A Gay Conundrum

Is homosexuality discussed in the 10 Commandments?

Do not commit adultery. The definition is “Adultery is having sexual intercourse with someone besides your own husband or wife. In the Bible, the only legitimate sexual intercourse is between a man and a woman who are married to each other”

Now in the new testament Jesus took it a step further and explained Adultery to be (
Adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;
All unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;
all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening there unto;
Wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel, prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages;
Allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them;
Entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time;
Unjust divorce or desertion;
Idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company;
Lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stageplays, and all other provocations to, or acts of, uncleanness either in ourselves or others

Whether one is born gay, is that way as a result of environment/upbringing or “chooses” it does seem to raise some related, interesting questions, though, in my mind especially when it comes to sexual response. What makes one man’s “dong” (as my good friend Ali G would say :slight_smile: ) hard when he looks at another naked man? This does not happen to straight men. Is it something someone can “choose?”

I’m NOT talking about the overall “lifestyle,” or acting effeminate or hanging the rainbow flag outside your window. I’m talking about the actual physiological response that is sexual arousal. Could the average straight guy decide to have an “open mind” one day and actually get wood from looking at another man naked? I don’t believe so.

Therefore, the liklihood of it being a “choice” seems to me to be somewhere between slim and none. Now, whether a given person has that physiological response (actual sexual turn-on) from another member of the same sex might, I believe, be purely biological (born with it), purely due to their environment/upbring, or a combination of both.

I think the most interesting part of the whole debate centers around the answer to that question. Is one purely born that way, such that it’s unchangable, or would certain events in one’s life, certain parenting methods (or lack thereof), certain experiences, etc. during childhood cause one to be gay when they finally reach the age of sexual maturity? If envirnoment/upbring IS indeed the cause (or A cause, anyway), imagine the controversy that this discovery would spark in our society. Just something to ponder . . .

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Because hetero is functional and consistent with nature and survival of the species. Gayness is no-functional and does not support these non-religious aspects of science.
[/quote]

It’s obviously not as simple as that. We do lots of things that aren’t exactly consistent with the survival of the species… Watching television, eating McDonalds, hell most of our jobs do absolutely nothing to proactively ensure the survival of the species. If the litmus test for moral behavior is that it must contribute to survival of the species, then we have MUCH, MUCH greater concerns than the occasional bout of mansex.

And what about men or women who engage in homosexual behavior but not exclusively. So they may have had some gay sex here and there, but they still end up procreating? Is it a wash in that case?

But I’m going to go further and call total bullshit on the use of this argument. If survival of the species were truly an important moral issue, than why pick gay rights as the battleground? Why not environmental policy? Or nuclear proliferation? Human expansion into space? Or any number of issues that would have a more real impact on our species’ survivability.

The current environmental policy, for example, is one that will cause the long term destruction of the ecosystem in order to generate short-term profits for business. Needless to say, rendering the Earth uninhabitable will NOT be good for the survival of the species, but I have yet to see environmental protection emerge as a major moral issue. Not to imply that should make homosexuality a non-issue, but to point out that there seems to be a major problem with priorities. I can only conclude that survival of the species is of no real concern whatsoever, unless it can be conveniently used to bash gays.

Nick

[quote]djbige05 wrote:
Do not commit adultery. The definition is “Adultery is having sexual intercourse with someone besides your own husband or wife. In the Bible, the only legitimate sexual intercourse is between a man and a woman who are married to each other”

Now in the new testament Jesus took it a step further and explained Adultery to be (
Adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;
All unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;
all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening there unto;
Wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel, prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages;
Allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them;
Entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time;
Unjust divorce or desertion;
Idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company;
Lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stageplays, and all other provocations to, or acts of, uncleanness either in ourselves or others[/quote]

I don’t see a single thing in there that specifically mentions homosexuality.

But damn, I’m really concerned now. I’ve seen stageplays. I better get to church…

[quote]michaelv wrote:
I don’t see a single thing in there that specifically mentions homosexuality.

But damn, I’m really concerned now. I’ve seen stageplays. I better get to church…[/quote]

There is some ambiguous Greek in the new testament that might mean homosexuality, but it’s hotly debated.

Two men having sex is a lot like two ugly people doing the same. You may not want to think about it, but fundamentally, it doesn’t effect you or anyone else and thus isn’t your business. That is the essence of the western conception of liberty.

[quote]chillpzico wrote:
An overlying theme in the pro or neutral gay arguments on this website seem to involve an argument that goes something like this:

P1: Homosexuality is not a choice and is a biologically innate component of some humans’ sexual hardwiring.

(for the sake of argument let us just accept this as fact)

C: Since homosexuality is not a choice and homosexuals are born that way, there is nothing wrong with homosexual activity.

Although I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality I don’t think that this argument is a sound one. So what if homosexuality is not a choice? What if, for example, and to use the method of analogy, pedophiles were discovered to have an innate biological brain structure that made it impossible for them to be arroused by anything other than children. Would pedophilia then become morally neutral ? The answer, of course, is no.

Now, I don’t mean to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. However, what I am stating is that it is not the presence or absence of a choice of ones sexuality that makes for the morality or immorality of homosexuality. And arguing in those terms is fallacious and needs reconsideration.

Any thoughts?[/quote]

I actually agree with you. But I would like to take this a step further. Many gay people seem to think that if we can prove that it is not a choice (ie 100% biological) this would end hatred of gay people.

In my opinion, far from it. One very famous example springs to mind. Adolph Hitler thought that homosexually was genetic, and in an effort to rid the arryan race of this, gay people were among the first to be sent to concentration camps (where many were experimented upon medically, trying to “cure” them; many survivers were actually castrated)

So next there is the concept of morality, is it amoral to be gay? Well, I would rather flip this question around and look at social history to try to figure out why gay people are hated, because for anyone with any sense of logic that can look past their hatred, its clear that something that negatively affects no one is not immoral. (Infact, i would argue that the immorallity lies with whichever religion makes gay children feel like sinners and contributes to high teen suicide rates).

So the questions I would ask are more basic:

1)When in history did world religions start stating that same-sex love was immoral?

2)Did gay people always exist, and were gay people always hated?

3)How can we stop religions and “traditional values”, whether they mean to or not, from giving a moral justification for hatred (and killing of and discrimination against) gay people.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Gayness is not neutral. It does have negative effects on society and the people involved, both physically and mentally.

So if gayness is organic, just like any other disfunctional genitic trait, it deserves treatment.

If it is a choice, it should not be accepted as normal and certainly not given legitimacy by allowing gay marraige.

It is very curious as most all the States that have passed gay marriage laws also probably have laws on their books against gay sex.

Just shows how much political presure this special-interrest group has in Gov.

[/quote]

As I stated before, Hitler would agree with you.

And I meant to be blunt, because unlike most people on this board, if being gay is amoral or not is not some esoteric argument.

I think this world could use more gay folks not less (especially more hot gay bodybuilders ;))

Why are we arguing this again? Surely some people cannot believe homosexuality (or homosexual acts) to be a sin in this day and age?

[quote]nephorm wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Good posts, all.

So what do you think, chillpzico? Still on the fence about this?

I don’t think chillpzico was on the fence about anything… he’s pointing out a logical fallacy. [/quote]

Thank you nephorm. That’s exactly what I was trying to do. I also didn’t want this to turn into a debate over the morality or immorality of homosexuality rather a debate over this specific form of argument.

[quote]Orbitalboner wrote:

Yes, I see where you’re going with this. I think you might have been better off comparing homosexual relations to heterosexual relations, rather than pedophilia, since in the first two no one is generally being taken advantage of. [/quote]

Yup. I Definatley should have used that example. Also, since heterosexuality is not a touchy subject like pedophilia it would have limited any convusion that my post might have caused.

So for now, just implant “heterosexuality” where “pedophilia” was and the error still occurs.

[quote]ddp wrote:
So next there is the concept of morality, is it amoral to be gay? Well, I would rather flip this question around and look at social history to try to figure out why gay people are hated, because for anyone with any sense of logic that can look past their hatred, its clear that something that negatively affects no one is not immoral. (Infact, i would argue that the immorallity lies with whichever religion makes gay children feel like sinners and contributes to high teen suicide rates).

So the questions I would ask are more basic:

1)When in history did world religions start stating that same-sex love was immoral?

2)Did gay people always exist, and were gay people always hated?

3)How can we stop religions and “traditional values”, whether they mean to or not, from giving a moral justification for hatred (and killing of and discrimination against) gay people.[/quote]

Do you have any explicit history to quote to demonstrate that in “social history… gay people are hated”? If I’m not mistaken, there’s plenty of history where gay people were well tolerated or even considered normal.

  1. Good question.

2a) History indicates yes.
2b) I think there is ample evidence to say no, not in all cases. And even today, not in all societies.

  1. Distract them with something else to be pompous and self-important about?

I’m not really bagging specifically on religions here. It’s human nature to want to forcefully defend your viewpoint. Lots of history has shown this to be true, religious or not.

The argument you are so anxious to show fallacious is not actually the argument being made.

The way the argument goes is that somebody says homosexuality is an immoral choice, even though it hurts nobody, because it offends God, and this justifies unequal treatment under the law. Then somebody else chimes in that it isn’t a choice. Then somebody else says that gays still get equal protection because they can marry across gender.

Weren’t you paying attention? Got bored and nodded off?

Anyhow, things got erroneous in your account at the point where you stipulated:

The actual argument to be made is that homosexual activity need not offend anyone. It is not innately offensive. Hence there is nothing wrong with it.

But further, since it is not a choice, those forced to behave inoffensively in this fashion, or live unfulfilled lives as human beings, should not be denied equal protection for their enduring relationships.

Then somebody chimes in and says “you forgot about god, you forgot about the Bible”

[quote]chillpzico wrote:
So for now, just implant “heterosexuality” where “pedophilia” was and the error still occurs.
[/quote]

Okay. But the thing I was getting at with my question to you is that there actually isn’t a logical error occurring at all, because the two sides of the argument that you set up weren’t quite what we were arguing about, in the gay marriage thread, for example. Maybe other folks follow that format, but as you saw from all the responses before mine, the argument is actually more like this:

anti: Gayness is wrong because of my own personal beliefs.

pro: Your beliefs are your own business. Gay people aren’t hurting anything by their behavior.

And from there, we get a 500000 post thread.

I think the “born that way” comes into it usually as a way for the anti group to show some support for their argument. They say that gays aren’t born that way to build the case for their belief system’s validity as in “gayness is a sin, therefore my side is right”. So far, the anti group revels in the fact that there is no conclusive PROOF for innate gayness(just evidence for other inborn tendencies that coincide with a sexual preference), so they throw it up there quite often.

In other words, I don’t think anybody on the pro side is using an inborn gayness argument to excuse anything. Most people hold that whether or not something is moral is dependent on consequences from a behavior. If it doesn’t infringe on other’s rights, then what good reason is there to forbid something? This is the land of the free. Personal liberty should be tantamount to us all.

Just as an aside, I think that the latest twist on this from the anti side is interesting. Many of the antis have abandoned the current tactic of “gayness is a sin”, and now are arguing for what damage that gayness does; so they have switched from a fallacy of appeal to authority, and now are actually trying to find a valid reason for their stance in this issue.

It’s tough for them, because really… how much damage can a guy wearing makeup do to our society? (hehe :))

I wish them luck, they are going to need it. Logic and common sense are a tough combo to beat.

Bible thumpers seems to implicate that all Christians feel homosexuality is wrong or are incapable of arguing logically against or for homosexuality so I don’t really think it’s a good term to use for this argument.

I agree basically with what’s been said, and would like to add you cannot have the Bible dictate your government or your politics. It’s fine to use it as a personal guideline for your arguments, but as a nation it cannot be the place to find our answers. That’s why I have a problem with certain politicians (Sam Brownback anyone :)) using the Bible to influence nearly all of their actions.

The fallacy in the argument is in the motivators. Homosexuals are actually seeking sexual gratification. Pedophiles are not. I will point everyone to the recent past when several states passed chemical castration laws in hopes of suppressing pedophilia behaviors. Geuss what? Offenders still went out into the great big world and re-offended a multitude of times even though they could not get it up.

In fact, many of pedo’s are happily married and having what many would consider a healthy sex life with their wives. Studies also show that easily 99% of pedo’s were victimized themselves thus showing there is a direct link to a cycle of victim turned perpetrator.

Short version it’s comparing apples and peas.

While trying to ‘cure’ homosexuals science has not hit on one key common denominator that is a precursor to a person showing homosexual tendancies. The first theory was being victimized as a child, that one has long since been tossed. Second theory, had to do with not having both parents in the home, that one has since been tossed too. Society or science is now theorizing it is a nature or possibly a chemical brain thing as in the oft discussed “nature vs nurture” debates.

I think a different analogy would need to be drawn to appropriately discuss the hypocrisy to which the orginal poster was alluding too.

If you need a bibliography PM me and increase your mailbox size.

People around here are absolutely fascinated with this subject.

[quote]etaco wrote:
Two men having sex is a lot like two ugly people doing the same. You may not want to think about it, but fundamentally, it doesn’t effect you or anyone else and thus isn’t your business. That is the essence of the western conception of liberty. [/quote]

I could not agree with you more. But please keep it to your self?.

[quote]ddp wrote:
chillpzico wrote:
An overlying theme in the pro or neutral gay arguments on this website seem to involve an argument that goes something like this:

P1: Homosexuality is not a choice and is a biologically innate component of some humans’ sexual hardwiring.

(for the sake of argument let us just accept this as fact)

C: Since homosexuality is not a choice and homosexuals are born that way, there is nothing wrong with homosexual activity.

Although I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality I don’t think that this argument is a sound one. So what if homosexuality is not a choice? What if, for example, and to use the method of analogy, pedophiles were discovered to have an innate biological brain structure that made it impossible for them to be arroused by anything other than children. Would pedophilia then become morally neutral ? The answer, of course, is no.

Now, I don’t mean to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. However, what I am stating is that it is not the presence or absence of a choice of ones sexuality that makes for the morality or immorality of homosexuality. And arguing in those terms is fallacious and needs reconsideration.

Any thoughts?

I actually agree with you. But I would like to take this a step further. Many gay people seem to think that if we can prove that it is not a choice (ie 100% biological) this would end hatred of gay people.

In my opinion, far from it. One very famous example springs to mind. Adolph Hitler thought that homosexually was genetic, and in an effort to rid the arryan race of this, gay people were among the first to be sent to concentration camps (where many were experimented upon medically, trying to “cure” them; many survivers were actually castrated)

So next there is the concept of morality, is it amoral to be gay? Well, I would rather flip this question around and look at social history to try to figure out why gay people are hated, because for anyone with any sense of logic that can look past their hatred, its clear that something that negatively affects no one is not immoral. (Infact, i would argue that the immorallity lies with whichever religion makes gay children feel like sinners and contributes to high teen suicide rates).

So the questions I would ask are more basic:

1)When in history did world religions start stating that same-sex love was immoral?

The Bible said almost from the begining

2)Did gay people always exist, and were gay people always hated?

I heard that in the time of Antony the great There were a tribe of brutal warrior that would only bugger each other (no Women)

3)How can we stop religions and “traditional values”, whether they mean to or not, from giving a moral justification for hatred (and killing of and discrimination against) gay people.

Most Religions would not condone Hatred ,and surely not murder

[/quote]

[quote]michaelv wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Because hetero is functional and consistent with nature and survival of the species. Gayness is no-functional and does not support these non-religious aspects of science.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So then by this sentiment masterbation is also bad because it does not serve the purpose of reproduction? What if sex were a legitimate human need–right up there with food, drink, sleep, and to a greater and lesser extent love? The ability to have pleasure breeds the need to be pleased.

This is why I think the catholic church is a bit naive. The choice to not have sex is ultimately against human nature.

Amen, brutha.[/quote]

You missed the point. The point is that gayness is contrarry to nature. Aside from modern science, if everyone was gay we would cease to exist.