How can people say homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone

[Thorolfr]

LOL xD Yet they seem willing enough to rely on the Bible, which was also written by humans…the irony…

I let myself be guided by scripture but am willing to admit that there might be errors in it. I’m not a Biblical literalist and don’t think that scripture is infallible or inerrant although I’m sure that Luther did.

 

[Rau]

I let myself be guided by scripture but am willing to admit that there might be errors in it. I’m not a Biblical literalist and don’t think that scripture is infallible or inerrant although I’m sure that Luther did.

Indeed, that is necessary for a Christian to view homosexual unions as moral and proper. The omission of any positive presentation of such unions, held by some to be so fundamental, in Scripture demands an explanation, and the only one that presents would be oversight and human error. Is that explanation sufficient?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No.

Anal and oral sex is unnatural and spreads disease. It would be impossible for any celibate individual to spread disease. If they did…they wouldn’t be celibate.
The fact remains that the spread of STDs is at the epidemic level within the gay community. Whatever they are doing, anal, oral, or shaking hands…something is wrong and people are dying. The rate of disease is much lower the heterosexual community. They are doing something right.
So then the actor can be separated from the act, and it’s the act not the sexual orientation of the actors that increases the risk of spreading STDs.

LOL…I was just thinking…this is like the old “What came first? The chicken or the egg?”

You really cannot separate the actors from the act. The act is what the actors do because they do it. Without the actors the act would not occur and without the act the actors would have nothing to do. It takes actors to perform the act.

I think I saw a study showing that promiscuity was equal between straight men & women.
I will have to check it before I refute you on this.

Promiscuous men increase the risk of spreading disease.

According to the studies homosexual men have the highest rate of promiscuity. Stands to reason that homosexual men spread the most disease.

Only if one assumes that the majority of sexually active outside of marriage males are homosexual males; or that heterosexual males have some sort of immunity from spreading STDs that homosexual males don’t have due to being heterosexuals.

No!

There is no need for assumptions.

Promiscuous men increase the risk of spreading disease. FACT!

Homosexual men are more promiscuous than heterosexual men. FACT!

Since homosexuals make up less than 3% of the population, the majority of sexually active males would be HETROSEXUAL. Yet the small minority of homosexuals account for 50% of all new cases of STDs in the United States.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

There’s some sort of moral difference between actions taken against a homosexual woman and actions taken against a heterosexual women?

No

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Bell and Weinburg’s study is more than 36 years old. Can’t you come up with any more recent statistics than those? I’m sure that there are a lot more gay men in monogamous relationships some of whom are married than what there were in 1978.

If a more recent study was conducted that showed any change, I am certain that gay activists would be broadcasting it all over the world.

If you come up with a new one let me know.

 

[Thorolfr]

How are modern homosexuals different?

This is written in Romans 1 by St. Paul:
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [r]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

For one thing, the pagans referred to here exchanged or abandoned what was natural for them for what was unnatural for them. This implies that they were heterosexuals who were doing something against their nature. But if homosexuality is natural for a gay man, for example, he wouldn’t be abandoning what was natural for him. In fact, having sex with a woman would be unnatural for him or against his nature. Paul is only talking about those he considers to be otherwise heterosexually inclined then engaging in homosexual activity.

 

[Rau]

For one thing, the pagans referred to here exchanged or abandoned what was natural for them for what was unnatural for them. This implies that they were heterosexuals who were doing something against their nature. But if homosexuality is natural for a gay man, for example, he wouldn’t be abandoning what was natural for him. In fact, having sex with a woman would be unnatural for him or against his nature. Paul is only talking about those he considers to be otherwise heterosexually inclined.

Plse explain the natural role of sperm in a homosexual man joining with another man?

 

[SuperLuigi]

How can people say homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone, when it does damage to society by spreading disease? In fact any type of sexual activity outside of committed marriages causes harm by spreading disease. Does anyone have any insight?

In a nutshell, it’s just a lame, one-dimensional excuse to be cool, pro-gay “marriage” and get credit for being “tolerant”.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That just by existing a celibate homosexual is committing a sin?

Not to get too far off the subject…but the idea of a “celibate homosexual” is confusing.

We are all innately and unchangeably heterosexual.

Why would someone need to self identify as a homosexual if they are celibate???

