Is homosexuality a sin?

  • Thread starter mouseman
  • Start date
  • #51
Originally posted by ObsessiveMathsFreak
Religions, like societies, only have a problem with homosexual MEN.
All religious books make references to men bt I've never read the same for women. No, it's true.

Of course when pushed, clerics will mutter about it. But the fact remains they don't really mind if women wish to be....... intimate

And you win the prize for hitting the nail on the head. I've got the feeling that most homophobes (all the ones I've met are men) are really just afraid that some gay guy will hit on them at a bar and make them a laughing stock of their buddies. So in that case, God obviously hates homosexuals. But if there's the a scant possibility of a threesome with a couple of hot chicks... well than that's not really homosexuality, is it? (sarcasm)
 
  • #52
Freemagic
... oooops ......

Above post was my first one in this forum .... and by the time I had waded through the tech bits and enabled codes etc. and managed type what I felt being moved to .... I had actually only read the first page of this thread .....

I now back-tracked and read the rest of your posts ... and found bi-sexuality having been mentioned.

Duh. And thanx.

Love and many smiles ...
Freemagic
 
  • #53
OK, so far I've heard that homosexuality can either be a flaw, an abberation, or an illness.

Now, first off, as a scientist I feel that this belief is misguided. Illnesses, flaws, and abberations all imply bad (freudian slips for immoral) qualities. All of the people who suggested these things I assume to be heterosexual? Now it seems to me that all of these descriptors are way to subjective. It's like calling chimpanzees "less evolved" then humans because they're not as smart as us. Furthermore, we're trying to make philosophical, moral judgements based on (psuedo)scientific arguments, and you shouldn't ever base a moral argument on evolution. Rape and murder are evolutionary survival skills but they ain't good.

But if you want to talk about homosexuality in the context of evolution, can nobody think of a good reason for homosexuality? It's not that hard. I'll give you some clues. Is homosexuality bad because it's a dead end? Because homosexuals don't reproduce? Do homosexuals provide any benefit, to say, the society that they live in? Can they serve any sociological role? Is their anything that will benefit a species by having a homosexual population? Frankly, I my prospects for the future of mankind would be a lot cheerier if there was a significantly larger homosexual population.
 
  • #54
Freemagic
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
<snip> ... Frankly, I my prospects for the future of mankind would be a lot cheerier if there was a significantly larger homosexual population.
... or bi-sexual population .... so one could take their pick ... within regions and areas of/with more or less population ...

Well .. I'm not really only kidding .....
 
  • #55
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
976
3
..You haven;t said what their advantage is in the evolutionary picture...?

I can't see a real, tangible advantage for homosexuality, but I do acknowledge that in a social context, bisexuality seems to be a good social mediating adapation. It allows for a closer society where all members are equally likely to be mates as they are to be competitors for mates... But that is the only one I can think of, and that isn't even an advantage for homosexuality as such, but for bisexuality.

otherwise, everything about homosexuality is most certainly detrimental for the individuals genes which co-exist with the homosexuality gene (to reduce it to a completely stupified level..)

IMO.

(PS: I'm trying to keep all thought of Homosexuality as a genetic problem completly objective. I am not judging it at all, but rather looking at whether the geneplex which makes up a person would be benefitted by holding such genes. It doesn't seem it would, but it does seem possible that a society which has individuals with the genes may be better off in some aspect... whether this group advantage is enough to maintain a homosexual population or not is the question...)
 
  • #56
138
1
whether it be a "genetic flaw" or <insert whatever "scientific" arguement against non-heterosexual* relationships here>

(for the record, i do not think it is a gentic flaw, or what not)

i still do not see how any of that shows that non-heterosexual relationships are unethical,"evil" etc.

if an intersexed individual experiences intimate & meaningful companionship with a M to F transexual, or a hyper "masculine" male with a "feminine" female... and the freedom of others is not being harmed- then really, what the hell is the problem?

i think the assumption that the point of evolution is all about reproduction... might be worth re-evaluating.
 
  • #57
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
976
3
There is no assumption that evolution is all about reproduction, but rather the simple fact that without reproduction, evolution doesn't exist.

And I believe that there was also no claim (at least on my behalf) that any scientific arguments over the 'flaw'-ness of the homosexuality geneplex were arguments against homosexuality. They were more accurately claims to its status as an adaptation in an evolutionary light. You'll never hear me saying 'Nature does this, therefore we should do that.' Pfftt... silly fallacy logic....



Let me try to spell out something very simply, just to show what I mean. For this to make any sense, completely forget all about morals, ethics, social acceptance, sin and whatever...

If there was a gene which made someone homosexual, then that individual would not reproduce, and so that gene would not be propogated. The gene would quickly cease to exist.

