Immorality of Homosexuality

I just know that everyone has been waiting desperately for my input. Here goes: I think we should quantify homosexuality into lust. I understand that men can love each other just as much as heterosexuals, so spare me your nasty replies. For now follow me.Why is lust immoral? Immorality taken to mean a physical consequence would be a chemical addiction relating to sex. The more sex you expose your self to the more it is going to take to get the same "high," much like a drug addiction. Also it can result in anti-social and dangerous behavior.
WebMD Sexual Conditions Center - Information on STDs, Safe Sex, and Common Sexual ProblemsI suspect that homosexuals really are not born "gay." Before you jump all over me, I didn't understand what sex was until I was around 10 years old, much less what being gay meant. What I immediately understood was that certain things attracted me to women. I watched sex talk with Sue Johanson one night, and she was talking about how men become attracted to men. Something like each person has certain likes about the human body, regardless of sex. My gay friend Paul, likes shoulders. Well, incidentally both sexes have shoulders. He ellaborated that he likes well toned shoulders. I have seen bodybuilding women. He looked confused, and just said he was born gay.My point to this is: Lust must be the deciding factor in homosexuality. So what is lust? Wikipedia has THIS

quote:

---

Lust is any intense desire or craving for self gratification. Lust can mean strictly sexual lust, although it is also common to speak of a "lust for life", "lust for blood (bloodlust for short)", or a "lust for power" or other goals. The Greek word which translates as lust is epithymia (), which also is translated into English as "to covet".

---

To me it seems like an extreme desire to "have." In Indian Mysticism, and I think it was in the Bhagavad Gita, there is an excerpt that states something like: If you pluck the rose, it loses it's beauty, for the beauty is in the life, desire is the stagnation and stagnation is death. wow, that was horrible, I hope you got the point. So another aspect of immorality of homosexuality would be the stagnation of life through lust, but this is in no way limited to homosexuality and should be applied towards all forms of lust. i.e, greed of money, covetness, power, roses, etc.This also brings up an interesting point, that the five commandments relating to man (OT) can be quantified into desire. Ten Commandments
I don't want to get too far into that now. Perhaps you can see what I am getting at.Lust has been shown to have negative physical, social and spiritual effects. Before you jump to the keyboard ready to point out that this could be a straw man, I would like to point out that I am referring to the motivations of engaging in homosexual activity. Which should be first addressed.However, if two men "love" each other, they probably don't want to have sexual contact. Sexual interaction stems from the natural desire to procreate, not to pleasure oneself or a partner. How can I substantiate this claim? I am not sure I can, however I have heard that the strong natural desire to have sex is for the purpose of procreation and is associated chemically in the brain. The question then becomes what is love and how is it different from lust? I think it would be safe to assume that most people wouldn't find much of a distinction between love and lust. Especially people in the Americanized culture of mass media and entertainment. As a culture we(americans) have idealized love to represent desire for one another, and less an abstract love of a whole. Here is a good explanation from HERE of what I think love really is:

quote:

---

If our first obligation is to love God, it is exceedingly important that we know what that means. Is my love for God shown through my excitement about the Lord? Is it shown through my theological knowledge? Is it shown by my involvement in church activities? All of these things are good, and they should be a result of our love toward God. But there is only one right answer scripturally. Jesus stated the matter plainly, If you love Me, keep My commandments (John 14:15). I John 5:3 says, For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.

​

To love God is to love and obey His word His law His commandments. In other words, love is lawfulness. Such a thought seems contradictory to our worldly concept of love, which reveals our unbiblical thinking on this matter.

---

Now, most are not going to disagree with me because it goes against the socially accepted definitions, however love can also represent this concept without biblical philosophy. My concept of love is righteousness. I don't want to make mistakes, therefore when I see a mistake being made I will try to help correct it (as many of you on this forum seem to exclusively participate) if I tell my girlfriend the truth about her fat ass when we're trying on clothes, it saves her from making the mistake of wearing that particular garment. Love to me then isn't pandering to someone's emotions but doing what is best for them.Lastly, I want to bring up the impacts of society that make homosexual activity viable. This site has some interesting views on social causes of homosexuality but not exactly what I want to hit on. Without a proper family unit, or a need for a proper family unit, homosexuality is inevitable. Since now, there is a rapidly decreasing need to have a family, and the folks who do try to start one almost half will fail**.The point is without the neccessity for children another necessity ultimately arises: Companionship. In a world where isolation means freedom the escape from loneliness perpetuates unnatural behavior to compensate.Conclusion: From a Christian perspective, homosexuality is as wrong as owning a porn magazine, and in fact by human standards homosexuality is superior in that love can be expressed. I think I have perhaps inadequately addressed the issues pertaining to homosexuality, however I feel that the root cause of homosexuality is the immorality, and the manifestation of lust and the desire to relieve loneliness attributes to homosexual behavior.

