Harm in Homosexuality?

This is pretty much a re-poasting (is that a word?) of an argument I made in a seprate debate but I thought it might be "threadworthy" (that should be a word).I would like someone to explain why God forbids Homosexuality. Christians argue that God does forbid it, but I want to know why. I will not be satified unless their explanation can show legitimate harm.This harm can not be arbitrary punishment from God i.e. "It is a sin becase God says it is" I want to know WHY God made homosexuality a sin. I will also not be satisfied by any answer that says that homosexuality is a choice because whether something is a choice or not is not an explanation of why it is wrong.I will also refuse to accept an explination that says that accepting homosexual behavior encorages more homosexual behavior. Because again this does not explain WHY IT IS HARMFULL. Let me also head off the "we will become extict argument" with 2 words "artifical insemination."This topic comes up a lot on this forum and I think it is related to the larger debate because creationists often make appeals to homosexuality being "unnatural" and Evo's make claims of it being "natural" becase we have many examples of it in the animal kingdom. I think it is important to realize that the "Naturalness" of something has no bearing on it's morality. Perhaps you disagree?

I have read the thread on "the Bible and homosexuality." It's just a huge argumnet about passeges in Corinthians and Romans and Leviticus etc.I don't want to discuss that. I want to discuss MORALITY.I'm willing to conceed, for the sake of argumnet, that God may have said to was immoral to be gay. But I want to know WHY. What about Homaosexuality is immoral? I don't want another 15 pages of bible quotes and interpretation but a nice even discussion about what may or may not be "wrong" with homosexuality.Let's leave open the question of whether God said it's wrong or not, and instead start talking about what makes actions or thoughts right or wrong to begin with.

Perhaps this is not the right forum to discuss homosexuality at all.But, if we ARE going to discuss it, could we have a conversation that talks about slightly more tangible aspects of the issue? I don't mean to disrespect the Bible but I think there are other issues that are worth discussing in this topic.Things like genetics, sociobiology, and the source of morality, could all play a part in this thread and these topics have been discussed on other threads to a large extent.Tell me if I'm wrong to bring this up here, but I care about this issue and I don't want to adress it in a purely biblical context.This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 11-13-2004 06:36 PM

Ahh, see! This is why I wanted to move to a more concrete mode of discussion, statistics, arguments using evidence and *gasp* adhering to forum guidelines!!!Now regarding the topic of AIDS and, in fact, any STD: Even if it were still true today that you were at a much higer risk of contracting an STD if you were gay, all that means is that it is more RISKY to be a sexualy active homosexual. Risky behavior is not always the same thing as immoral behavior.We still haven't adressed the issue of the "wrongness" of homosexuality. Aguments have been made and refuted about the riskyness of anal sex among homosexual males. I even think an argument could be made that it is wrong to engage in risky behavior.BUT all this means is that homosexuals should make sure that they have safe sex, well, that's sound advice for EVERYONE. Please address the topic of why homosexual feelings, thoughts, or actions are in any way immoral.

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.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.Pedophilic sex is NESSESARALY wrong because children are inevitably harmed by it. Even a "consenting" child should not be allowed to have sex with an adult because of the gross harm that would be done to the child.Homosexual sex, on the other hand, can be either right or wrong (as can Heterosexual sex) depending on the potential harm/good that can come from it.My challenge to those who believe otherwise is to prove that there is some moraly relevant reason why homosexuality is harmful.By the way, of course sexual orentation is detrumned by genetics. How else could any organisum that seeks out sexual partners know who to have sex with, or how?

Please be careful when responding to posts.I am NOT equating homosexuality with Pedophilia. I am only saying that what makes pedophilia wrong and homosexuality NOT wrong has nothing to do with genetic predispositon. Allow me to quote myself. Ok what can we see from this quote? Well first off we see that I think there is NOTHING WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALITY. I mean this in all possible senses, I don't think it is wrong for people to BE gay, have gay sex, Or fantasise about having gay sex. I think that gays should be allowed to marry.What I was saying in my post. Was that a genetic predispostion has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong to act on the urges of that predisposition. My argument was a REBUTTAL to the "standard equating homosexuality with pedophilia" NOT a reprisal.Ok let's respond to some charges here.Pink sasquatch wrote: No I would define homosexuality to mean "A sexual orentation that prefers members of the same sex over members of the opposite sex."And Rrhain wrote: The only way I equated homosexuality with pedophillia was by suggesting that they both had a genetic component. Let me also say that I also suggsted that HETEROsexuality has a genetic componet, all sexuality has a genetic component. I don't think that homosexuality leads to pedophilia or beatstiality anymore than I think heterosexuality leads to those things.He also wrote: I would not say that, seriously or otherwise. I wanted to draw a comparison becase I wanted to show how pedophillia is DIFFERENT from homosexuality because it can be between two people that CAN give consent whereas Pedohillia is between two people that CAN NOT have mutual consent.Holmes said: No, the reason I put 'constnting' in quotes was becase, as Rrhain pointed out I do not beleve that children are capable of giving consent for sex. I said consentual sexual activity does not cause harm, and that is why homosexuality is different that pedophillia. Because sex with children is harmful, whereas sex between members of the same sex is not harmful.He also said: Yes, and I would argue that even if there is harm cased by homosexual activity (and let me state again just to make it perfectly clear that I dont think there is) it is greatly outweighed by the harm caused when we deny gays the right to marry, adopt , have sex etc.Anti-gay arguments often hinge on the premise that it is a choice to become homosexual. The evedence refutes this, score one for the gay rights movement.But we need to be careful, because this is not an arguement for why it is not harmfull to act on homosexual urges, only a refutatiion of the idiotic argumnet that some people "choose" to be gay.I bring this up not to quibble, but becase I don't think our side has realy thought through what makes homosexuality endorseable. Homosexuaity does not cause harm and is therefore not wrong, Pedophilia can cause harm and is theerfore not endorseable.When homophobic movments ask us "Where do we draw the line?" I think the answer lies in harm.

