How is Homosexuality Wrong, by Reasoning?

[Callin]

I’m new here. Lately I’ve been finding myself in all sorts of religious debates, both online and in college, so I joined. One topic which has come up is homosexuality.

To make a long story short, one of my friends is asking for logical proof that homosexuality is wrong. Basically, he doesn’t want me to say it’s wrong “because the Bible says so.” He wants evidence. His main argument is “what’s wrong with a homosexual if he’s not hurting/affecting people who don’t share his beliefs? Can’t they be left alone?”

I would really be able to give a good answer on this, but unfortunately I can’t think of one. Thanks in advance for any help!

 

[monica1950]

Hi welcome aboard. whether or not your friend wants to hear it or not your best defense is THE BIBLE for many reasons.Read Genesis 2:21-24 for a starter reference. It states, So the Lord God cast a deep sleep on the man and then took out him one of his ribs. He built up into a woman the rib that he taken from the man.When he brought her to the man the man said “This one , at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body. Since mankind is charged with procreation, it makes no sense for like sexual partners to lie together, for if GOD had wanted it that way He would deemed it that way in the first place. Then look in the BIBLE for the abomination it is in GOD’S eyes. If we are reflections of God’s image shouldn’t we also think the way that He does.

 

[roanoker]

Want proof? At the risk of being too graphic, I would suggest that your friend consider the reproductive organs of animals, us included.
That makes it pretty clear. Roanoker

 

[rpp]

I wish people would use the “SEARCH” function. This topic has been discussed to death.

 

[Polaris]

I wish people would use the “SEARCH” function. This topic has been discussed to death.

Next time send a private message or give him a link to one of those past topics. He asked a question no reason to belittle him.

To give a logical reason, you must accept a natural law definition, which was proposed by the church. Natural Law though is a area of high contension, just compare Ayn Rands definition to the Catholic version or to what ever version you want. None agree which odd if it was written on our hearts. Outside of that you start having problems saying its illogical. Goodluck. I just accept it on faith and avoid the topic because I have a habit of being a devils advocate.

 

[rpp]

Next time send a private message or give him a link to one of those past topics. He asked a question no reason to belittle him.

I came up with a whole long list of “next times” in response to this post.

In charity I chose not to post them. Apparehntly, have not been on this forum long enough to know about the huge number of troll this place attracts.

The post I made was public for a reason. That reason is self evident.

And no one was being belittled. Except Catholics.

 

[blessedtoo]

I wish people would use the “SEARCH” function. This topic has been discussed to death.

Maybe we’ve been around too long, rpp.

 

[po18guy]

To make a long story short, one of my friends is asking for logical proof that homosexuality is wrong.

It is diametrically opposed to “the natural law”. Just Google that, and read up.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…, one of my friends is asking for logical proof that homosexuality is wrong. … He wants evidence… His main argument is “what’s wrong with a homosexual if he’s not hurting/affecting people who don’t share his beliefs? Can’t they be left alone?”…

There is more here than meets the eye, first what type of proof is he really looking for, second is it really possible to not “affect” others, and 3) to what extent are they to be left alone?

The Church teaches homosexuality is “disordered” thinking which means the person involved does not see the problem. For example your friend probably understands homosexuals can not procreate because they are not designed in that way. Additionally, your friend probably understands the design of man & woman to have physical relations. Your friend probably does not understand the design of the emotional relationships between a man and a woman. Lastly concerning “leave them alone” certainly the homosexuals are to be treated the same as anyone else. Often we do not know who are homosexual and who is not. Should it occur we identify the condition we should not act offended but rather make sure they are properly educated on the subject, after that it is up to them whether to be chaste or not, and you and I will not know whether that occurs

 

[markomalley]

I’m new here. Lately I’ve been finding myself in all sorts of religious debates, both online and in college, so I joined. One topic which has come up is homosexuality.

To make a long story short, one of my friends is asking for logical proof that homosexuality is wrong. Basically, he doesn’t want me to say it’s wrong “because the Bible says so.” He wants evidence. His main argument is “what’s wrong with a homosexual if he’s not hurting/affecting people who don’t share his beliefs? Can’t they be left alone?”

I would really be able to give a good answer on this, but unfortunately I can’t think of one. Thanks in advance for any help!

Convex fits with Concave, not with Convex. Concave fits with Convex, not with Concave. When convex is joined with concave, reproductive processes can follow. Reproduction is a good thing, biologically speaking, thus the neurological system of the species provides a very pleasurable response to the act of fitting convex with concave. Actions from the endocrine system increase the desire to achieve that pleasurable feeling. The psychology follows from the physiological.

The problem with homosexuality, as I see it (without religious reference), is that it mocks the natural process. A person can get the neurological reaction and the psychological action without any possibility of reproduction (which is why sex exists in the first place…from a strictly biological point of view). If homosexuality was the norm, the species would cease to exist in short order.

 

[Newbie2]

I wish people would use the “SEARCH” function. This topic has been discussed to death.

Yeah, but then you’d not have a chance to post how it’s been discussed to death.

But to the OP. What sort of reasoning are you looking for?