Your post basically comes down to two statements:Lust is immoral
People aren't born gayFirstly:
If we accept your premise that lust is immoral, then it is immoral for heterosexuals as well, thus homosexuality is not more immoral.Second:
Who would choose to be gay? Who, at age 10 or whatever, would say - "Hrmm, I want to choose the path of prejudice, ridicule, danger and shame." No one.At what age did you decide that you would be attracted to women? You didn't. You just were. You didn't sit down and weigh the pros and cons. Your biochemistry kicked in - game over.Guess what, you aren't any different from these people. It's just that they have a slightly different biochemistry.If homosexuality is immoral, then being tall, blind or left handed should also be "immoral", as these are all just as much of a choice.

Quantify means to give a quantity to, like say...5 Quantify into lust really is a meaningless statement. Did you mean qualify? Or are you just trying to sound smart? (no offense) Being born gay means there is a genetic component. You don't have to understand what sex is to have that component. I think lust is a big part of a lot of homosexuality (and heterosexuality) but I don't find it impossible for a genuine loving homosexual relationship to exist. You seem to think it is impossible. Why is that? How do you know? Wow, not for me. Sex feels good and I don't want to procreate at this point in my life. My desire for sex stems from the pleasure, and the displeasure of getting "backed up", if you know what I mean.You're pretty much just wrong in that statement. Which you seem to realize. That, and it feels good.I place the immorality of homosexuality on the same level as fornication.But I don't have a non-biblical rational for the immorality of fornication nor homosexuality, which is what the topic of this thread is, so I don't have much to say on topic.

Uh, yes. Exactly.You said this: Then you said this: Gay people didn't weigh the pro's or con's either. They chose to be gay because aspects of being gay excited them. This IMO, and furthered by the link I provided, that it isn't necessarily genetic. It most definitely could be affected by genetics, however should be exclusive to it. So your argument: doesn't work as a hand wave.

I meant what I said, just because m-w.com isn't up on slang, doesn't mean I will stop using this word in my own context. I meant to make it into a smaller quantity. And I always try to sound smart. supposedly, though I would argue that genetics defines the persons lusts to some extent. Not there ability to express it through homosexual activity. Did I say that? I seem to remember my conclusion...

quote:

---

Conclusion: From a Christian perspective, homosexuality is as wrong as owning a porn magazine, and in fact by human standards homosexuality is superior in that love can be expressed. I think I have perhaps inadequately addressed the issues pertaining to homosexuality, however I feel that the root cause of homosexuality is the immorality, and the manifestation of lust and the desire to relieve loneliness attributes to homosexual behavior.

---

Because I love all of my friends. In fact I love everybody until they wrong me, and then i fucking kill them, jk. Your exactly right. However, I did not mean to limit it. I meant to show the reason for the desire to have sex, would fundamentally be to procreate, not an individual perception of the mechanism. And I was hoping for someone to maybe provide a link to research done on this, or if there is any. This could make a great side thread, perhaps. So what is your opinion, scientific or not, on the fundamental function of human desire pertaining to sex?

Well, you can use words however you want, but if nobody understands what you're saying then its only your own fault.Slang ...my ass. You were trying to sound smart. How old are you? A quantity is a number...If I half the quantity of homosexuality (and not the number of homosexuals), how much or how many do I have left? Then I guess you just conflated some meanings for "love". I mean, why the need for the quotes, right?But whatever, I don't care. I misunderstood. That procreation has nothing to do with the desire.Presumably, early man didn't even know that pregnancy was a result of sex. Their desire couldn't have stemmed from the want to procreate.Having sex is instinctual.So, what is your opinion relating to the topic? Do you think there is any non-biblical rationale for the immorality of homosexuality?

quote:

---

Sexual interaction stems from the natural desire to procreate, not to pleasure oneself or a partner.

