Is it wrong to be gay?

[Reincarnate]

There are many forms of attraction -- heterosexuality, homosexuality, pedophilia, and hell, even zoophilia -- but some are more condemned than others because they are less frequent (or they simply step on more toes, morally speaking).

We see things as "right" when they help society in some way -- some form of providing value to others. "Wrong" is usually seen as self-serving, particularly at the expense of others.

With respect to this topic, it all comes down to consent, at some level. One of the main reasons we condemn pedophilia so heavily is because a small child is still developing -- intellectually and physically. We see it as horribly wicked when some dude leverages his desires against someone who is simply too young to know any better or is too young to have any control over consent. Throw in physical complications and it becomes a concept that disgusts just about everyone. Therefore, we choose not to allow it because it infringes on what we consider basic human rights in a profound way.

But homosexuality? That, by no means, falls into the same category. No human rights are violated. What holds it back is societal stigma and ignorance. Hopefully time will start to chew through those a bit as the bigots die out and society becomes a bit more intelligent.

[devonin]

Pay attention to which subforum you're posting in.

[Mechablob]

I don't believe there's anything wrong with homosexuality as, at the end of the day, it isn't really a matter of choice - nobody can help who they have feelings for. I guess some people who disagree with homosexuality are those that are either brought up on the concept of it just being wrong (due to family prejudices or religion - I won't go into religion though other than that brief reference), end of story, or they may possibly be in the closet themselves and trying to disguise themselves as heterosexual out of fear for how their friends or family may react (although, if that applies to people here - or anywhere, in fact - I hope they end up gaining the courage to eventually say how they feel).

It could be peer pressure too, really - if a group of people are going around "gay bashing", and to not be in the bad books of such a group, other people, not normally associated with that sort of thing, may join in to avoid such abuse themselves.

But at the end of the day, those who are homosexual, and are open about their sexuality in discussions and whatnot, should easily keep in mind that; "those that mind don't matter and those that matter don't mind."

[fido123]

Yeah, your opinion leads me to believe you uncomfortable around gays but you don't think anything is actually wrong with it. Perhaps you should try to understand just because you're repulsed by something, doesn't mean you have to dislike or hate the people who partake in that. It's totally ok to be repulsed by two guys having sex, but it's quite easy to hate on those people for no real good reason especially when a lot of people already are.

[Arch0wl]

I'm always ensnared by threads like this. The temptation to dismiss everyone outright and say "LOL, CRITICAL THINKING" is huge, but even if I do that there are still thousands (if not millions) of people who would earnestly believe the more shortsighted arguments here.

It's interesting, psychologically at least, to think about why people think these things. I think a lot of men don't like homosexuality because they perceive themselves as being good at being strong and therefore good at being a man. It's a hierarchy they've used for their self-esteem. And when they see a gay person, it's not "oh my god he will get the gay on me", it's "oh **** that guy is saying what I'm good at doesn't matter."

So in a sense, a homophobe sees gay people sort of like how DDR players see PIU players.

[Kilroy_x]

It's not wrong to be gay. Here's why.

1. It's an attribute and not a choice; morality/immorality requires choice (or GODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD, but... LOL)
2. Population growth concerns neglect that the distribution of this attribute in relation to heterosexuality makes it completely negligable; homosexuals consistently comprise ~10% of the population. No, accepting homosexuality doesn't encourage more people to become homosexual, that would be like saying accepting blue eyes causes more people to have them.
3. Conduct is overwhelmingly volitional (not feelings, but conduct; ie, "consenting adults")
4. Aforementioned God does not exist. Suck my dick.
5. Even if he did, homophobia isn't really justified by any sane biblical interpretation (lol borderline oxymoron)

That being said, I harbor a certain enmity/envy of gay people because they enjoy substantial social acceptance and legal protection that doesn't extend to TG people, and are often transphobic or unwilling to recognize the commonality between the struggles and persecution of the two groups. There are legitimate gay characters in television, cinema, and literature, who have complexity and depth and can even function as role models. TG people are a punchline used in bad jokes. If a TG person appears in media, it's "look, tranny! olololol". To which I respond "where's the joke?" "What do you mean?" I'm told "that is the joke!"

Minor rant. Sorry.

