Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is homosexuality sinful/immoral ?

  1. Jul 22, 2003 #1
    Is it a MUST that men shall love women and vice versa;
    thus, loving the same sex and cohabitat, even to have sexual relationship, automatically considered as immoral ?

    What do you think ?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 22, 2003 #2
    Well I'm all for lesbianism

    I know, I know-typical guy response.

    But seriously, It depends on your beliefs. If you're religious, then of course that is strictly forbidden. Being a not-so religious person myself, I don't find it immoral. Freedom of choice is a right and a privelege that we shouldn't be denied-even to sexual preference. If we make an exception of it, then many others are soon to follow, and next thing you know we're not a free society anymore. Culturally it may not have wide-spread acceptance, but morally, it shouldn't be anymore wrong than being a different race, or a woman should be.

    As someone once put it to me:

    "Fear breeds ignorance, and ignorance breeds fear"
  4. Jul 22, 2003 #3
    Considered as immoral/sinful by who? If you are asking for our own opinions then we could probably debate this forever and never get everyone to agree. It seems that most people in the world today don't see anything immoral/sinful about same sex relationships. Some people do see it as wrong but the majority I think see it as a valid personal choice. That doesn't mean that the majority is right of course. Remember it wasn't always this way. Throughout mankind's history homosexuality has been considered a crime in most countries and punishable in the same way as murder, rape, theft etc... Historically speaking it is a fairly recent development that same sex intercourse has been decriminalised. This trend continued during the latter part of last century and it gained acceptance as a valid lifestyle choice. Is it just a coincidence that the acceptance of homosexuality as acceptable conduct happened at the same time as moral standards in the world deteriorated considerably in all aspects of life? Has mankind been wrong for thousands of years and now suddenly we are enlightened?

    There is of course another view to consider and that is God's view. In the Dr Laura thread I set out the relevant scriptures and I won't repeat them here. The Bible clearly states that homosexual conduct is unacceptable to God. It is of course an unpopular view and it is easy to ignore what God says. Our puny minds can rationalise just about anything especially if it is convenient to do so. But frankly, who has the right and the knowledge to decide what is acceptable, us or God?
  5. Jul 22, 2003 #4
    Whoah there fella.. Mosey on back here a spell. You just made some pretty broad statements there. And what leads you to believe that moral standards have been deteriorating? It is true that our viewpoints on moral standards have change a lot from even 50 years ago, but that is the natural progression of society. Mankind becomes more and more free and open-minded with each generation. That isn't to say that it's less moralistic, but it depends on your point of view. Things that are perfectly acceptable to the current generation (such as homosexuality) were completely unacceptable just 2 generations ago- in fact they weren't even given consideration. It's the natural progresssion of society, but I wouldn't classify it as regression of moral standards. Simply a more enlightened viewpoint, and more open-minded.

    Including rationalization of a higher being based on "faith" not proof. But this is not the forum for this line of disucussion.]
  6. Jul 23, 2003 #5
    Without the ability to shift from the left and to the right, there would be no variance by which to maintain the middle. And, while I'm not sure I agree with the basic premise of homosexuality, I think there are worse things we can do to each other than promote same sex relationships, so long as we don't make a big "revival thing" out of it or something.
  7. Jul 23, 2003 #6
    I do think that it is unnatural for man and man, woman and woman to have sex. How ugly it is to imagine a man penetrating a man, and woman using sex toys to intercourse with another woman, even though they say "we truly love each other", but, this is just against nature.

    look at animals, have you ever seen a male dog intercourse another male dog, we are human, an ethical being, how can we do something not even done by animals?:wink:
  8. Jul 23, 2003 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually, homosexual sex does exist in nature... I know for a fact that female bonobos (close relatives to chimpanzees) engage in sexual activities with other females. I also recall reading an article describing same-sex partners of certain mammalian species in zoos, although I can't remember which species they were (although I recall that they were not apes/monkeys).
  9. Jul 23, 2003 #8
    And 50 years ago it was sinful and immoral for a woman to vote:wink: And believe me, men were as strong about thier beliefs on that as you are on your beliefs on homosexuality.

    My point is that just because something is considered immmoral(in this case by the minority at this point and time) does not mean that someone should not have the right to practice it. Many people consider a variety of sexual lifestyles immoral(dominant/submissive, chains, whips leather, certain fetishes) but if these practices don't harm others, and they've not inflicted upon the unwilling, it's still not "wrong" in the social sense to do them. Same goes for anything. Racism for example. A great degree of racism still exists today. People are prejuidiced against people of other races/color, etc and yet it's illegal to show racism. Yet the newwer generation has come to accept it, and not become racist(allbeit there's still a long way to go). So tolerance is encouraged, and those older people who still hold to the older grudges, are forced to keep it to themselves, or at least not speak out publicly about it.

    There's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path.