First of all I would like to apologise to anyone who I might have offended by mentitioning pedophilia in a thread about homosesxuality.I know that it is a touchy subject because homosexuals are often accused of being pedophiles, which is unfair. I'm sure someone mentioned this already, but heterosexual men are far more likely to be pedophiles than homosexual men.The reason I mentioned it was to counter the sort of argument holmes made in previous posts, about harmfull sexuality being relative to the culture.As a culture we have to decide which kinds of behavors we are going to endorse. I think that we should endorse those that are not harmful and forbid those that are harmful. So when we look at the pantheion of sexual orentations out there we can make rational choices devoid of cultural bias.Now it is indeed unfair to lump pedophillia and homosexuality together as they are unrealted both in terms of the harm they cause and in terms of their causal realtionship. Indeed I think they are opposites. One causes harm the other does not, one is between consenting adults the other is not, we should endorse and support one and not the other.In order to get us back on topic,My challenge still remains to those who would wish to outlaw homosexuality or even think there is somthing wrong with it: Where is the harm? We have seen argumnets about STDs trotted out but I believe they have been amply refuted. Is there any other point you would like to make?

Again I'm very sorry if I offended you or anyone.The only point I was trying to make was that there is such a thing as bad sexual acts and such a thing as good sexual acts. Good sexual acts are those that do not cause harm, such as a sexual act between two consenting adults, regardless of their gender.P.S. I'm glad Im not on your enemy list. I hope I can make it onto your friend list.

It's never wrong to apologise when you have hurt a persons feelings, even if their feelings were hurt because they misinterpreted what you said.

Berberry writes: I think that this topic IS realted to the debate about evolution.Creationists/Fundimantalists think that our origins have something to do with our morality. If God created us in a certain way then we should behave that way. This is where the horrendous "God created adam and eve, not adam and steve" (shudder) argument comes from.If we can show that people ARE in fact "created" gay then that distroys the fundimentalist argument of it being "unnatural." But our task is not yet complete!We have proven that it is not wrong to BE gay (because we have no choice to be gay or straight) but we have not proven why it is ok to endorse gay rights.Fundimentalists who accept that it is "natural" to be gay make the slightly less offensive agument that "We should love the sinner hate the sin" (again shudder). They are essentualy saying that we should not blame gays for being gay, just blame them for wanting to marry etc.The reason I posted this thread was becase I wanted to have a discussion about how we can make moral decitions without adressing our origins. If people are born gay that doesn't make it right or wrong to be gay, if people decide to be gay and delibrately decide to become homosexual that STILL doesn't have any bearing on whether it is right or wrong to be gay!Fundimentalists can talk about biblical times and how we are created and Gods plan all they want! But the onus is on them to prove why our origins should have any bearing on our moral choices. Even if we weren't built to be gay, who cares! How we were built dosen't matter, all that matters is how we realte to others.

To me, no. To others it obviously means something since I hear the damn quote about "adam and steve" all the time.It's true that homosexual sex cannot produce offspring (at least in humans, hermaproditic species have homomosexual sex all the time since they are having homosexual sex with another hermaprodite). So we weren't "created" to be gay in that sense (though I think an argument can be made that homosexuals in a population can be evolutionarily advantagious).But just becase homosexual sex cannot produce offspring does this mean that it is wrong? If so is it wrong for an infertile couple to have sex?There are (at least) 3 types argumnets made against homosexual behavior.1) It is wrong because it is unatural: Well why does this make it wrong? Is it even unatural if people are born gay? What relevance does natruralness have to right and wrong?2) It is wrong becase it will make more people gay/harm the children: To say that more people will do something if we endorse it is not an argumnet as to why it is wrong. Again where is the harm? So what! The whole world turns gay, why would that be bad? And let me head off the stupid "we will become extinct" with those two magic words "artificial inseminiation."3) It is wrong becase God says it is wrong: Ok, I don't think thats true, but WHY do you think he decreed it to be wrong? God must have a reason for doing so what is it? Was it a completely arbitrary decree? Maybe God has a perfectly valid reason but refuses to tell us what it is. Is that actualy what you are saying? That seems like an awfully weak argument to me.Funimentalists, mainstream christians, and anyone who thinks homosexuality is "just wrong" I am looking in your direction does anyone want to take a stab at this? (edited for grammar)This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 11-14-2004 07:29 PMThis message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 11-14-2004 07:31 PM

