What in essence makes homosexuality wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zimm3r
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dakota

**All sexual acts that are intrinsically closed to life are inherently wrong, oral and anal sex are wrong regardless of if heterosexuals or homosexuals do it. **

That covers masturbation as well, whether by heterosexuals or homosexuals.

But the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for masturbation. They were singled out for destruction because of a specifically unnatural act between same sex partners. If there are to be degrees of mortal sinning in the sexual realm, it would seem that sodomy is the most unnatural and therefore offensive, even though masturbation is likely the more universal.

Sodomy and masturbation are both damnable sins. The only sense we can make of this is to adopt the logic of Dante. That just as there are many different mansions being prepared for us in the Father’s house, there are many different dungeons being prepared for us in the bowels of hell. :eek:

You pays your money and you takes your choice! :rolleyes:
 
In case anyone’s interested, Gregory Cochran, a physicist/anthropologist and co-author of the excellent 10,000 Year Explosion, is convinced that homosexuality is caused by a pathogen – not, as many like to claim, anything genetically-based. From a post on his blog a couple weeks ago:

*I’ve said it before, but it’s probably time to say it again. The most likely explanation for human homosexuality is that it is caused by some pathogen. It’s too common to be mutational pressure (and we don’t see syndromic versions, as we would in that case), it’s not new, identical twins are usually discordant (~75% of the time), and it’s hell on reproductive fitness. There is no way it is adaptive: the helpful gay uncle notion, group selection, compensating advantage in females, etc: these range from impossible to bloody unlikely. It doesn’t exist in most hunter-gatherers: you have to explain what it is you’re even talking about when you ask them. Presumably with diagrams.

. . . A fair number of the smarter people interested in the subject agree with me. Not that they think it proven, but they agree that it is the only theory out there that makes any evolutionary sense. Bill Hamilton thought it made sense. So does Alan Grafen. Mike Bailey thinks it more likely than any other explanation tendered thus far.*

I was a little surprised by this. I had gotten so used to just assuming a genetic basis for anyone’s being gay, in order to move onto the Natural Law critique, for the sake of argument. I forgot how prima facie ridiculous such a hypothesis really is.
 
Sinful lust, no chance of giving life, perversion of the sanctity of marriage and sex, twisting natures natural design, breaking the marriage covenant between you, partner and God
 
Zimm3r said:
After thirteen years of catholic education no teacher has been able to explain what is seemingly a simple explanation, in the meantime this and other incompetencies by theology classes have driven me away from the faith my parents raised me in. After reading I still can find no answer, what makes homosexuality wrong and to extend it, why do people want it outlawed? What is the basis for it as a sin?

Please Note: I have read many a thread in these forums and have noticed trends of hostility whenever issues are brought up (from “both” [though there are really more than two] sides, not just one), so please civility 🙂
Click to expand...
In a nutshell:

A few thousand years ago some unenlightened savages thought it was a bad thing, so they wrote it in a book, probably never conceiving that millennia later, some people would still be so dogmatic, bigoted, ignorant and narrow-minded enough to believe that it’s an ethically defensible stance.
 
wanstronian said:
In a nutshell:

A few thousand years ago some unenlightened savages thought it was a bad thing, so they wrote it in a book, probably never conceiving that millennia later, some people would still be so dogmatic, bigoted, ignorant and narrow-minded enough to believe that it’s an ethically defensible stance.
Click to expand...
Calling All Posters: Witness an assertion posing as a well reasoned rebuttal…in a nutshell.

Let me guess; if we were talking about atheists who lived a few thousand years ago you wouldn’t be referring to them as savages. Its evident to me that your post represents only your biased dogmatic opinion and has nothing reasonable to give to this discussion except a disguised opportunity to ridicule religious people who don’t hold to your careless world-view about human sexuality.

You are a joke.
 
wanstronian

**A few thousand years ago some unenlightened savages thought it was a bad thing, so they wrote it in a book, probably never conceiving that millennia later, some people would still be so dogmatic, bigoted, ignorant and narrow-minded enough to believe that it’s an ethically defensible stance. **

What makes sodomy “an ethically defensible stance”? :confused:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
personal.psu.edu/glm7/m160.htm

The above article raises serious doubts about sodomy as a healthy life style.

There is absolutely no comparable study of health risks to monogamous heterosexual relationships.
Click to expand...
Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons is, to put it mildly, out of touch with the mainstream psychiatric community, despite his basically sound academic credentials and association with the cognitive therapeutic technique of Dr. Aaron Beck. Fitzgibbons is similar, in a sense, to Dr. Lawrence Hatterer (with his neo-Freudian multitude of childhood variables linked to homosexual development), except he has more of a religious foundation. Further, the Netherlands study, so often cited to demonstrate that gay people are more subject to mental disorders and suicide not caused by societal influences, is methodologically flawed in several ways: for example, the operant definition of homosexual used in the study, which is based on the self-report criterion of one same-sex encounter within a twelve-month period. Despite this, it has been found that male homosexual behavior, particularly if promiscuous and if anal sex is engaged in, has a stronger correlation to a variety of physical diseases than that of promiscuous male heterosexual behavior. There are much fewer studies comparing the physical and psychological effects of the homosexual lifestyle of females to that of their heterosexual counterpart.

As a side note, it is interesting that Orthodox Judaism forbids male homosexual behavior according to explicit Torah Law, whereas female homosexual behavior is only indirectly forbidden.

Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists, in general, still have relatively little knowledge when it comes to sexual desire and behavior, despite all the sensational headlines. However, there is certainly more knowledge than there was in the past. For example, so-called sex specialists such as Dr. Evelyn Hooker (her real name!) used to treat gay male patients by means of aversion therapy, only to find that instead of transforming them from homosexual to heterosexual, they succeeded in making the gay patients asexual.
 
Meltzerboy

**There are much fewer studies comparing the physical and psychological effects of the homosexual lifestyle of females to that of their heterosexual counterpart. **

The reason for this, according to some studies, is that lesbians are less likely than gay men to reveal their sexual inclination to their physician. Any statistics to be gotten from comparative studies with heterosexual women would therefore be highly unreliable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top