Natural Law is probably the best fit (no pun intended ) Anatomy is ordered toward a specific goal. Mouths are for eating, rear ends for eliminating and reproductive organs for reproducing.

 

[CapIV]

catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

The natural function of sexuality is procreation. Homosexual sex can never result in procreation. Therefore, homosexual sex is by definition hedonistic. Hedonism is wrong. Because sexuality is our most basic instinct, treating it in a hedonistic way will affect the rest of our lives. We may start to do other things in hedonistic ways. We will start to focus on all pleasure all the time. We will start to have too much pride, and be gluttonous.

Also, homosexual sex is extremely unhealthy because those parts of the body are not meant for each other. The risk of disease is increase 100 fold by anal sex.

The Natural partner for a human is a human, not an animal. THe natural partner for a man is a woman, not another man. This is completely obvious in nature. Anything else is a perversion of nature.

 

[Polaris]

catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

The natural function of sexuality is procreation. Homosexual sex can never result in procreation. Therefore, homosexual sex is by definition hedonistic. Hedonism is wrong. Because sexuality is our most basic instinct, treating it in a hedonistic way will affect the rest of our lives. We may start to do other things in hedonistic ways. We will start to focus on all pleasure all the time. We will start to have too much pride, and be gluttonous.

Also, homosexual sex is extremely unhealthy because those parts of the body are not meant for each other. The risk of disease is increase 100 fold by anal sex.

The Natural partner for a human is a human, not an animal. THe natural partner for a man is a woman, not another man. This is completely obvious in nature. Anything else is a perversion of nature.

Okay If we are going to start this thread. Im going to try to be the devil and try to help.

he asked for logic, saying it hedonistic is not logic.

Be careful how you use “nature”. If the op looks up nature and homosexuality, they are going to find support for it and its purpose in nature, so you have to define nature first. Now the challange for you is to define it without using nature as defined by the church. Since the church comes from the stand point that we were created for God and that is our nature. If you are an athiest or a lacking christian (predestination in the calvin sense) this is not logical so the entire arguement falls apart.

Stop using the anatomy as the reason its wrong. The male part is also used for elimination of wastes. It has two functions. Is one evil? Second you also have to explain the placement of the prostate. (hope I do not get band for this if it is to graphic I apologizes) The prostate, a gland, is stimulated by the activity we are discussing and its results are said to be more powerful. (I dont know ) Also The female male reproductive system is not as matched as we would like to pretend. Sex always causes ripping and is damaging to the woman, plus the fact that her chance of infection(yeast or bacteria) is always higher than a virgin.

If you are going to say that the primary porpuse of sex is reproduction you have to defend infertile/sterile people having sex which is not that easy. That is going to be the next question out of thier mouth. If you say it is for union than you have to defend that against the monogomous homosexual, yes they exsist I know three couples, who do show a union quality.

Also you have to defend your concept of sex with the history change. Sex in history was about the domination of a weaker being. Woman were little better than animals/property. It was dishonarble for a man to sleep with another man. Notice however the old testament makes no such command against woman. Now its about the support and love of two equals it no longer based around domination or superiority. This causes more troubles in defending the classical concept of sex which is the basis of the catholic version of sex.

(This is not an easy topic. You basically have to convert them to accept an entire chrisitian “philosophy” If you do that you will be fine but an arguement based on logic, can always be established in the procamp.)

 

[CapIV]

Hedonistic means that you do something just for pleasure. It is just a definition. Have you ever studied logic before? Homosexuality cannot result in procreation, therefore it is hedonistic. I don’t understand how this isn’t logical. It is just the definition of hedonistic.

Nature means Natural Law. I would think that this is pretty obvious. For example, we can naturally kill someone but it is against nature because it does not coincide with Natural Law. I don’t see how this is complicated at all.

I didn’t use Christian arguments. And also, I was just being very basic to give him a grounding for the argument. And if you follow those links, you will find that there is more than just biblical arguments.

And are you seriously suggesting that the rectum is better suited for sex than the vagina? Give me a break. Take a biology course or something.

 

[iamrefreshed]

His main argument is “what’s wrong with a homosexual if he’s not hurting/affecting people who don’t share his beliefs? Can’t they be left alone?”

I would really be able to give a good answer on this, but unfortunately I can’t think of one. Thanks in advance for any help!

I guess, with God removed, nothing is ‘wrong with a homosexual if he’s not hurting/affecting people who don’t share his beliefs’.

I would ask your friend if he felt the same way about incest, polygamy and prostitution if they are ‘not hurting/affecting people who don’t share’ those beliefs?

 

[Polaris]

Hedonistic means that you do something just for pleasure. It is just a definition. Have you ever studied logic before? Homosexuality cannot result in procreation, therefore it is hedonistic. I don’t understand how this isn’t logical. It is just the definition of hedonistic.

Nature means Natural Law. I would think that this is pretty obvious. For example, we can naturally kill someone but it is against nature because it does not coincide with Natural Law. I don’t see how this is complicated at all.

I didn’t use Christian arguments. And also, I was just being very basic to give him a grounding for the argument. And if you follow those links, you will find that there is more than just biblical arguments.

