Homosexuality Is Immoral

[seer]

Opinion one: Homosexuality, in any form, is immoral.

Opinion Two: Homosexuality in and of it's self is not immoral.

Which opinion is correct?

Did ya all miss me? ; )

[popof3]

Today @ 05:35 PM post located here
seer:

Opinion one: Homosexuality, in any form, is immoral.

Opinion Two: Homosexuality in and of it's self is not immoral.

Which opinion is correct?

Did ya all miss me? ; )

Homosexuality is a behavior based on inate desires. Since the desires are inate, it would be wrong for us to claim immorality since that would mean God pre-cursed the people.

I know people want to argue this point but the fact remains that even animals show homosexual tendencies. If they aren't born in, which person was in the jungle teaching them?

Anyway, it's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. lol

[Piebald]

it would be wrong for us to claim immorality since that would mean God pre-cursed the people.

What if those desires have a biological or psychological basis rather than being divine in origin?

I choose Opinion one: Homosexuality, in any form, is immoral

based on faith

[popof3]

Today @ 05:44 PM post located here
Hamster:


What if those desires have a biological or psychological basis rather than being divine in origin?


based on faith

Then God has no input in our biological makeup? In our born in psychological makeup?

[Piebald]

Then God has no input in our biological makeup?

That's a good question (one I was thinking about silently while reading that "does God cause deformities?" thread).

I don't think that God is directly responsible for most of what occurs during our development... or if he is (as some scriptural passages seem to suggest) I think that human beings are just as able to interfere with the process directly or indirectly. For example, when a parent smokes or uses alchohol during the pregnancy and this disturbs the biology of the gestating child.

[popof3]

Today @ 05:52 PM post located here
Hamster:

Then God has no input in our biological makeup?

That's a good question (one I was thinking about silently while reading that "does God cause deformities?" thread).

I don't think that God is directly responsible for most of what occurs during our development... or if he is (as some scriptural passages seem to suggest) I think that human beings are just as able to interfere with the process directly or indirectly. For example, when a parent smokes or uses alchohol during the pregnancy and this disturbs the biology of the gestating child.

I agree that with the physical makeup, we do our children enough harm through much of what we do during the gestation period, as well as the bringing up periods, but I'm not sure we can include sexual desires in that.

There is research that so far has indicated that there may just be a homosexual gene. The team working on it has already found the DNA gene for many diseases (start here: http://www.counterbalance.net/geneti...ics-print.html then read about the 'gay gene' further down or here: http://www.counterbalance.net/genetics/orient-body.html) and thinks there may be a possible gay gene.

Of course, one member has decided that you can be a 'quack' and be a genetic researcher, so...

When dealing with the mind though, internal and external influences must be considered. I am not sure one can be 'taught' to be gay unless the one likes the actions and lifestyle. In that case we need to wonder what is is about that persons makeup that makes it enjoyable to them. Is THAT born in?

But there are the children who have confessed to have always felt like they were girls. They wanted to be girls (and the opposite is also true). If such confessions are true (and I think they are since it is a poor defense of the lifestyle if made up) then we need to see how they were born with these traits. If we agree that God still creates, then he creates the defective, or faulty, or missing gene. And if He does create that, then he is purposely creating some people immoral, and making it purposely harder for them to live life.

Since that seems ungodly to me, and against what I know about God, then it can't be immoral to him, just immoral to our culture because of our upbringing.

Remember, it wasn't that long ago caucasions thought blacks were animals. We know better now, but there are still those out there who will just nevedr accept their equality, and there are those who are out there that still think the black skin is God's mark of Cain.

[seer]

I know people want to argue this point but the fact remains that even animals show homosexual tendencies. If they aren't born in, which person was in the jungle teaching them?

Even animals show tendencies to rape, and do rape. So can we now draw the conclusion that rape is a perfectly moral act?

http://is2.dal.ca/~bread/rape.html

[KingDavid8]

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth...

Being a homosexual is no more a sin than being a heterosexual. The real "sin" is how you act on it. When a man sleeps with a man (or woman with woman), yes, that's a sin. Just as it's a sin when a man sleeps with a woman who is not his wife. I would say that both acts of non-wedded intercourse are equally sinful. And even in the Bible, it's the ACT, not the NATURE, that is called a sin. So the issue of whether the orientation is a choice, a genetic abnormality, or something deemed by God, is moot. Our orientations may or may not be a choice, but whether (and how) we act on it is always a choice.

David

[garthoverman]

Today @ 02:35 PM post located here
seer:

Opinion one: Homosexuality, in any form, is immoral.

Opinion Two: Homosexuality in and of it's self is not immoral.

Which opinion is correct?

What is the significance of wording your question this way? Why not simply ask us directly: Is it your opinion that homosexuality is immoral?

"Correct" opinions are only those with which your personal opinion also agrees. Basically, your question is meaningless apart from asking others to share their own personal opinions with you. To illustrate, a parallel:

Opinion one: Bach was a better composer than Beethoven.

Opinion two: Beethoven was a better composer than Bach.

Which opinion is "correct"?

Yours,
Garth

[seer]

Opinion one: Bach was a better composer than Beethoven.

Opinion two: Beethoven was a better composer than Bach.

Which opinion is "correct"?

No question- Bach of course.

What is the significance of wording your question this way? Why not simply ask us directly: Is it your opinion that homosexuality is immoral?

See Garth, you can not even answer a direct moral question.

"Correct" opinions are only those with which your personal opinion also agrees. Basically, your question is meaningless apart from asking others to share their own personal opinions with you.

No it is not meaningless - your non answer proves my point.

[Marcus1962]

Homosexuality is a behavior based on inate desires. Since the desires are inate, it would be wrong for us to claim immorality since that would mean God pre-cursed the people.

I know people want to argue this point but the fact remains that even animals show homosexual tendencies. If they aren't born in, which person was in the jungle teaching them?

Anyway, it's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. lol

There are also some people with innate tendencies to steal or kill. Doesn't that make it moral by this logic as well?

My answer is that homosexual activity is immoral (Leviticus and Romans). Whether this is God creating a eunech or something Satan is behind I don't know.

[LGM]

Today @ 08:33 PM post located here
Marcus1962:
Whether this is God creating a eunech or something Satan is behind I don't know.

I dunno either Marcus, but its gotta be one or the other!


But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise... 1CO1:27

and this thread is certainly proof of that,

LGM
...admitting "you don't know" is always that first tiny step back towards reality...

[Thomas2003]

Remember, it wasn't that long ago caucasions thought blacks were animals. We know better now, but there are still those out there who will just nevedr accept their equality, and there are those who are out there that still think the black skin is God's mark of Cain.

And just think, today people think that ALL MEN are animals! LOL

Homosexual acts are immoral, because God says they are.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet....Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:27,32

Two witnesses is good enough for me.

Cordially,

Thomas

[LGM]

Today @ 07:26 PM post located here
seer:
Even animals show tendencies to rape, and do rape. So can we now draw the conclusion that rape is a perfectly moral act?

yeah! and what about female black widow spiders that eat their male mates after sex... So can we now draw the conclusion that eating your mate alive after sex is that a perfectly moral act?

sheesh, is there no end to what homosexuality will lead to?

LGM
...Seer, always trying to answer that age old question...which "opinion" is "correct"...well garsh!, the one that agrees with mine...what a coincidence!

[chsalvia]

Homosexual acts are immoral, because God says they are.

That settles it then doesn't it.