Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

If humans are doing something not found in nature, that would make that action unnatural. This seems obvious to me.Humans can't have their own nature. I agree that humans can have their own rules, it's just that if they're human-specific, they can't be called "natural".

I want to remind late readers that I am not espousing this philosophy myself, just setting it out there... The passage clearly stated unnatural use. There may be some equivocation of terms going on, but I get it. The natural use of reproductive organs are to reproduce. Natural meaning something different than anything that can be done with them in nature. It has the teleological edge of meaning what purpose does it serve in natural life.Ultimately its purpose is for reproduction. In humans that is male-female sex to make babies.You can talk about different creatures that are able to reproduce through homosexual acts, I can guarantee you that ain't happening to a human. Thus the natural use of sex and their organs, in humans, is reproductive male-female sex.------------------
holmes

holmes writes:

quote:

---

The natural use of reproductive organs are to reproduce.

---

So why do males also use their reproductive organs for waste elimination? In case you hadn't noticed, the urethra in males empties into the penis.

quote:

---

It has the teleological edge of meaning what purpose does it serve in natural life.

---

The problem is that it ignores the obivious actual use.

quote:

---

Ultimately its purpose is for reproduction.

---

Except in males where if we look at its most common function, it is waste elimination. It would seem that using it for reproduction is the unnatural use.

quote:

---

In humans that is male-female sex to make babies.

---

So why do men urinate through their penises? Why is it that the most common use of the penis is to urinate?

quote:

---

Thus the natural use of sex and their organs, in humans, is reproductive male-female sex.

---

That's one use. There are more.Are your hands only for eating? Or do their "natural use" include other possibilities?Basically, you're arguing the claim of "it's an exit, not an entrance." Strange how many times we seem to put things in the anus such as medical suppositories. Does this make medicine "unnatural"?The natural use of sex organs, in humans, is sex.Why must it necessarily be reproduction? Humans have sex all the time without any intent to reproduce. In fact, most sexual activity is done in the hopes that reproduction won't take place. And if we believe the studies, the most common form of sex cannot lead to reproduction.How strange that people don't blink an eye over the concept that males use a waste elimination organ for sexual pleasure in one case but have a conniption fit over the use of another waste elimination organ for sexual pleasure.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

So what are intersex people supposed to use their organs for?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Burning more strawmen?First of all the reproductive organs are not used for urination. The male reproductive organs share the same channel as the waste removal organs.When the penis is properly functioning in its reproductive capacity urine is not expelled, nor capable of being expelled without quite a bit of exertion.When the penis is properly functioning in its waste removal capacity sperm is never ejaculated.As much as I myself do not agree with using a singular teleological definition for what the "natural use" of the sexual organs are, I am dumbfounded by anyone arguing that the ultimate purpose of the sexual organs are reproduction.Coming from an evolutionary standpoint, that is the only reason they are there.Of course that isn't the only way you can use them, and pleasure is a pretty dandy way to use them as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention the only reason people choose to use them is the pleasure involved. But that does not diminish the end all reason they are there (on a sexually reproducing organism). That's a good question but has no bearing on the argument at hand. A person is free to define things as they wish. So if one decides to narrow the definition of Natural use to "ultimate biological reason for its existence in that organism", rather than "how an organism can use them (or generally do)" there's nothing wrong with that logically.Such a narrow definition would make suppositories "unnatural". Aren't there some Xtian denominations that believe that? I know some don't allow enemas.At least those people are consistent, even if a bit... constipated... in their morality. You realize that this doesn't mean anything? People kill people all the time but that doesn't make killing right to those whose moral formulas proscibe killing.All you just said (to someone who has the narrow definition of natural use), that most people don't use sex for its intended purpose and hope that it doesn't. Isn't that the very description Romans uses for the people God walked away from? God says people can do it, he just says it is against the natural purpose (by his definition).I don't get what is happening here. Why does everyone feel the need to attack a definition, rather than just excepting the definition (for purposes of argument) and rejecting the moral formula which uses it?------------------
holmes

