A silly simple question on sexual orientation (re gay marriage)

[Stylites]

A person may be born with a hormonal imbalance which manifests itself in a quick temper. Is being violent therefore okay? No.

 

[Publisher]

Many of the posts preceeding deal with the “sex act” only. The question arises “Well if homosexuality is an unchageable orientation…why can’t pedophiles then claim that their orientation should be accepted?”

The same ethics that govern heterosexual relationships should govern homosexual relationships.

Violence done to anyone is wrong. Violence done within heterosexual marriages is wrong. “But it’s my orientation to have a temper so I should be able to beat my wife up when I want.” "It’s my orientation to have sex with minors and children.’

The violent act of aggression toward another person is wrong. A “straight” couple who’s husband acts out violently…even to the point of “raping” his wife is just as wrong as a pedophile victimizing a child by forcing sex upon them. Destroying a child by forcing them to participate in a sexual encounter when they have no life experience or “power” to say “NO!!!” is an evil…whether it be “straight”, ‘gay" or "bisexual’ predation.

No one is advocating “promiscouity” or “child abuse” when same sex marriage is affirmed. The two same sex people have the same accountability as do their straight counterparts to treat their sexual lives with respect, honor, love, caring…something which is missing in pedastry…an adult victimizing a child against his or her will sexually is no more acceptable than anyone FORCING their sexual advances upon an unwilling partner…rape is rape no matter who it is conducted against.

A same sex couple has the capacity to love, honor, care and build a life together as do opposite sex couples.

All the “ethical” ramifications of same sex marriage are the same as with opposite sex marriages.

No one can claim that “I like sex with animals since that’s my orientation.”…can the animal consent? Is this not animal abuse?

Science doesn’t have all the answers when it comes to human sexuality…the field is relatively “new”…even if one does not condone the acceptance of same sex relationships one must frame the questions toward a single sexual ethic.

Gay people don’t have a “pass” on sexual promicouity…they are under the same “ethical concerns” as their straight counterparts.

The above is one of the “first” things which we addressed in the Meeting I attend. Once we got past some of the similar objections of same sex relationships…we were able to frame our questions which spoke more to the real human issue of sexuality and “love” that everyone seeks to find in their lives.

I have attended same sex weddings…and the Meeting I belong to have taken under their care same sex couples just as we would straight couples. The same issues that opposite sex couples deal with in the “Clearness Committee” is expressed with our same sex Friends who wish to place their marriage under the care of the Meeting.

Mutual love, respect and honoring that of God in one’s partner is at the crux of same sex relationships…just as in straight.

“Love”…“respect”…“honoring that of God” are not in place in pedophile relationships…the adult is the agressor…the child is the subject of their sexual violence…the same to a lesser degree in regard to beastiality…the injunction Friends embrace to “walk gently upon the Earth” does not include vicitimzing animals either by sheer physical brutality or sexual brutality.

 

[edwest2]

There’s a significant difference between something that destroys life and something that doesn’t produce life.

If someone remains single for his whole life, that choice doesn’t produce life, but it’s not destroying life.

You’re just not making any sense at all.

And again, all of those things cause demonstrable harm, unlike two consenting adults doing whatever behind closed doors. You are comparing apples and oranges.

edwest: No, it doesn’t deny any rights at all – you simply cannot legislate on the basis of religious dogma. Instead, you need – hold on to your hats, folks – good reasons and evidence based on observation of the world.

Look, if you want to believe homosexuality is bad because it violates some sort of religious dogma taboo, then knock yourself out. You just can’t use your religious belief – which is based on nothing but dogma and bald assertion – to legislate.

That’s not remotely taking away your rights. In fact, it preserves your rights because it protects you from other religious groups trying to legislate their dogma.

First, immorality has been legislated. Second, I encourage you to find out why homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973.

God bless,
Ed

 

[AmateurPianist]

Many of the posts preceeding deal with the “sex act” only. The question arises “Well if homosexuality is an unchageable orientation…why can’t pedophiles then claim that their orientation should be accepted?”

The same ethics that govern heterosexual relationships should govern homosexual relationships.

Violence done to anyone is wrong. Violence done within heterosexual marriages is wrong. “But it’s my orientation to have a temper so I should be able to beat my wife up when I want.” "It’s my orientation to have sex with minors and children.’

