beside the point- there's no need for an "excuse", since there's nothing wrong with it in the first place (see post 54, above)

[lia15]

[Replying to post 54 by enviousintheeverafter]

There are 2 point im going to argue 1. Infinut time 2. Homosexuality is harmless. 1. You are assuming there is infinut time. Like you need evidence God exists im in need of evidence infinut time exists. And if it did exist. Because we have time. everything would die and then start back up again. We would have universal death. But it has not happened. Things do exist.
Ps. Most of my arguments were ones in a book written by peter kreeft. Although i have changed it a bit.
2. Homosexuality is not harmless. sexually transmitted deseases originate from homosexuality but of course schools dont teach that because of the LGBT comunity. And there have been adopted kids raised by homosexuals and many if not most of them are disgusted, tramatised and even some have gone slightly insane because they are raised by homosexual parents. There is a consequence for everything.

[lia15]

[Replying to post 56 by enviousintheeverafter]

Heterosexuals sometimes have sexually transmitted deseasevbecause whoever they sleep with may have sleeped with a same sex person. I say may because it may have been the partner before that or before that who may have sleeped with the same sex.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 54 by enviousintheeverafter]

There are 2 point im going to argue 1. Infinut time 2. Homosexuality is harmless. 1. You are assuming there is infinut time. Like you need evidence God exists im in need of evidence infinut time exists. And if it did exist. Because we have time. everything would die and then start back up again. We would have universal death. But it has not happened. Things do exist.

I'm not saying there was an infinite amount of time, and that the chain of dependence did in fact go back infinitely. I'm pointing out that its a possibility, and so the conclusion of your argument doesn't follow. I don't know whether there has been an infinite amount of time, but the fact that there could have been means that we can't conclude that there must be a God to be the first item in a "chain of dependence". Unless we can rule out an infinite chain of dependence, this conclusion does not follow- the argument is not deductively valid.

2. Homosexuality is not harmless. sexually transmitted deseases originate from homosexuality

Sexually transmitted diseases aren't unique to homosexuals, heterosexuals have that too. Nothing unique about homosexuality there. And not only can STD's be avoided/minimized via safe sex, the only people who stand to be harmed are the people involved anyways.

And there have been adopted kids raised by homosexuals and many if not most of them are disgusted, tramatised and even some have gone slightly insane because they are raised by homosexual parents.

This is not factual. It is also a well-established fact that same-sex parents/households pose no greater danger to children (including psychologically) than traditional families. Among the many studies that have proved this, here are a few-

-Miller 1979- "Data indicate that notions about gay fathers' compensatory behavior, molestation of children, negative influence on child development, and instigation of harassment are largely unfounded. The father's "coming out" to his children tends to relieve family tension and strengthen the father-child bond."

-Green et al 1986- "Concerns that being raised by a homosexual mother might produce sexual identity conflict and peer group stigmatization were not supported by the research findings... The postulated compromised parental fitness of lesbian mothers, commonly asserted in child custody cases, is not supported by these data."

-Gottman 1989- "The author's study found that adult-aged daughters of lesbian mothers did not significantly differ from adult daughters of heterosexual mothers on gender identity, gender role, sexual orientation, and social adjustment."

We could go on here with individual studies, but I'll just conclude with the findings of Burrell and Allen's 1997 meta-analysis of the existing research on the subject (i.e. which included many individual studies)-

"The results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren). In other words, the data fail to support the continuation of a bias against homosexual parents by any court."

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 56 by enviousintheeverafter]

Heterosexuals sometimes have sexually transmitted deseasevbecause whoever they sleep with may have sleeped with a same sex person. I say may because it may have been the partner before that or before that who may have sleeped with the same sex.

Where are you getting this erroneous information from? Are you just making it up? This is not factual, STD's are nothing unique to homosexuality.