Well that depends on what you mean by intersex. If you mean those central or south american people that change sexes, my guess is that they are supposed to do fill whatever sexual role they currently are.If you mean hermaphrodites, then most of them don't have functioning sexual organs anyway. Could that mean they are "designed" for pleasure alone? Or do they just fall under the same category of people who have been injured in such a way that they cannot reproduce... including old age for women.Given the cruelty inherent in most Xtian teachings, I wouldn't be surprised if the logic is that they cannot have sex at all.That wouldn't make 'em inconsistent, just cruel.------------------
holmes

Well, most intersex conditions aren't so clear cut; such as AIS.http://www.medhelp.org/www/ais/23_PAIS.HTMThere's the entire spectrum of intersex conditions out there. The problem is, male and female organs are developed from the same tissues. To be fair, there is no "completely male" or "completely female"; for example, where is the cutoff line between a clitoris and a penis? It's completely arbitrary. So, if the bible literalist's argument is that they should have no sexual activity at all (what about clothes, hair, social roles, or all of the other biblical regulations?), where do you draw the line? And if your argument is "chromosomes", you have to realize what that argument entails: it will mean that some people who are near completely or completely normal women will only be able to be in lesbian relationships, and vice-versa with men. And for some people, the chromosomes aren't so simple as "XX" or "XY". There's XXX, XXY, XYY, and others. Furthermore, it's not the chromosome specifically, but SRY that initiates sexual differentiation - and then there's a chain of genes that follow after that. And SRY isn't always perfectly formed when present... and other chemicals can inadvertently begin the chain reaction...I really would be interested in seing a bible literalist's response to this.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Trisomy X occurs in about 1 out of 1,000 females, the XXY male Klinefelter Syndrome in about 1 out of 1,000 males and then the XYY males in about 1 out of 1,000 births as well. Klinefelters are infertile but functional and the other 2 exhibit no overt characteristics. The other combinations are genrally lethal. I don't see trisomy as a viable explanation.Beyond the SRY explanation, I'm more inclined to look at Kin Selection with the non-reproductive relatives being something of a helper type to their reproducing relatives. Allo parenting is not all that uncommon in nature. It also might explain why homosexuals are less likely to molest children than heterosexuals, they are wired to help rear children with the sex drive being switched off.------------------
Bringer of fire, trickster, teacher.

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

So why do males also use their reproductive organs for waste elimination?

---

​

Burning more strawmen?

---

Not at all. You said that reproductive organs are for reproduction. To quote you directly: But in human males, they are primarily used for waste elimination. It would seem that the natural use of the reproductive organ for human males is urination. Reproduction is a secondary effect.You will note that the female urethra, while close to the vagina, is not routed through it.There's an old joke that god surely was a civil engineer as who else would put a sewer line through a recreational area.

quote:

---

When the penis is properly functioning in its reproductive capacity urine is not expelled, nor capable of being expelled without quite a bit of exertion.

​

When the penis is properly functioning in its waste removal capacity sperm is never ejaculated.

---

What does this have to do with anything?Are you agreeing that the penis has two uses? One of which has absolutely nothing to do with sex?The question of whether or not sperm of urine comes out of the penis has a lot to do with timing. Urinate right after having sex, and there will be sperm in the urine. Have sex right after urinating, and there will be urine in the ejaculate.

quote:

---

Coming from an evolutionary standpoint, that is the only reason they are there.

---

Non sequitur. This sentence no verb.From an evolutionary standpoint, there is no such thing as a "reason." Biology doesn't care what anything gets used for.Sex feels good. And one way sexual pleasure can be derived in the human male is prostate stimulation. And one of the best ways to stimulate the prostate is rectally. So where is the evolutionary "no-no" that means you're not supposed to do that? What on earth does biology care?

quote:

---

Of course that isn't the only way you can use them, and pleasure is a pretty dandy way to use them as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention the only reason people choose to use them is the pleasure involved. But that does not diminish the end all reason they are there (on a sexually reproducing organism).