    Or put another way:

    There's a difference between acceptance and participation. Acceptance does not require participation.
  10. Jul 23, 2003 #9
    I agree hypnagogue, nature somtimes makes us different and diversity can be a strength, but homosexuals are far less likely to pass on their genes and that seems to be one way it goes against God or Nature.
    Personally I believe that free choice is more important then that the majority find it unacceptable, provided any free choice is not harmful to others. Smoking is a good example in that it has probably affected the life expentancy of more people than all drugs combined, yet it remains a personal choice provided we don't smoke in public buildings and have the courtesy not to smoke around others who don't smoke. I smoke because it feels good.
  11. Jul 23, 2003 #10
    As a matter fact I think I've seen dogs doing it before, and dogs doing it to people too, you know, when they find a convenient leg to "rub on." :wink:
  12. Jul 23, 2003 #11
    Tell me Zantra, where do you think moral standards come from? Do you think moral standards are something that we humans created and can change at our whim? What is the right moral standard? How does one determine what morality to apply? Does one apply the moral standard of the majority in the community in which one lives at the time? Who is to say who is right, the majority or the minority? What if you are a visitor in a foreign country that has a different morality? Do you apply the morality of the foreign country or your own? When the moral standard of society changes (you call it natural progression) does that mean everyone is now obliged to change their own moral standard? And if society's moral standards change does that mean society was wrong before or is it wrong now?
  13. Jul 23, 2003 #12
    Perhaps you missed something in your history lessons. In the Judeo/Christian/Muslim community this may be so, but they all have a common religious underpinning.

    What you say is quite incorrect with regards to many cultures, Ancient Greek, Ancient Rome, Not so Ancient Japan. Most eastern cultures, historically haven't considered this near as bad a thing (if bad at all) as the west.

    If you go on the literal interpretation, then I don't remember any prohibition against lesbianism. If I'm incorrect, then by all means, correct me.

    If you deviate from the literal interpretation, then we begin to start taking the Roman views of homosexuality into account [which was the time in which new testament was written]. Using the Roman views of homosexuality, then the meaning of some of the scriptures can change radically from current beliefs. An important concept in Rome was dominance. While homosexuality wasn't considered wrong, reliquishing dominance was, and in their ideas of sex, the penetrator was dominant and the penetratee submitted.
  14. Jul 23, 2003 #13
    Morals and viewpoints of society in general will always be subjust to change. History at least, has shown us that. Morals are determined first by humanistic rights and privledges, and secondly by social majority. Just about any moral accepted by the majority will have a minority of dissenters. The limits of morality are subject to the moralities of others. In other words, as long as your morals don't interfere with others, it's not a wrong moral to have. Someone who didn't think it was immoral to kill someone else would be encroaching on others, whereas someone who is gay wouldn't be, unless they try to impose that preference on someone who's not willin.g

    History has shown that there will always be a newer generation with ideals not considered acceptable to the previous generations. This is part of the natural progression. That doesn't mean that either the current generations or the previous generations are wrong in thier beliefs, it simply means you have to find a common ground of comprimise to coexist peacefully. It's not about "right or wrong", it's about respecting different viewpoints from your own. It's all part of the freedom of choice.
  15. Jul 23, 2003 #14
    Homosexuality isn't something that have just blasted up in recent time, like in the old greece homosexuality was very natural. And of the many civilizations that has existed the old greek gotto be a good example.
  16. Jul 23, 2003 #15
    gay or lesbian familiy can not have natrual offsprings, this violate the basic value of family, therefore they are wrong; is this deduction acceptable ?
  17. Jul 23, 2003 #16


    User Avatar

    I have seen animals having same-sex sex. Growing up on a farm I can recall bulls attempting to 'get it on' with each other. Usually the 'penatratee' would slither out before anything actually happened. Not always. This happened before they were turned in with the cows for breeding. When the ladies were around things were different. I have also seen dogs hump on animals of different species. We had a dog that would try to get busy with the cats. Didn't matter to him whether it was male or female. Yes, I would say that homosexuality is not natural. But I think of it the same way I think about a race of people with unusually short penises. Chances are they are not going to have offspring!:wink: And since there are still gays and lesbians cropping up everywhere I would say that genetics plays a relatively small part in it, although not immune. After all, genetics is based on a certain amount of 50/50 chance. Hey as long as some guy doesn't try anything with me, I don't care. From what I know of homosexual males, the majority are very considerate and would not try something like that.
  18. Jul 23, 2003 #17
    No I don't think so. Whether a family is able to handle a child or not should be about if they want it, and if the child can expect to receive a good raising.

    Why has homosexuality been banned so much?

    P1: Is it because people are afraid that gay couples will have an influence on their child making them also gay so that more and more would turn gay. And thus as we 'know' people who are alike (in interests?) (albeit with counter personas?) thrive better together, this will lead eventually to guys sticking with guys, and women to women, and thus the end of the whole human race ?