And are you seriously suggesting that the rectum is better suited for sex than the vagina? Give me a break. Take a biology course or something.

How is being hedonistic wrong? … Your answer is most likely a christian idea of morals. Also if it is hedonistic defend the sterile couple. A gay man sometimes loves his partner and wants to show it to him. He is not doing it for a selfish reason if it is for him.

You are not giving him a basic at all. You just say Natural law. What is the basis of you natural law. A christian understanding of creation. God has written it on your heart. Defend the “Well God never wrote that on my heart so I guess that ok.”
Its not universal in the understanding and you have to defend why.

For instance I had to learn to accept marriage as a good thing and not a tool for the oppression and domination and the legalization of rape of woman. Natural law is a pretty large jump in understanding of philosophy and the implications of the nature of man.

Plus there have been many philosophies proposed that operate outside of this christian context. If that person operates in that mode you are speaking nonsense.

Ill spell it out, natural law is a christian(Catholic) arguement.

You have to convert there entire mind to christian philosophy to accept it as wrong. You can not use logic alone that is why christian are loosing the arguement.

Finnally I never said it is better suited but it still can operate to unify two people in that it gives both pleasure.

 

[Polaris]

I guess, with God removed, nothing is ‘wrong with a homosexual if he’s not hurting/affecting people who don’t share his beliefs’.

I would ask your friend if he felt the same way about incest, polygamy and prostitution if they are ‘not hurting/affecting people who don’t share’ those beliefs?

Monogomous Marriage can hurt woman just as easliy so if it does hurt someone should it be thrown out?

Many people believe that there is nothing wrong with prostituion and polygamy. Aslo Polygamy does not go against natural law. It is only a christian idea. Prostitution is legal in other countries and does quite well and empowers many women and men. It just this countries puritian roots limiting it.

Incest operates on the same level as rape, but the old testament is full of it so I guess it is ok. Since the law of god does not change.

Now you defend away. These are going to be the responses. Trust me I know.

 

[buffalo]

**Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic

** There is no shame in believing a lie until you learn the truth.
The success of so-called “gay rights” is an amazing triumph of clever deception over simple logic. When it comes to this issue, otherwise intelligent people routinely fall for arguments that just don’t hold up under scrutiny. “Gay” sympathizers aren’t necessarily more gullible than other people, they are simply tricked into accepting certain conclusions without first examining the underlying premises.
He who defines the terms controls the debate – and by extension, public opinion. On this issue the terms have been defined (in many cases invented) by the talented sophists of the “gay” movement.
Sophistry, it must be noted, is the ancient Greek art of persuasion by subtly false reasoning. The key to overcoming sophistry is to simplify and clarify what the sophists have intentionally made complex and vague. That process begins by defining the terms and concepts being used in the arguments. One quickly discovers that most arguments advocating “gay rights” depend upon hidden false assumptions and deliberately ambiguous terms. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Among the most common terms and concepts in the “gay rights” debate are: homosexuality, sexual orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination, homophobia and tolerance. These words and phrases are used by “gay” sophists to frame the question of homosexuality as a civil rights issue. It is a context chosen to favor homosexuals to the extent that they cast themselves as victims and their opponents as oppressors, yet even within this context, “gay” arguments are easily refuted.

more…

 

[iamrefreshed]

Monogomous Marriage can hurt woman just as easliy so if it does hurt someone should it be thrown out?

Who said anything about a woman being hurt?

Many people believe that there is nothing wrong with prostituion and polygamy. Aslo Polygamy does not go against natural law. It is only a christian idea.

Please tell me…where is this ‘natural law’ written down?

Prostitution is legal in other countries and does quite well and empowers many women and men. It just this countries puritian roots limiting it.

Please explain how prostitution ‘empowers’ women and men.

Incest operates on the same level as rape, but the old testament is full of it so I guess it is ok. Since the law of god does not change.

Why are incest and rape the same? Rape is always against one’s will. Incest can be consensual

Now you defend away. These are going to be the responses. Trust me I know.

BTW, I’m opposed to all these things. But since the OP gave ‘mutual consent’ as the basis for advocating homosexuality it must also be a valid excuse for incest, prostitution and polygamy.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m new here. Lately I’ve been finding myself in all sorts of religious debates, both online and in college, so I joined. One topic which has come up is homosexuality.

To make a long story short, one of my friends is asking for logical proof that homosexuality is wrong. Basically, he doesn’t want me to say it’s wrong “because the Bible says so.” He wants evidence. His main argument is “what’s wrong with a homosexual if he’s not hurting/affecting people who don’t share his beliefs? Can’t they be left alone?”

I would really be able to give a good answer on this, but unfortunately I can’t think of one. Thanks in advance for any help!

Wow. This is so sad on so many levels.

How have we come to the place where people of good will can’t see at a single glance what’s wrong with homosexuality? Have we all gone blind?

I think what you need to do is gently explain the facts of life to your friend, explain what the purpose of sex is, and how it is done, and what it is that homosexuals do, that is not like sex, and does not fulfill the purpose of sex, while damaging parts of the body that were never intended or designed to be used in the way that homosexuals use them.