---

Most animals when they have sex, including humans, are not thinking about reproduction. Instead, they are thinking about pleasure. It's just that biology has managed to make one of the most pleasurable things an organism's body can do make it likely for reproduction to take place.Most sex does not result in reproduction. In fact, in humans, most sex has no hope of reproduction since oral sex isn't very good at that.The end all reason the sex organs exist is to have sex. It just so happens that one of the ways to have sex results in reproduction.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Strange how many times we seem to put things in the anus such as medical suppositories. Does this make medicine "unnatural"?

---

​

That's a good question but has no bearing on the argument at hand.

---

It has everything to do with the argument as hand. The question is: What are body parts "supposed" to be used for.If the urethra can be used for sex, why can't the anus? If we have no qualms with the rectum being used for medical activities, what is the big deal with using it for sexual activities?

quote:

---

So if one decides to narrow the definition of Natural use to "ultimate biological reason for its existence in that organism", rather than "how an organism can use them (or generally do)" there's nothing wrong with that logically.

---

No, it is quite illogical. It presumes that there is one and only one reason. That's what "ultimate" means. Therefore, the penis is either for urine or for sperm, not both. One of those uses is an aberration.If we allow that there can be two "reasons for its existence," then we have no justification to deny any body part being used for anything.

quote:

---

Such a narrow definition would make suppositories "unnatural".

---

Bingo.So if suppositories are nothing to be concerned over, what's the big deal over anal sex?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why must it necessarily be reproduction? Humans have sex all the time without any intent to reproduce. In fact, most sexual activity is done in the hopes that reproduction won't take place. And if we believe the studies, the most common form of sex cannot lead to reproduction.

---

​

You realize that this doesn't mean anything? People kill people all the time but that doesn't make killing right to those whose moral formulas proscibe killing.

---

Um, you just stumbled upon the meaning:There is a difference between biology and morality.If somebody finds anal sex immoral, la dee da. He can justify it any way he wants except to say that it is "biologically unnatural." There is no such thing as "biologically unnatural."

quote:

---

All you just said (to someone who has the narrow definition of natural use), that most people don't use sex for its intended purpose and hope that it doesn't.

---

Yes...but you're not following it through to the end. If that isn't "unnatural," then what makes any other sex act "unnatural"? What is so special about one form of non-reproductive sex that makes it OK while other forms of non-reproductive sex are anathema?

quote:

---

Isn't that the very description Romans uses for the people God walked away from? God says people can do it, he just says it is against the natural purpose (by his definition).

---

But you made the argument from biology, not morality.If you want to make a moral argument, go right ahead, but where in biology do we find "unnatural"? There are a lot of people who say that the anus was not "designed" for sex. If that were truly the case, then you couldn't have sex with it. Amazing how so many people, gay and straight alike, who manage to have anal sex without any trouble at all. If the anus were not "designed" to accept a penis, then you wouldn't be able to get a penis in there.

quote:

---

I don't get what is happening here. Why does everyone feel the need to attack a definition, rather than just excepting the definition (for purposes of argument) and rejecting the moral formula which uses it?

---

Because you switched arguments in the middle of your claim. Biology is not the same as morality. If sex organs are only supposed to be used for sex, then a penis is "unnatural" because it is used for both sex and waste elimination.There is no such thing as "biologically unnatural." Biology is part of nature and if it were "unnatural," then you wouldn't be able to do it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Speel-yi writes:

quote:

---

It also might explain why homosexuals are less likely to molest children than heterosexuals, they are wired to help rear children with the sex drive being switched off.