The violent act of aggression toward another person is wrong. A “straight” couple who’s husband acts out violently…even to the point of “raping” his wife is just as wrong as a pedophile victimizing a child by forcing sex upon them. Destroying a child by forcing them to participate in a sexual encounter when they have no life experience or “power” to say “NO!!!” is an evil…whether it be “straight”, ‘gay" or "bisexual’ predation.

No one is advocating “promiscouity” or “child abuse” when same sex marriage is affirmed. The two same sex people have the same accountability as do their straight counterparts to treat their sexual lives with respect, honor, love, caring…something which is missing in pedastry…an adult victimizing a child against his or her will sexually is no more acceptable than anyone FORCING their sexual advances upon an unwilling partner…rape is rape no matter who it is conducted against.

A same sex couple has the capacity to love, honor, care and build a life together as do opposite sex couples.

All the “ethical” ramifications of same sex marriage are the same as with opposite sex marriages.

No one can claim that “I like sex with animals since that’s my orientation.”…can the animal consent? Is this not animal abuse?

Science doesn’t have all the answers when it comes to human sexuality…the field is relatively “new”…even if one does not condone the acceptance of same sex relationships one must frame the questions toward a single sexual ethic.

Gay people don’t have a “pass” on sexual promicouity…they are under the same “ethical concerns” as their straight counterparts.

The above is one of the “first” things which we addressed in the Meeting I attend. Once we got past some of the similar objections of same sex relationships…we were able to frame our questions which spoke more to the real human issue of sexuality and “love” that everyone seeks to find in their lives.

I have attended same sex weddings…and the Meeting I belong to have taken under their care same sex couples just as we would straight couples. The same issues that opposite sex couples deal with in the “Clearness Committee” is expressed with our same sex Friends who wish to place their marriage under the care of the Meeting.

Mutual love, respect and honoring that of God in one’s partner is at the crux of same sex relationships…just as in straight.

“Love”…“respect”…“honoring that of God” are not in place in pedophile relationships…the adult is the agressor…the child is the subject of their sexual violence…the same to a lesser degree in regard to beastiality…the injunction Friends embrace to “walk gently upon the Earth” does not include vicitimzing animals either by sheer physical brutality or sexual brutality.

You do realize this statement directly contradicts your assertion that sexual orientation is GOD GIVEN (caps yours).

Why? If sexual orientation is GOD GIVEN, then a sexual orientation towards children is GOD GIVEN. And then you have a quandry of God giving a sexual orientation whose acts you (and everybody) admit are…well…wrong.

So since I know that at least one sexual orientation is not God given, I have absolutely no, nada, zilch reason to believe that any other sexual orientations that run counter to the witness of Scripture and the 2000 year old clear teaching of the church of Jesus Christ are God given either. So I think I will just go on believing that all sexual orientations other than man - woman are not God given. And I think I will just reject a nice, new 50 year old creative interpretation of Scripture (see my signature) as something that has its origin in something other than the Lord Jesus Christ, thank you very much.

 

[jmcrae]

Remember, you started by comparing homosexuality to things like alcoholism and drug-abuse. Those things are considered harmful not because family members think they’re yucky or because family members think that people who do them are gonna go to the naughty-place after they die…they are considered harmful because they do tangible, measurable harm to people’s bodies. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

Without getting into graphic detail, since there are children on board and possibly reading along - there are sexual practices which, if engaged in repeatedly, can cause serious physical damage.

I don’t think anyone seriously believes that homosexuals are just harmlessly cuddling on the couch, do they? They are trying to match body parts together that simply were not meant to be put together in that particular way - over and over again, until damage occurs.

 

[mflorence]

Ah, so can you tell us how homosexuality “destroys lives”?

Surely, you’re not going to say, “Homosexuals get diseases!” or “Some of them have unstable relationships!” because both are true of heterosexuals as well.

The fact of the matter is that all of our behaviors have some biological inclination behind them. Some things – like people drinking heavily when they are inclined towards alcoholism, for example – demonstrably cause harm and can result in death and destroyed relationships. Other things – like two consenting adults doing whatever the heck they like in privacy – are completely harmless, in addition to being absolutely nobody else’s business.

Religious opinions need to stay out of secular laws./QUOT

Fanned!

 

[havana1]

Without getting into graphic detail, since there are children on board and possibly reading along - there are sexual practices which, if engaged in repeatedly, can cause serious physical damage.