---

By your logic, the reason rapists rape is simply because they want to father a child.Maybe your ideas about the reasons highly social animals, such as humans and other apes, engage in sexual activity are a wee bit more complex than works for your argument.Do a google search on "sex" + "pair bonding". Or, look up a page on Bonobo chimpanzees, our closest relatives, and read what function sex serves in thir culture.

So you're saying that a homosexual couple is no different morally from a heterosexaul couple that can't have children or doesn't want to have children. You're saying that the immorality has nothing to do with homosexulaity at all, but only with the diversion of sex drive away from procreation.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This is abundantly false. Much evidence leads us to conclude that, in fact, the purpose of sex in humans is for pleasure, for closeness and intimacy, and that reproduction is almost an afterthought. Several idiosyncrasies of human/primate reproduction lend this conclusion:1) Humans, like many (most? all) primates, are receptive to sexual activity at any time following puberty (and potentially before); the vast majority of organisms experience specific seasons of sexual activity (estrus) with long periods of complete sexual disinterest in between (anestrus). Humans, on the other hand, can be persuaded to engage in the sexual act year-round.2) The majority of mammals have sex only during estrus, as before specified. This period coincides with ovulation of the female; as a result, estrus is the only portion of the female's life cycle when she can become pregnant. On the other hand, humans have sex year-round, regardless of when the female is most likely to achieve pregnancy. Some humans specifically abstain during this time to avoid pregnancy; others render themselves or their activity sterile by numerous means.3) It's quite difficult for most human women to become pregnant during sex, for a number of reasons. Vaginal pH is actively hostile to sperm, which must survive in the vaginal tract for three whole days to have their best shot at fertilization. Human females generally have little to no physical indication or warning of ovulation, so the best time to have sex for pregnancy is generally achieved only by accident.A text on the subject suggests that, even among couples specifically intending to produce children, less than 1 in 500 copulatory acts results in a successful pregnancy. If sex in humans is specifically for the production of offspring, why would it so infrequently result in that state? The female body appears to almost operate under a state of natural birth control.A woman's body, while nursing, suppresses ovulation. Again, the presumption here seems to be that a nursing woman would engage in sexual activity, but her body works to protect her against having too many pregnancies in too short a time, lest she be overwhelmed by nursing demands.The evidence is abundant that sex is humans is not about children; that what is a reproductive act in other organisms has been extended, almost completely co-opted, into a mechanism for pleasure. Indeed, the presence of the female clitoris - not to mention the female orgasm - is completely irrelevant to reproduction, but an integral part of the pleasurable sexual experience for women. So you think he's a liar?And you don't notice, apparently, that the testimony of your gay friend shoots down your theory completely? Paul likes muscular guys. He doesn't like similarly muscular women. That wasn't enough to prove to you that it's not just that he likes shoulders, they have to be a guy's shoulders? Correction - what is best for you. If your girlfriend goes out in something she looks goofy in, that makes you look bad. I mean why else would you give a damn whether or not she crams her fat ass into some tiny jeans, if it was about to make her feel better about herself? Why else would you be so desperate to hurt her feelings, all in the name of "honesty"?Because you think people would look at you and say "there goes a guy with a fat girlfriend." For you, love isn't about pandering to someone's emotions - it's about ensuring that your emotions are pandered to, always.No surprise that you have no idea what love truly is; the only love you know is self-love. I find that to be a universal condition among people, like yourself, who get such a hard-on about homosexuality.

You almost had me going. But I am relentless, I have used that word in that context for years and while writing college papers never to be critiqued.
Here is m-w.com on quantify.

quote:

---

2 : to determine, express, or measure the quantity of

---

what is a quantity, exactly? Here is m-w.com on quantity.

quote:

---

2 a : the aspect in which a thing is measurable in terms of greater, less, or equal or of increasing or decreasing magnitude

---

As you can see, I accurately used the word in the correct context. Quantity does not always refer directly to numbers, but it can include gross calculations such as greater and less than. Presumably. I suggest we create a thread discussing this. Perhaps I was too vague in my last attempt to get an educated response out of anyone. If you had read my original post in this thread ( Message 121 )I give social, physical and spiritual reasons for the immorality of lust which I believe is the main component of homosexuality. Homosexuality shouldn't be described as two men/women who have a loving relationship. Homosexuality should be used to describe the sexual activity between two people of the opposite sex.

quote:

---

Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
- ho·mo·sex·u·al·ly adverb

---

---

The world embarrasses me, and I cannot dream that this watch exists and has no watchmaker.
Voltaire (1694-1778)

I meant the actual desire is a product for the procreation process. Whether or not it is intelligibly used is certainly another matter. We should open up another thread discussing this issue. Is sex a mechanism for pleasure or for procreation? What is the absolute reason or is it mutual?