    P2: Or is it just that people sees it as something embarresing or icky ?

    Or both ?

    Or did the society leaders of old ban homosexuality of old because they thought of my first proposition, but also because the old needed many children to take care of them ? Making most people, which is more esthetical, use proposition 2.

    Is my first proposition futuristicly rubbish ? When we turn into this century and women tend to do more and more the same things as men, and via verca, homosexuality will be naturally come here and there ?

    Maybe just most will like girls? I personally don't understand how women can think the male body that hot. I mean, they are the ones who got all the wonderfull figures, such variating.

    Or are just most of us doomed to think the opposite sex more attractive no matter how like we will be in interests and affects ?
    But this would make me think that it is majorly a bodily issue whether we are attracted or not, and not mindly.

    Edit: It's not that I believe in proposition #1 though. I don't think homosexuality is something that is going to spread to eveyone, living now or 500 years ago.
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2003
  19. Jul 23, 2003 #18
    I can comment on this a bit more. I have a cousin in my family who is gay. And her parents(along with the rest of the older people in the family) are religious, and don't believe in that. They don't accept it. And they've always had that philosophy that if you're gay you will influence children to become gay also. it's for that reason that they don't allow her to associate with her own younge sister. However if you ask her sister directly(who is a teenager) she isn't the least bit concerned about being turned gay, and can't understand her parent's reasoning. The family shuns anything remotely associated with homosexuality, and has even accused me of being one as well, simply because her and I have always been close, since we are close in age, and because of the fact that I accept instead of shunning her lifestyle choice. It's the typical representation of homophobia in americana.

    As far as it violating the basic family value- What IS the basic family value? the typical nuclear age family is non-existent at this point, and has now been replaced by single parent families, and dual income households. A large percentage of the world still holds true to old world family values, but the definition of "family" is consistently changing and evolving. It's not something static where you can automatically assume 2 parents and 2.5 kids.

    Unfortunately, weather it is accepted by some of the population or not, change is not only coming, it's already here. And there's nothing you can do to stop it. Acceptance of homosexuality as a norm is the most prevelant issue since racism, and it will in time follow the same path to acceptance by the social majority.
  20. Jul 23, 2003 #19
    There is no such thing as a sin, but there is cause and there is affect. I personally do not have anything against anyone. I accept all individuals as human beings, but I do not neccessarily condone the actions and would certainly not want to see public displays of affection especially infront of children.

    Free choice? There are no free choices in life. Life is paid in full and todays society is on a band wagon of which it cannot comprhend the results. I have seen the future 500 years hence, you will not need shades.
  21. Jul 23, 2003 #20
    I could slaughter you with a boatload of free choices we have(at least in some places in the world), but I wont. Instead I'll just say that I see a totally different picture of the future. I see one were people are allow to express themselves more freely without fear of retribution or offending anyone. Where we are excepted ultimately on the basis of being a human being, not because of race, gender,color, sexual preference, or any other type of bias. Where people can walk freely without fear of retribution for thier beliefs, and have to hide what they are, or pretend because someone can't tolerate them.

    This is one of the fundamental flaws with religion that I've found issue with, and I cannot overlook it, regardless of the good things it brings to the world. The flaw that the bible, as well as just about every other religion preaches acceptance of your fellow man, good will, and peace, but just like everything else in life, there's that micro-text disclaimer at the bottom saying all this is true only if you fit into a specific category. Only if you are a certain race, or a certain sex, or are heterosexual(I won't even address the incongruities regarding homosexuality in the bible such as soddom and gamorrah). But I'm not here to luanch into a debate on religion. All I can say is that A truly valid religion would encompass all of fellow man, and not discriminate in any way shape or form, but it does. It countradicts it's core beliefs.

    I belief it's due to the wide interpretations that are made of the bible based on our society. Society sees something that is not acceptable, so they seek solace in religion, and twist ambiguous notions that it conveys to suit thier internal beliefs. What would you then do if someone found an interpretation making homosexuality acceptable? Would religion turn it's back on those followers, labelign them heretics? What if it gained widespread acceptance? I venture to say that eventually being gay would be accepted based on those interpretations. The Bible has many viewpoints, and many versions.

    I'd also like to point out that the Quran(islamic holy bible) regards women as lesser being. In fact it makes an outright comparison of women to pigs. Which explains why the female population in middle eastern countries are not treated as equals. Yet the majority of the world DOES see women as equals. However any follower of Islam does not see it that way. Any follower of Christianity, or a lot of other religions would find it offensive, immoral, and outright wrong to follow those beliefs about women. So why then isn't homesexuality accepted? All these contradictions and beliefs can only be explained away by quoting specific verses that specifically pertain to what the situation is, but overall, they can't be explained away.

    Ok I'm on a roll, so I'll break it off...
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2003
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook