Problems of homosexuality

[Catholic]

lets look at this rationally for a moment, leaving aside religion and personal opinion but lets consider the argument of genetic sexuality.

If we conclude that sexuality is genetic we must accept that ALL sexuality is genetic. lets consider beastiality for an example, we can apply this Logic... beastiality is natural because we see other animals in nature do it. we see dogs humping peoples legs. i have a female dog who is intent on humping the face of any and all 4 legged creatures (dogs cats rabbits are just a few). having grown up around farms i have also seen a ram attempt to breed with a dog. i am sure there are many other examples. now we know people have a 'natural' attraction to animals, so we need to pass laws protecting peoples right to have sex with animals. it is our given right to be able to fornicate with Sheep, and with dogs and with any other animal we choose to. we see it happen in nature.

on this same grounds why not make pediphila legal? i mean its another form of sexuality right? why can't it be genetic? and what if it is? why should some people be allowed to sleep with others on the grounds that its genetic and others not? if nature made them that way then what could be wrong with it? i want someone to give me just 1 good argument as to why its ok for men to have sex with men and women to have sex with women if its genetic but its not ok for 40 year olds to have sex with 10 year olds? why is one "ok" and the other not?

*************************************************************
ok i have made my point i think, even if homosexuality is genetic that does not mean we should allow it. i say its wrong for women to have sex with women and men to have sex with men if you disagree with me then answer my above question... if homosexuality is genetic and Pediphila turns out to be genetic too then why is one ok and the other not? i have a reasonable answer to why both are wrong, try to come up with a reason why one is wrong and the other is right.

[Irrational Entity]

Informed consent would be the criteria. Children are not of the age where they can make such choices and can be readily manipulated. Similarly, animals do not have the mental capacity to consent to such behavior.

[Catholic]

Informed consent would be the criteria. Children are not of the age where they can make such choices and can be readily manipulated. Similarly, animals do not have the mental capacity to consent to such behavior.

ok that might work except what if the kid was already having sex with other kids? they are concenting. and who are you to say the animal does not enjoy it?take the case of a 14 year old that has sex with a 12 year old and then that 12 year old sleeps with a 40 year old. and what if the case is such as an exampe i gave before where the kid seeks it out? how young is too young to have sex? or should we pass a law that when you have sex with someone that automatically in the eyes of the law makes you married and then imprison people who cheat?

[Irrational Entity]

Enjoyment would not be the issue. A child may also enjoy sex with an adult, but they are not mentally capable of giving informed consent because of their age, lack of experience, etc. The same goes for some other species.

I would think puberty would be an obvious starting point for when someone would become interested in sex. Again, the morality is addressed by the capacity for informed consent, but certainly there are gray areas. In many western European nations, the age of consent is sixteen. In parts of America, eighteen to twenty-one are the usual range. I think there is room to debate here, but sixteen seems like a reasonable lower end with a few years leeway to prevent criminalization of sex between a fifteen and seventeen year-old.

[Catholic]

Enjoyment would not be the issue. A child may also enjoy sex with an adult, but they are not mentally capable of giving informed consent because of their age, lack of experience, etc. The same goes for some other species.

I would think puberty would be an obvious starting point for when someone would become interested in sex. Again, the morality is addressed by the capacity for informed consent, but certainly there are gray areas. In many western European nations, the age of consent is sixteen. In parts of America, eighteen to twenty-one are the usual range. I think there is room to debate here, but sixteen seems like a reasonable lower end with a few years leeway to prevent criminalization of sex between a fifteen and seventeen year-old.

ok so we should leaglize it right when teens Hit there peek of homronal development? when they are more likely to think with the little head (or clit if they are a girl) than they are to think with the big one. ya that makes sense.... just because you can make babies doesn't mean you should make babies. on what grounds do you determin that someone is making an informed concent considering that when kids ith the point of no return in sexual arousal they WILL have sex.

[Irrational Entity]

I think there is a big difference between legalizing something and encouraging the behavior. Unless differing information comes out, I would be in favor of legalizing marijuana because it does not appear to be worse than alcohol and tobacco, but I would not use the drug. Teens who receive comprehensive sex education seem to hold off longer before becoming sexually active than those that do not.

[Emery]

Hey Catholic,

the argument has never been that behavior based on congenital reasons are moral simply because they are congenital. If it was, then your objections are right on.

