Harm in Homosexuality?

I agree completely... Let's review, shall we? Message 22:

quote:

---

I ask those who think that homosexuality is immoral: How can a characteristic determined by genetics be immoral?

---

Message 24:

quote:

---

First off let me say that I think there is nothing immoral about homosexuality, I think that is clear from my posts. BUT I do not agree that the cause of a temptation has any bearing on the morality of ones actions. [emphasis added]

​

Let's say, for the sake of argumnet, that pedophilia is determined by genetics in the same way. Now, that may or may not make pedophilic feelings moraly relevant, but pedophilic BEHAVIOR is still very, very wrong.

​

The cause of the temptation is irrelivant, actions are right or wrong depending on the circumstances and the individuals harmed, not the source of the desire. [emphasis added]

---

I don't see how you could interpret this as saying that homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia. He wasn't even talking about homosexuality at the time. It seems clear to me that he was simply saying that a behavior can be immoral even if one is genetically inclined to act in that way - in other words, genetics shouldn't even be considered in judging the morality of the behavior. Instead, the outcome of it for all people involved should be. I wonder, if he had said anything else instead of pedophilia (say, a predisposition to violent rage), would people have reacted the same way? Perhaps it's that people are too used to the association of the two by those who oppose homosexuality.

quote:

---

Why don't we start with what good comes from homosexuality. Health and emotional and social...etc. Can you give me one?

---

That's not really necessary, although see Message 65 if you feel they are. Let's just say, hypothetically, that there was no good. As long as no harm came from it, either, what makes it immoral? Absence of good is not the same as evil.No, the question is, outside of a biblical viewpoint, what makes homosexuality or homosexual acts inherently evil? What harm comes from them, to the people involved or society in general? Why, from God's point of view (if you believe the Bible speaks against it), is it something that needs to be banned?Or is it just another example of wearing clothes made from two threads?If you cannot come up with an answer that has no religious basis, there is no reason that homosexuals should not be given full equality in a free, democratic society that separates church from state in matters of law.

quote:

---

Did you take the time to read pink sasq post #59 about how 60% (I think it was) of the gays in the study were suicidal. Yeah, one happy bunch of people.

---

Even if this were true (and I'm skeptical, given the high percentage - but I'm too tired for research on it now, so that will have to wait until tomorrow), don't you think that part of the cause of those feelings might be the way society reacts to homosexuality, rather than the homosexuality itself?{Added in edit: I just noticed pink sasquatch's response along the same lines, despite reading through the thread before (yes, I'm that tired. )... So in response to Message 61, you still haven't addressed the possibility, Zachariah, instead dodging it with... well, with the accusation of the accusation of homophobia. Think of it - you're told everyday that the life you're living is wrong, that you will be sent to hell for being who you are instead of suppressing your feelings and living a lie. Surely you must recognize that this would have an effect on people.}This message has been edited by Morte, 11-15-2004 02:16 AM

quote:

---

I say we come up with a constitutional amendment to ban milk in this country.

​

And a lactopinophobe in the same forum! What is this world coming to?

---

"Lactopinophobe"? That's a new one for me. But I think he stated it quite clearly the first time - he's lactose intolerant.

quote:

---

Can you show me that in the bible?

---

Again, irrelevant - the point I was making was that homophobia and the way society treats homosexuals, as has been stated clearly several times, is more likely a cause of a higher suicide rate than their sexual orientation itself. Homosexuals face that kind of thing all the time. Of the homosexual friends I have, all have been called evil bastards who would go to hell, blamed for terrorism in some form or another, or threatened at least once in their lifetime. Two have lost jobs almost immediately following "coming out". I know that there was also recently an incident here of a homosexual being beat up at the local high school by a group of intolerant kids (from what they said, it was clear that his orientation was at least part of the reason they were doing so). I recognize that these are just anecdotal examples, but the point I'm making is that whether the Bible states it or not is irrelevant; what I was speaking of the way society treats homosexuals, not whether its reasons for doing so have a reasonable basis.

quote:

---

Though, I think it is obvious that the term "drinking" only refers to non-dairy drinks - thus we need to use a separate but equal term for dairy, "ingestion by mouth."

---

Why is it that your side always seems to assume that dairy only consists of milk? "Drinking" is not the only way that dairy products can be consumed. Like everyone on your side, you assume that when we speak of dairy, we only mean milk and not other dairy products.Despite claims that dairy products are "less healthy" than other forms of food and drink, eating cheese is actually the safest form of consumption there is. Clearly if the health of consumers is an indication of God's favor, the cheese-eaters are in fact the most highly favored.(Okay, that was a stretch, I know... but I saw the parallel and had to take it. )

quote:

---

So far the only reason given for why God outlaws homosexuality is that he will punish homosexuals. Essentualy they are saying that homosexuality is wrong becase God says homosexuality is wrong and that God says homosexuality is wrong becase homosexuality IS wrong. But no one has given a good reason why!

---

If I understand what holmes is saying, one of the points he's trying to make is that to many, this is a good reason why. Their moral systems are based on what God says. To you, and to me, it is circular argument, but what you are asking is for them to use a separate moral system to explain why they believe it is wrong. I agree that it is not a good reason, but they don't, and that seems to be the crux of it.Now, I actually had been thinking about starting a thread along these lines earlier (complaints about the number of threads on homosexuality made me hesitant), so perhaps I might be able to ask it in a different way.holmes:Many times people justify God's reasoning behind certain laws by explaining the necessity of such laws from a secular viewpoint. For example, the ban on certain meats, mentioned earlier in the thread (if I recall), is often attributed to the unhealthiness of them and the disease they could cause at the time due to unsanitary conditions. For the same reason, since we can ensure sanitary, healthy products today, most Christians ignore this law, believing it was not meant to be eternal and God's reasons for it are no longer an issue. The ban on tattoos and sowing a field with mixed seed are similar examples.Now, it has been stated that homosexuality was prohibited because it was detrimental to tribes' or families' ability to reproduce and therefore to survive as a group. However, today we live in a society where this is no longer an issue - and in fact, an increase in the number of couples willing and able to adopt could be considered beneficial - so why is this law still applicable when others, also deemed unnecessary in today's world, are revoked?

quote:

---

Gay people have the right to marry anyone they want - of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals have the right to marry anyone they want - of the opposite sex.

---

Black people had the same right to marry anyone they want - of the same race, just as white people had the right to marry anyone they want - of the same race.I know this comparison is very tired by now, but it seems a rather important line to draw. So as not to overload you with questions at once, just the one until you respond - would you say that proponents of interracial marriage weren't fighting for equal rights, but additional rights?