Is that why lesbians have the lowest rates of STI’s and HIV/AIDS?

 

[AntiTheist]

Without getting into graphic detail, since there are children on board and possibly reading along - there are sexual practices which, if engaged in repeatedly, can cause serious physical damage.

If you’re referring to anal sex, there are heterosexuals who practice this act as well, and I know for a fact that not all homosexuals engage in anal sex. So apparently your problem is not with homosexuality per se – you have a problem with a specific sex act.

Now maybe – just maybe – you could try to build an argument that this specific act should be illegal (for people of all sexual orientations)…but your argument would be really weak. We permit individuals to engage in all sorts of behaviors that are damaging to their body if they choose to engage in these behaviors: cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, excessive candy eating, and excessive fast-food eating are all far more detrimental to the body than anal sex.

Furthermore, there are all kinds of sexual practices that can damage the body. A variety of BDSM-oriented activities immediately leap to mind, all of them practiced by heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, and all perfectly legal.

If you’re really going to be a moral crusader who’s looking out for people’s bodies, why don’t you start by lobbying to make it a crime to eat too much fast food? Let us know how far you get.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Now maybe – just maybe – you could try to build an argument that this specific act should be illegal (for people of all sexual orientations)…but your argument would be really weak. We permit individuals to engage in all sorts of behaviors that are damaging to their body if they choose to engage in these behaviors: cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, excessive candy eating, and excessive fast-food eating are all far more detrimental to the body than anal sex.

Isn’t the above paragraph changing the game? We were talking about whether homosexual acts are wrong, and you are now talking about whether one such act should be illegal. Let’s return to whether it’s wrong. Now I think we can agree that some forms of self-harm – alcoholism, overeating, anorexia – are wrong. Are all forms of self-harm wrong? Are certain homosexual acts forms of self-harm?

 

[cecilia97]

If you’re referring to anal sex, there are heterosexuals who practice this act as well, and I know for a fact that not all homosexuals engage in anal sex. So apparently your problem is not with homosexuality per se – you have a problem with a specific sex act.

Now maybe – just maybe – you could try to build an argument that this specific act should be illegal (for people of all sexual orientations)…but your argument would be really weak. We permit individuals to engage in all sorts of behaviors that are damaging to their body if they choose to engage in these behaviors: cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, excessive candy eating, and excessive fast-food eating are all far more detrimental to the body than anal sex.

Furthermore, there are all kinds of sexual practices that can damage the body. A variety of BDSM-oriented activities immediately leap to mind, all of them practiced by heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, and all perfectly legal.

If you’re really going to be a moral crusader who’s looking out for people’s bodies, why don’t you start by lobbying to make it a crime to eat too much fast food? Let us know how far you get.

I haven’t heard anyone on this thread support the criminalization of homosexuality. You seem to be making assumptions about others’ positions based on a misunderstanding of their religious beliefs.

It’s fine to be against theists, but at least learn what you’re standing up against.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Spiritual disorder only sometimes results in visible or bodily consequences, it is the descent into further depravity and sin with the loss of prudence and temperance that more often results. This descent in this life continues into eternity with the resulting separation from God that ensues by rejecting Him here on earth. The true sinners lament will be for eternity. This is the message we need to give as eternity is forever.

Homosexuality is contrary to the divinely revealed Word of God. Does this mean anything to those who don’t care about or believe in God? No, not to those lost to the true meaning of life as a created being made by God. The life of virtue fails to register unless they are acted on by God Himself.

A movement toward God comes often at the end of life when one reflects on the past and sees what the selfishness and depravity has done to their soul. It is few that say they should have been more selfish, more prideful, more indulgent. This reflection opens one to the workings of the Spirit of God, and Jesus has given us the Divine Mercy message to St Faustina telling of redemption offered to any sinner. The smallest act of repentance combined with the infinite Merits of Jesus is worth eternal life for even the worst sinner. As Hans and Franz say, “Hear me now and believe me later”… just not too late I hope.

 

[Lutheranteach]

To say science is the mediator of understanding is just plain wrong. Scientists have been wrong more on any given subjects in history than other sources time and time again. I hate it when people say, "listen to the scientists they know the truth ".Anyway, there or many given testimonies of gay people going to straight. It is a choice to be gay, a sexual perversion of what God wants.

I think you could not be more wrong on that if you tried.