Lizard breath responds to me: So earthworms, and snails, and bacteria, and all other hermaproditic or asexualy reproducing species became so after the fall? So, by this logic, an infertile heterosexual couple should not have sex? Alcoholisum has a genetic perdispositon AND it is wrong. Why? Because it is harmful! You still have not shown why homosexuality is harmful. You have only argued that it is somhow unnatural, who gets hurt when people are gay and allowed to marry, adopt, have sex, etc. Why is it wrong? No one has answerd this question yet. The only argument is that it is somehow unnatural. Why are unnatural things wrong? Driving a car is unnatural why isn't that wrong? What are your criteria for deturmining whether things are natural or not? Well I don't agree. But even if this were true that makes the "many other" sins wrong but does not make homosexuality wrong. Hmmm, so if you say there are no immediate tangable results does this mean you think there will be tangible results later from going against this "grand scheme"? If so, what are they and where is your evedence.

The tidal wave smashing into the shore IS wrong if it causes harm to people. If the tidal wave had made the choice to harm people we would say that that was wrong. Tidal waves, however, and other inorganic things cannot make choices. People can. A belief in genetic predisposition is not a beleif in deturminisum. You are claming that Homosexuality is somehow harmful, please explain the harm. We may not be able to agree on the same set of morals but we can agree on what the moraly relevant traits of an action are. Most appeals to morality are an appeal to sympathy. Why is it wrong to hurt others, becase you would not want to be hurt. Who gets hurt by homosexuality? Well we might not agree on which path to take. But we all agree that killing is regretable, if sometimes nessesary. It may or may not be wrong to kill in any given circumstance, but if it were possible to acheve the same results without killing wouldnt that be the RIGHT choice?Why is it the right choice to harm homosexuals, either the way they did in the old testiment (deplorable) or the way we do today (slightly less deplorable) by not allowing them to marry etc ? Where is the harm? If you can't find it fast then it means the only reason you deny gays rights is because you are made uncomfortable by homosexuality.This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 11-14-2004 11:56 PM

Absoulutely.

It is possible to imagine God issuing forth 3 kinds of laws.1) Good laws: This kind of law is the easyest to understand. A god that only promotes good laws could be said to be a good god. Good laws are those old favorites like "do unto others.." "Thou shalt not steal" etc. Good laws are laws that discorage harm and promote benifit.2) Arbitrary laws: Arbitrary laws are laws that cause neither harm nor benefit. Laws like "Don't wear two different kinds of cloth, Don't plant two kinds of crop next to eachother, always wear a hat out doors." These laws might exist to promote a good result such as setting apart the people who practice them from the general populace. Or they could just exist so that we would become better at follwing laws. They are arbitrary though, in that we could replace them with other laws and they would have the same effect. If orthodox jews wore red instead of a yamuke we would still be able to tell that they were jewish. A god who enforces arbitrary laws could be a good god or a bad god.3: Bad Laws: Bad laws are laws that cause needless harm. I can Imagine a good god giving out bad laws, but I would not beleive that the god was perfect if he did so. Note that a bad law might have some potentaly good aspects, just as arbirtary laws might have potentialy good aspects but the good aspects are outweighed by having to preform a bad deed.I would argue that outlawing homosexual behavior is a bad law. Homosexuals cannot choose to be striaght and have a great deal of harm done to them by homophobic people their culture. I can see only benifet from allowing gays to have the same rights as straights.As such, fobidding homosexuality is either an arbirtary law because there is some unseen benefit from fobidding homosexual behavior (And the burden of proof lies on you to show the benifit). Or it is a bad law (my claim) or God didn't make such a law or has repealed it (there is a sperate thread to adress this).As to the claims that I could never be satisfied or properly answred. I would change my opinion IF you could prove that outlawing homosexulity is a good law! In order to prove this you have to SHOW me some evedence that homosexuality is harmfull, or that outlawing it provides some benefit that outweighs the harm caused by such a law. No one has done this yet.If you truly beleve that God has forbidden homosexuality, and you agree with me that this is a bad law, you must either believe that God is imperfect or malicuous.Maybe you don't think God even makes arbitrary laws if this is true you STILL have to show either harm in allowing homosexual behavior, or benefit from outlawing it.