If I were celibate I would just say: I’m celibate. (period)

Then again, if a homosexual is really and truly celibate, why would he or she be homosexual?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Not to get too far off the subject…but the idea of a “celibate homosexual” is confusing.

We are all innately and unchangeably heterosexual.

Why would someone need to self identify as a homosexual if they are celibate???

If I were celibate I would just say: I’m celibate. (period)

Then again, if a homosexual is really and truly celibate, why would he or she be homosexual?

Unfortunately for your argument your above assumption that we are all innately and unchangeably heterosexual is unproven.

 

[Catholic13]

In a nutshell, it’s just a lame, one-dimensional excuse to be cool, pro-gay “marriage” and get credit for being “tolerant”.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

No!

There is no need for assumptions.

Promiscuous men increase the risk of spreading disease. FACT!

Homosexual men are more promiscuous than heterosexual men. FACT!

Since homosexuals make up less than 3% of the population, the majority of sexually active males would be HETROSEXUAL. Yet the small minority of homosexuals account for 50% of all new cases of STDs in the United States.

And now we are back to you thinking that all homosexuals are men. I guess that’s because if we look at the STD rate among homosexual women and find that it is lower than the STD rate among heterosexuals as a whole and much lower than the STD rate among heterosexual men you’d have to conclude that your argument is invalid.

By your standards, one would have to conclude being male is harmful to society since men seem to be the common factor in the populations that have the highest rate of STD transfer.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That’s different because no one has said that an innate heterosexual inclination is disordered. But a homosexual inclination, even an innate one, is considered disordered according to the Church. So if homosexuality is innate (i.e. someone is born that way), then why would God make someone with a disordered inclination? According to Isaiah 64:8, “Yet, O Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.” So if an innate homosexual inclination is a defect, that would be implying that God has made a defective work.

The problem is that there exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. One cannot take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is “gay.” We must depend entirely upon a person’s claim that they are homosexual.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

In a nutshell, it’s just a lame, one-dimensional excuse to be cool, pro-gay “marriage” and get credit for being “tolerant”.

Really? What happens when one takes the OP’s rather simplistic and not very well thought out argument and replace homosexuality with heterosexual. Hmm, let’s find out-

“How can people say heterosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone, when it does damage to society by spreading disease? In fact any type of sexual activity outside of committed marriages causes harm by spreading disease. Does anyone have any insight?”

Oh look at that, the OP’s comment works equally as well and is equally as valid with heterosexuality as it is with homosexuality.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The problem is that there exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. One cannot take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is “gay.” We must depend entirely upon a person’s claim that they are homosexual.

So your comment in post #445 about heterosexuality being innate can’t actually be proven to be true.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Unfortunately for your argument your above assumption that we are all innately and unchangeably heterosexual is unproven.

Physiologically and biologically mankind is heterosexually designed. The only difference is some are men and others are women.

Why would this FACT of Nature have to be proven?

 

[Catholic13]

Oh look at that, the OP’s comment works equally as well and is equally as valid with heterosexuality as it is with homosexuality.

The difference is heterosexuals admit to it. Homosexuals and their supporters, for the most part, refuse to admit to it. They put their fingers in their ears and say "lalalalalalalala’ while they continue telling their favorite lie “homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So your comment in post #445 about heterosexuality being innate can’t actually be proven to be true.

Heterosexuality does not need to be proven.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Physiologically and biologically mankind is heterosexually designed. The only difference is some are men and others are women.

Why would this FACT of Nature have to be proven?

So homosexual activity can not be found in the animal kingdom? Or are we to assume that animal species that do display homosexual activity are somehow agents of the “pro-gay agenda”? The problem with your “it’s not natural therefore it has to be wrong” approach to homosexuality is that a) it ignores the spiritual aspect of humans and b) it’s not actually supported by nature.

 

[Thorolfr]

The problem is that there exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. One cannot take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is “gay.” We must depend entirely upon a person’s claim that they are homosexual.

That’s actually not true. Scientists can measure sexual arousal in gay men to erotic stimuli (such as gay pornography or pictures of naked men) just as they can measure sexual arousal in straight men to erotic stimuli (straight pornography or pictures of naked women). Besides, just to use your own argument, how can we tell that someone is heterosexual? There’s also no blood test or DNA test for that either.