I can accept that pedophiles, gays, musical geniuses, and ultra-aggressive people are fundamentally different from average folks. We can call it congenital, for sake of argument. What makes their behavior moral or immoral, however, is its effects on other people.

Pedophilia is wrong because kids are not mature enough to engage in such activity with adults, are easily coerced, and it is usually very damaging to them. Because of its effect on kids, pedophilia (gay or straight) is immoral.

Homosexuality between consenting adults, however, is a different story. I see no harm there. If you do, and you base your arguments on that, then they're worth looking at. If it's merely because the Church condemns it, then that is not a good reason.

[koin4life]

If it's merely because the Church condemns it, then that is not a good reason.

Emery, I think it is a good reason...but only for each individual. I don't think it's a good reason when trying to sway other people. I believe murder is wrong because the Bible says it's wrong, but if I am to convince you that murder is wrong, I have to give other reasons not biblically based to sway you. This doesn't mean that the Bible saying it is wrong isn't a good reason, just not an acceptable one to you.

[Emery]

The problem I see with that, koin, is the lack of moral foundation. You believe in your book. Other folks believe in their religious books. Who wins? Plus, people misinterpret what they read all the time (look at all the sects within the major religions), so who's to say if your read of your book is correct?

It's just too arbitrary to rely on religious decree. A moral law must carry moral logic, if you will. Otherwise, morality is subject to whoever's religion (an their interpretation of that religion) is in power. That leads to many of the moral abuses that have happened in history.

If God is a moral being, and we are moral beings, then we have to have a moral logic in common. And that means something should be right or wrong for moral reasons, regardless of what a book might say.

[SkepticOFBible]

If it's merely because the Church condemns it, then that is not a good reason.

Emery, I think it is a good reason...but only for each individual.

I thought Emery was referring to the catholic church. The catholic church thinks that contraception and masturbation is wrong, do you follow that?

I don't think it's a good reason when trying to sway other people. I believe murder is wrong because the Bible says it's wrong,
but if I am to convince you that murder is wrong, I have to give other reasons not biblically based to sway you. This doesn't mean that the Bible saying it is wrong isn't a good reason, just not an acceptable one to you

Indeed. However, I am pretty sure you are not following many of the laws given in the bible, such as it is morally wrong to eat pigs, yet no christians care to follow that?The morality of christians is just as subjective as the morality of non-christians.
.

[koin4life]

No, I am not a catholic, therefore I do not hold the same views as them on a lot of things.

Indeed. However, I am pretty sure you are not following many of the laws given in the bible, such as it is morally wrong to eat pigs, yet no christians care to follow that?The morality of christians is just as subjective as the morality of non-christians.

This is why I don't think it's morally wrong to eat pigs.

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "[f]

17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

[whoosanightowl]

Quote:

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "[f]

17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

So Jesus totally reversed the OT requirement of avoiding what he, being one with God, originally had determined to be unclean. Who gave him the authority to change the rules which, according to the Hebrew scriptures, were eternal?

[koin4life]

If congress passes a rule, any time in the future congress can pass another rule that does away with the first rule. How much more true this is when it is God doing it.

[whoosanightowl]

If congress passes a rule, any time in the future congress can pass another rule that does away with the first rule. How much more true this is when it is God doing it.

Yes, but that's the way it was set up from the beginning. Nobody came along and changed the rules later on.
Besides, if God is the "congress", why would he decide to change the rules he made in the first place, especially since he knew the future from the start? God is supposed to be the same yesterday, today and forever, so why don't his laws reflect that? Unlike the physical laws of nature which have always been the same, it seems he is rather fickle in his dealings with humanity.

[SkepticOFBible]

If congress passes a rule, any time in the future congress can pass another rule that does away with the first rule.

You are forgetting, this "congress" repeatedly expressed that all the laws would stand forever

Psa 119:152,160
Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Psa 111:7-8
The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.
They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

Deut 11:1
Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always.

Deut 12:28
Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God.

Deut 13:4
Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave(hold fast) unto him.

Lev 19:37
Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.


Even in the New Convenant of Jer 31, it clearly mentions that God's law would reaffirmed, not done away with

Jer 31:33
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

We are left with two possibilities

1)Either Jesus/Paul was lying and defrauding
2)Yahweh was lying

Here is a challenge for you. Show me one place in the Old Testament where it mentions anything God's "perfect and eternal" law to be done away with. And while you are at it, take a good and careful read of Psalm 119