This is how evolution works. The homosexuality 'gene' (not that such a thing actually exists) is an evolutionary dead end, and as such, is a flawed ...path... a branch with no future.

But, like sickle cell anemia, perhaps homosexuality is a recessive trait, or a complex of genes. Having a small population randomly born homosexual is advantageous for the population, and so those various genes are maintained...

Meh, this is silly. We are in the God and Religion forum, not the other sciences forum...
 
  • #58
138
1
"There is no assumption that evolution is all about reproduction, but rather the simple fact that without reproduction, evolution doesn't exist."

somebody in this forum did and i was refering to that comment. i should have clarified that.
 
  • #59
Zero
Originally posted by Entropia
whether it be a "genetic flaw" or <insert whatever "scientific" arguement against non-heterosexual* relationships here>

(for the record, i do not think it is a gentic flaw, or what not)

i still do not see how any of that shows that non-heterosexual relationships are unethical,"evil" etc.

if an intersexed individual experiences intimate & meaningful companionship with a M to F transexual, or a hyper "masculine" male with a "feminine" female... and the freedom of others is not being harmed- then really, what the hell is the problem?

i think the assumption that the point of evolution is all about reproduction... might be worth re-evaluating.
I think people are assuming that homosexuality is wrong, and then trying to find a way for it to be a genetic, rather than moral, flaw. I say that whatever two or more consenting adults docide to do in private is no business of anyone else's.
 
  • #60
65
1
It's probably a mistake to try and classify any genetic influence (assuming it exists) as a "flaw" for the simple reason that all mutations could be regarded as "flaws". You could make the argument that going from asexual reproduction to sexual is a flaw or an illness but it's just a different way of doing things. I'm not saying that every mutation has an evolutionary advantage (which the asexual to sexual does I think) but that assigning negative words to such differences detracts from what is actually going on.

IMO if you accept this then any judgement about whether homosexuality is right or wrong is entirely belief dependent and shouldn't be judged on an absolute truth. Of course if you believe in absolute truth then thats an entirely different can of worms (probably not best to get into that now) :smile:
 
  • #61
kyleb
exactly, like i had a friend born with six fingers on each hand and they cut the extra ones off despite the fact that they could have come in really handy in this computer age. silly people.
 
  • #62
181
1
well I'll tell you from a homosexuals point of view why and how i became gay.one I like it because the relationships are more based on mutual likes and things you do together,that women dont do.but I did'nt just become gay.I was molested when I was 12.nut I had had a few encounters when I was 9.I was in group homes when I was 9 till i was 16.so maybe growing up around boys when you start puperty.and you never had sex,and you know your not going to because there are no girls,and your not going to see any,and if you did,nothing going to happen.so the curiosity over takes you.when someone ask you if you ever thought of sex with a guy,and if you did do you think its wrong.you look at each other,and you say not really and i dont know i dont think so.thats all it took,next thing you know you experimenting with each other.some start this way.some like it and dont stop,some try it and its not for them.it has nothing to do with genetic disposition sometime.i like it and never stopped.women also are to emotionally attached to you,alway want attention.guys are strong and are low maintance.they dont need comfort or contanly told you love them and throw a hissy fit if you dont.guys like sex,you have to love a woman bofore anything happen.guy just what to do it and dont care with who as long as it happens.very easy to get laid.women are a pain in the ass.so i hope that answer your post
 
  • #63
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
976
3
Originally posted by chosenone
women are a pain in the ass.
...no comment.
 
  • #64
eNtRopY
Originally posted by Entropia
that sounds like a logical phallacy.
Haha, that was a good pun... considering the context of this thread.

eNtRopY
 
  • #65
eNtRopY
Originally posted by chosenone
well I'll tell you from a homosexuals point.... women are a pain in the ass.
Now that's surprising! I would have assumed that having sex with a man would cause you more ass pain than sex with a woman.

eNtRopY
 
  • #66
166
1
Originally posted by kyleb
exactly, like i had a friend born with six fingers on each hand and they cut the extra ones off despite the fact that they could have come in really handy in this computer age. silly people.
Yes but 18 years of abuse from the other kids.
 
  • #67
1,481
0
The only part of the bible that I can quote and ever do is Romans 14:14
"I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus Christ that nothing is unclean of itself; but, he who esteemeth something to be unclean; to him it is unclean."
Quite appropriately I was put on to this by the Playboy magazine forum
years ago. I looked it up to see if it was being used out of context. It wasn't.
To me it means what it says. Nothing is unclean ,read - dirty, bad, nasty, sinful etc., unless we think it is and then if I think some action or thought is sinful then to me it is sinful. That does not make it a sin in God's eyes or make it a sin for you or anyone else, only me because I believe that it is a sin.
 

Related Threads on Is homosexuality a sin?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
115
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
60
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
Top