---

The world embarrasses me, and I cannot dream that this watch exists and has no watchmaker.
Voltaire (1694-1778)

No, your making that all up. It is the society we live in. God's (OT/NT) standard does not make sense in our present society. Is it morally wrong? Yes, but that isn't the question of the OP.

quote:

---

What would be the non-literalist argument for why homosexuality is immoral?

---

We can assume he means, morality without the bible so I tried to give a moral view without the bible. Also, the definition of morals has to be stated for clarification.
For this particular context I believe we can use this:

quote:

---

1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e : capable of right and wrong action

---

So, it comes down to right or wrong. That sounds easier to handle. Is it right for someone to feel loved? Yes. Is it right for that person to feel good? Yes. Is it right for a man to use tools other for the intended use? Well, that seems to be the question. Is it right to offend the Creator of Life? Do you believe in a God(s)? Which brings us back to belief. If there is a creation, there is creator(s), so things have uses. If everything was random, the highest evolved or capable makes the rules. The farther we get into this, the more I see a necessity for a Creator.

​

You're saying that the immorality has nothing to do with homosexulaity at all, but only with the diversion of sex drive away from procreation.

​

I don't understand how homosexual activity is:
1)necessary
2)productive
3)fun
4)natural
5)not abusive

​

These are all without the framework of the Bible. Someone else may like to stick penis in poop-shoot and think it's fun...but I don't see how this helps evolution, society, or God(s). Yin Yang, would be awful strange if it was Yin Yin. Also, this brings up a psychological musing. If you look at gay couples, there will, as far as I have seen and I go out to the gay clubs and bars sometimes with my gay friends, there is a masculine and a effeminate with men. Doesn't this suggest psychological inadequacy?

​

---

The world embarrasses me, and I cannot dream that this watch exists and has no watchmaker.
Voltaire (1694-1778)

presumably he was born in 1887.My personal bet is he meant to type in 1987.

What do you mean "excite them"? I am not gay. I have not found myself attracted to men. Nothing about being gay "excites" me. I attribute this to the fact that biochemically, I am not wired to be gay.This corresponds nicely to the statements coming from homosexuals who say - "I was born this way, I didn't choose to be gay."So, given both the accounts of heterosexuals and homosexuals, both of which indicate that this is something people are born with, not something they choose, it is not only irrational but unbearably arrogent for you to decide that you have a better perspective on gay life than the people living it.If homosexuality was a choice, and therefore resistable, you wouldn't see people like Hastard and Craig who spend their entire lives fighting against homosexuality while simulateously partaking in it.

Your distorting the "evidence" to fit your argument.

quote:

---

Humans, on the other hand, can be persuaded to engage in the sexual act year-round.

---

What does this have to do with whether or not the purpose of sexual desire is for pleasure? Wouldn't you expect this, from either (evo's or creo's) camp? Most of the girls that went to my high school are pregnant. I guess they were good at math. Sounds well designed to me. Whoa, the evidence suggests the human body is a well designed machine for making complete healthy babies. A woman can only have one child a year, this doesn't suggest that desire for sex is wholly for pleasure. It shows a discernment on the part of our Creator. You stretched that one too far. You hilariously assumed that his lust for shoulders was only on men. I specifically asked him for no sexual preference upon making his decision. He likes shoulders, in general. It just so happens that men have more developed and defined shoulders. It's part of they're anatomy. If he was into tits, do you think he would like fat guys? This is retarded. You stacked this with soooo many presumptions and assumptions there just isn't any need to reply, other than to state that I hope I am not the only one that sees this for what it is.

---

The world embarrasses me, and I cannot dream that this watch exists and has no watchmaker.
Voltaire (1694-1778)