---

That isn't borne out. The sex drive in homosexuals is just as strong as it is in heterosexuals. Of course, if you believe in some people's comments, gay men want to do nothing but have sex...and that's why you can't leave children alone with them...they are so oversexed they'll screw anything available.Studies of pedophiles find that they are attracted to the androgynous appearance of the child. That's why male pedophiles who molest boys are usually not gay: The boy is not seen as "male" because he is not sexually mature. A six-year-old boy looks very much like a six-year-old girl.Are there biological reasons for why gays are less likely to molest children? I don't know. I'm sure there are cultural reasons: For example, gay people are less likely to have children and molestation of children usually takes place at the hands of relatives. There is less access to children for gays (for lots of reasons) and thus, less opportunity.One study of pedophiles found that while girls are more likely to be victims of all forms of sexual molestation by strangers, boys are more likely to be victims of sexual molestation that involves some sort of touching. Our cultural attitude has a lot to do with this: People are much more likely to let their sons be alone with an adult than their daughters. We worry more about our daughters being molested than we do our boys. Thus, boys are more accessible.On the other hand, gay people are fighting so hard against the stereotype that they are child molesters, many do everything they can to make sure there isn't even the slightest hint of impropriety.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Explanation? Explanation of what? I'm not aware of a single class of intersex conditions whose cause isn't known. Or are you thinking that the discussion about intersex children and how they fit into a biblical worldview was instead about homosexuals? I didn't touch on the causes of homosexuality - this is more of a theological issue that we're discussing.The question is about how, with the discussion of what is "natural" and "unnatural", how do intersex people fit into God's plan? What commandments are they supposed to follow? And, if God would create people who are physically intersexed, is homosexuality that far fetched?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I am severely disappointed rrhain. This makes two separate threads where you have cut around my original post, in order to have clips you can respond to as if I have not answered a certain question.This is all very simple and should not be hard to understand. And it is not about advancing your own, just understanding what their definition.To the Xtian God, the "natural use" for sex is reproduction. Stop, take a deep breath and empty your mind of your own definition (which sounds pretty close to my own by the way). Then try to understand this definition.They are clearly using as "natural use" a narrow definition meaning its "ultimate use" or "primary use." These are subjective definitions keyed to what the reproducting organs do.The PENIS is a dual function "limb". While remnant sperm may come out during urination, and some urine may be present in the urethra at the start of sex, this does not in any way mean the waste removal and reproductive systems are one and the same.According to your argument then, the lungs are part of the digestive tract since the stomach and lungs share a mouth and trachea. This is simply ridiculous.The reproductive system has no waste removal organs (such as the bladder). Sex closes off channels to the waste removal system.And most shocking to me is that your ignored my own statement that pleasure is why people have sex, in order to restate it yourself.Yes, pleasure is why people have sex. But the importance of reproduction to the life cycle is why pleasure is there. Unless some Gods exist and just wanted us to feel pleasure, the evolutionary reason pleasure is there is tied to reproductive function.Now I completely agree with you that "natural" is what any being can use there body for, and that means pleasure. But this is not about impressing our own definition but understanding what the Bible's is. We can't argue with a Book to say ours is better terminology, so all we have left is to understand what it's definition is and formulate arguments against its moral formula.Or if you want to run a reductio on what that definition means for medicine, that's fine too. You just can't argue that the narrow definition can't logically exist.Especially worthless are appeals to what people do... in other words that other people accept the wider definition of natural. It's totally besides the point.It was also disengenuous to say that God's definition using biology as its basis, is wrong otherwise those other things couldn't be done. That is intentionally not understanding his definition by comparing it to your own. God has clearly defined "natural use" not based on what is possible, but what is primarily intended.And please do not cut around my post again to make like you don't get what I'm saying. When a penis is up its primary function (using the narrow definition) is reproduction, and when it's down its primary function is waste removal.That is not my definition, nor is it illogical. I think it's pretty stupid and I don't use it, but at least I'm not going to feign ignorance so as not to have the more important argument of why it is not a good definition or formulas using it will generally fail.Pretending the definition doesn't exist, or can't exist (because other ones exist?) makes you look pretty childish, and you are better than that.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Are there biological reasons for why gays are less likely to molest children? I don't know. I'm sure there are cultural reasons: For example, gay people are less likely to have children and molestation of children usually takes place at the hands of relatives. There is less access to children for gays (for lots of reasons) and thus, less opportunity.