 

[jmcrae]

Is that why lesbians have the lowest rates of STI’s and HIV/AIDS?

These are not the only risks, as you well know.

 

[jmcrae]

Isn’t the above paragraph changing the game? We were talking about whether homosexual acts are wrong, and you are now talking about whether one such act should be illegal. Let’s return to whether it’s wrong. Now I think we can agree that some forms of self-harm – alcoholism, overeating, anorexia – are wrong. Are all forms of self-harm wrong? Are certain homosexual acts forms of self-harm?

Precisely. And by the way, there is more than just anal sex, where something larger than fits is put into an opening smaller than the object was designed for, and again, with children reading along, I’m not going to get into detail. Anal sex is probably the most famous example, of course.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Ah, so can you tell us how homosexuality “destroys lives”?

It destroys the lives of the persons who engage in homosexual acts, because the acts (whether they cause physical harm or not) are objectively morally disordered and place the two freely consenting individuals into a perilous position with respect to their eternal salvation. On a more human level, studies show that persons engaged in a homosexual lifestyle, are more prone to mental and physical illnesses, have a decreased lifespan compared to heterosexual perons, and are more likely to be the victims of abuse by their partners. You can read a summary of the studies, with citations, in this special report about “gay marriage” here.

AntiTheist:

Surely, you’re not going to say, “Homosexuals get diseases!” or “Some of them have unstable relationships!” because both are true of heterosexuals as well.

Heavens no! But I would say that studies show homosexuals are certainly more at-risk than heterosexuals for certain physical, mental and emotional problems. I would never take the absurd position that heterosexuals are “perfect” and “homosexuals” are bad per se. That would be disengenuous.

Anti-Theist:

The fact of the matter is that all of our behaviors have some biological inclination behind them. Some things – like people drinking heavily when they are inclined towards alcoholism, for example – demonstrably cause harm and can result in death and destroyed relationships.

True. Authentic Christianity teaches that we are called to overcome these natural tendencies that arise from our fallen human nature.

Anti-Theist:

Other things – like two consenting adults doing whatever the heck they like in privacy – are completely harmless, in addition to being absolutely nobody else’s business.

Hmm? I’ll assume that your reference is to two consenting adults engaging in homosexual sex acts in private, and this action being harmful to no one… But that’s really not the issue presented in the original post. While I would say that these two persons are engaging in disordered unnatural acts that are objectively gravely sinful, we all have the “right” to engage in sinfull (but legal) conduct like drunkenness and self-abuse. But as Christians we have the obligation to respond to Christ’s call to chastity, temperance, and restraint.

Anti-Theist:

Religious opinions need to stay out of secular laws.

Why? Are you saying that if a person’s morality is shaped by a certain set of beliefs (christian, muslim, hindu) they should be completely removed from the legislative process? Why is it a bad thing to allow persons to voice their moral opinions in the context of shaping social policy? Isn’t that a good thing? Do we not ascribe to the notion of a marketplace of ideas? If these christian morals (which have endured through the centuries) remain, shouldn’t you concede that at least on some level they have contributed to a stable society in which tolerance is the norm? Indeed, it is Christian Western ideals that have allowed Atheism to remain protected speech activity. Try shouting, “There is no God” in Mecca and see how far you get… And couldn’t the same argument (atheism should be removed from politics) be turned upon you in a less accepting and tolerant society?

Peace,
Robert

 

[Nicea325]

It destroys the lives of the persons who engage in homosexual acts, because the acts (whether they cause physical harm or not) are objectively morally disordered and place the two freely consenting individuals into a perilous position with respect to their eternal salvation. On a more human level, studies show that persons engaged in a homosexual lifestyle, are more prone to mental and physical illnesses, have a decreased lifespan compared to heterosexual perons, and are more likely to be the victims of abuse by their partners. You can read a summary of the studies, with citations, in this special report about “gay marriage” here.

Heavens no! But I would say that studies show homosexuals are certainly more at-risk than heterosexuals for certain physical, mental and emotional problems. I would never take the absurd position that heterosexuals are “perfect” and “homosexuals” are bad per se. That would be disengenuous.

True. Authentic Christianity teaches that we are called to overcome these natural tendencies that arise from our fallen human nature.

