Heard this the other day regarding homosexuals having sexual relations (although this likely applies to heterosexuals too) - “if it doesn’t hurt anyone, why is it wrong?”
Can any of you provide a reason why it is wrong or how it hurts people, without using theology, Scripture, or God?
If I had this conversation, I think it might go like this:
Them: If it doesn’t hurt anyone, why is it wrong?
Me: I think homosexual relations are wrong because I think it goes against the purpose of sex. What do you think?
Them: I think it’s not wrong as long as they don’t hurt anyone.
Me: Ok. It looks like we have two different ideas about what makes something right or wrong. I’ll give you the reasons for my belief if you give me the reasons for yours. Does that sound fair?
Them: Sure.
Me: Well, I think there is evidence that God made sex and gave us rules in the Bible about how to use it properly, and those rules exclude homosexual relations. What do you think?If you frame the conversation this way, I think a couple of benefits result. One is, it puts you in a position where you can defend Christian beliefs against specific objections. They might object that they don’t think homosexual relations go against the purpose of sex. If so, you can ask them what they think the purpose of sex is, and you can use evidence to show why you think the purpose of sex is for the union of male and female and the procreation of children.
Or they might object to your belief in God, or to your belief in the Bible, or your view that religion should be a part of public life. There are lots of resources for defending these beliefs. That’s one reason why I don’t think it’s wise to avoid using them. Instead, make it an issue of which is more reasonable: the biblical worldview or their worldview. Framing the discussion this way also lets God into the conversation at the center of what’s right and wrong, where I think He should be.
Plus, if you ask them to give you reasons for their position, I think they’ll just repeat that whatever doesn’t hurt anyone is okay. I think that’s what they’ll do because, at least in my experience, that position seems to be an assumption of theirs that they don’t have any evidence for. If they simply repeat that position, then you can point out that they haven’t give any reasons for it, which can be very persuasive in showing that their position is not reasonable.
Anyway, that’s how I would approach this discussion. Please let me know if it is helpful.