---

Can we for a moment make a slight distinction between gay and homosexual? There are lots of homosexuals that get married and have children and they probably for the most part make great parents, poor spouses but great parents all the same. Then you have unmarried homosexuals that are in positions that require care of children. I'll give you an example of my Boy Scoutmaster being homosexual, I was told this years after I was out of the Scouts. It never occurred to me that this guy was homosexual and I don't think he was trying to hide it either. The subject just never came up and BTW he was also known as the best Scoutmaster in the area. The marginalizing of homosexuals is a recent phenomenon especially since the 1980 election.

quote:

---

On the other hand, gay people are fighting so hard against the stereotype that they are child molesters, many do everything they can to make sure there isn't even the slightest hint of impropriety.

---

I'm wondering what a gay person looks like anyway. Do you have any idea? Please tell me so I won't make anymore social gaffs. I'll give you another example out of my life. My uncle is a decorated WWII veteran, he looks nothing like any steroetype other than the fact he's been living with the same guy for the past 40 years and he don't look like a homo either. The biggest problem I have with the two of them is that they are too funny sometimes. They are very good with children as well. It never occurred to me that they were homosexual either until I was told. (Maybe I'm handicapped in that way, is there some special sense that people have in detecting homosexuals?)Then Rei states:

quote:

---

Explanation? Explanation of what? I'm not aware of a single class of intersex conditions whose cause isn't known. Or are you thinking that the discussion about intersex children and how they fit into a biblical worldview was instead about homosexuals? I didn't touch on the causes of homosexuality - this is more of a theological issue that we're discussing.

​

The question is about how, with the discussion of what is "natural" and "unnatural", how do intersex people fit into God's plan? What commandments are they supposed to follow? And, if God would create people who are physically intersexed, is homosexuality that far fetched?

---

Genetic expression is a puzzle we have not come close to solving, I don't think you can accurately make the assertion that "not a single class of intersex conditions is not known" as there are many things about the human condition we do not know. There is much to be learned. The causes of many conditions are not genetic but we do know that exposure in utero to some things will cause changes in the offspring. These occur well after formation of the zygote. (Folate and neural-tube defects being an example of this.)How do these fit into God's plan? I don't know but I would think that the same explanation we have for "why do people suffer?" would be the same. God doesn't cause the suffering, He only allows it to serve a higher purpose. Then you have to consider that human societies often practiced infanticide and they would kill any infant that did not meet certain standards.Then you have the question of what is homosexuality. You have stated that the line between a clitorous and a penis is not all that clear. In this way I think that human sexuality is more of a continuum rather than a discrete state. The term I have used is "polymorphic sexuality" and I'll wager that most of us actually exist in a state between the two extremes. We can and often do participate in bisexual behaviors. You might note that the original lesbian was actually more of a bisexual than an exclusive same sex practitioner. Greeks by and large were bisexual although I would be careful about using them as a model of tolerance, they generally regarded women as sub-human.I do think that most Christians would do well to observe the Bible in it's completeness. They have omitted some crucial teachings from the Bible in their arguments against percieved sin. My favorite is:Luke 6:37--
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:I do think that you are correct in that the commandment is more against male prostitution than homosexual behavior. It makes no sense in an adaptive perspective to forbid this type of behavior.------------------
Bringer of fire, trickster, teacher.

Well I still think your answer won't budge the definition any. It can still be maintained logically.Whether a person is chromosomally one way or another is kind of beside the point. Normally reproductive organs get completed one way or the other. It just makes sense than that that would be their sex.It is only a minority where the development of these organs is not sufficient to say one way or the other what they are. Of course what they feel is a completely separate issue...I was thinking about this whole issue and my guess is back then such people would not only face the cruelty of not being able to have sex (morally), they'd have been considered abominations anyway as much as their deformity was noticable.Back then deformities pretty much meant death for a newborn. Sexual deformity would have to be at the top of that list.It was a cruel world back then, and so its not surprising to find their definitions running along those lines.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

The PENIS is a dual function "limb". While remnant sperm may come out during urination, and some urine may be present in the urethra at the start of sex, this does not in any way mean the waste removal and reproductive systems are one and the same.

---

Anytime you can get more than one use out of a structure, it will be done. There is an economy about this in an adaptive sense. Complexity is not always selected for, in fact you may see that often selective mechanisms favor simplicity.