Hmm? I’ll assume that your reference is to two consenting adults engaging in homosexual sex acts in private, and this action being harmful to no one… But that’s really not the issue presented in the original post. While I would say that these two persons are engaging in disordered unnatural acts that are objectively gravely sinful, we all have the “right” to engage in sinfull (but legal) conduct like drunkenness and self-abuse. But as Christians we have the obligation to respond to Christ’s call to chastity, temperance, and restraint.

Why? Are you saying that if a person’s morality is shaped by a certain set of beliefs (christian, muslim, hindu) they should be completely removed from the legislative process? Why is it a bad thing to allow persons to voice their moral opinions in the context of shaping social policy? Isn’t that a good thing? Do we not ascribe to the notion of a marketplace of ideas? If these christian morals (which have endured through the centuries) remain, shouldn’t you concede that at least on some level they have contributed to a stable society in which tolerance is the norm? Indeed, it is Christian Western ideals that have allowed Atheism to remain protected speech activity. Try shouting, “There is no God” in Mecca and see how far you get… And couldn’t the same argument (atheism should be removed from politics) be turned upon you in a less accepting and tolerant society?

Peace,
Robert

Hello Robert! So you are from San Diego? I grew up in No.County in Escondido and currently live in Riverside,CA. So what part of the county are you from? If you do not mind me asking?

 

[larkin31]

I for one agree 100% with the Catholic church on this issue.

So does my church.

I like that article and agree with it.

I I believed that same-sex sexual orientation came from God, consistency would force me to believe that the sexual orientations toward children come from God.

Then I would either be forced to believe that paedophilia a part of God’s design, or that God gave some sexual orientations that were not meant to be acted on.

To me, the simplest explantion is that alternate sexual orientations are somehow a part of the fall and do not come from God. I think that is what your article is saying, albeit in a lot more words.

Then why did you start this thread? You already have the answer to the question that you posed, which, as the word suggests, seems more “posture” than actual seeking an answer.

 

[larkin31]

Isn’t the above paragraph changing the game? We were talking about whether homosexual acts are wrong, and you are now talking about whether one such act should be illegal. Let’s return to whether it’s wrong. Now I think we can agree that some forms of self-harm – alcoholism, overeating, anorexia – are wrong. Are all forms of self-harm wrong? Are certain homosexual acts forms of self-harm?

Most forms of self-harm are not wrong in their mild degrees. How else could we go to work and get through a day? So it is all a matter of degree, and nearly all forms of consensual adult sex can be practiced safely and healthily. Do some botch it, though? Sure. Some can’t hold their liquor, either, but most of us do just fine with it.

 

[mflorence]

In another thread somebody articulated this sentence:

This I think sums up the Christian pro gay marriage argument quite well:
(1) Since science teaches that sexual orientation is an immutable human characteriestic, one therefore must conclude that one’s sexual orientation comes from God
(2) Since the diverse sexual orientations come from God, as a Christian we should embrace this God given diversity.
(3) There is nothing wrong with acting on the sexual orientation that God has given. Society must not discriminate at all on the basis of sexual orientation.

Yet elsewhere in this thread I learned that science teaches there are actually seven sexual orientations:

(later on in that thread I also learned there was a sexual orientation towards animals)

My simple question is do you apply these statements to all sexual orientations that science says exist.

If not, then why should I believe these arguments at all since they are not applied to all sexual orientations science says exist.

Why can’t I believe that maybe sexual orientation just might be a result of living in a fallen world and there are some sexual orientations (2-7) that God says acting out on are contrary to what He has designed.

Hello AmateurPianist: I have been reading your post, and it’s quite interesting. I think that the references to homosexual behavior go back to the Old Testament. There are a number of references to it, but I can’t recall where it first shows up. I like talking about direct biblical references - tracing things back to their source. I think biblical references are an essential foundation to any assertions on religious topics. So I asked around on some others posts, but I never really got an answer on this one. I had been hoping that someone knew offhand, but I guess I’ll have to look.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Most forms of self-harm are not wrong in their mild degrees. How else could we go to work and get through a day?

I suppose you’re talking about smoking in moderation, or drinking in moderation, or some such thing? If so, then I would say that these are not forms of self-harm. They may kill brain cells, or damage lungs somewhat, but this is not harm – no more than playing football and sometimes getting hurt is self-harm!

Those things that are truly self-harming are those things that affect our happiness and well-being. For example, anorexia or pornography addiction or self-mutilation – these are all ways that we can truly harm our psyches, and make it difficult for ourselves to experience happiness and health.