[manarius13]

1. It's an attribute and not a choice; morality/immorality requires choice (or GODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD, but... LOL)

Eh. Neither side of this can really be proven.

2. Population growth concerns neglect that the distribution of this attribute in relation to heterosexuality makes it completely negligable; homosexuals consistently comprise ~10% of the population. No, accepting homosexuality doesn't encourage more people to become homosexual, that would be like saying accepting blue eyes causes more people to have them.

Also unprovable. We would need to know how many people were actually gay, and how many people were openly gay for the last several thousand years. Or even the last hundred.

3. Conduct is overwhelmingly volitional (not feelings, but conduct; ie, "consenting adults")

Agreed, but I'm not sure I see what this has to do with the issue.

4. Aforementioned God does not exist. Suck my dick.

I shouldn't even have to say anything about this one.

5. Even if he did, homophobia isn't really justified by any sane biblical interpretation (lol borderline oxymoron)

This is just ignorant, and there is a lot more to the issue than meets the eye. In the King James translation of the Bible, there are several passages which clearly condemn homosexuality. It is called an abomination. Now, that said, I have seen arguments that the passages were translated in a manner other than how they were meant, or that in the context of the times, the words didn't mean the same things. Some of the passages had good arguments against them, but others were shaky at best.





Despite all this, I'm honestly not sure exactly where I stand on the homosexuality issue. On the one hand, there's certainly something about it that isn't quite "right", but on the other hand I don't think that it's really "wrong".

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by manarius13

Eh. Neither side of this can really be proven.

If you take that position then any discussion of morality at all becomes senseless.

Originally Posted by manarius13

Also unprovable. We would need to know how many people were actually gay, and how many people were openly gay for the last several thousand years. Or even the last hundred.

We have several generations worth of data, and much more historical/holistic evidence. If you think we don't have enough data to decide, you're not paying attention.

Originally Posted by manarius13

Agreed, but I'm not sure I see what this has to do with the issue.

Any choice is by definition a sane choice. A sane person chooses, whereas a lunatic is compelled. Therefore, homosexuality cannot be stigmatized as mental illness. That's the major thing.

Originally Posted by manarius13

In the King James translation of the Bible, there are several passages which clearly condemn homosexuality. It is called an abomination.

Yes, I remember. That was right after the world was repopulated by two daughters raping their drunk father, but before we learn people who wear two different types of cloth are going to hell. Also, it's before the New Testament when all the JESUS STUFF happened and pretty much completely changed the playing field.

Originally Posted by manarius13

Now, that said, I have seen arguments that the passages were translated in a manner other than how they were meant, or that in the context of the times, the words didn't mean the same things. Some of the passages had good arguments against them, but others were shaky at best.

You don't understand the context of the Bible. That's ok though, you share this in common with 95% of self-described Christians.

Originally Posted by manarius13

Despite all this, I'm honestly not sure exactly where I stand on the homosexuality issue. On the one hand, there's certainly something about it that isn't quite "right", but on the other hand I don't think that it's really "wrong".

You win the coveted KilroyZTC™ Most Meaningless Sentence of the Day Award

[manarius13]

Holy cow, I was not prepared for this degree of ignorance.

If you take that position then any discussion of morality at all becomes senseless.

Maybe, but it also means that your point is pure conjecture based off of assumptions that cannot be proven.

We have several generations worth of data, and much more historical/holistic evidence. If you think we don't have enough data to decide, you're not paying attention.

First of all, several generations of what data? The number of people who are openly gay? Or who participated in surveys? Whoopee. We still have no idea how many were actually gay compared to how many were open about it.

Secondly, no, that is not nearly enough data. To draw any reasonable conclusion, we would need to have data spanning a much larger time period, and many different cultures (where homosexuality is perceived differently). The view of homosexuality in America is dramatically different today than it was even 10 years ago. And 50 years ago. And 100 Years ago. Etc.

Any choice is by definition a sane choice. A sane person chooses, whereas a lunatic is compelled. Therefore, homosexuality cannot be stigmatized as mental illness. That's the major thing.

Sounds reasonable.

Yes, I remember. That was right after the world was repopulated by two daughters raping their drunk father, but before we learn people who wear two different types of cloth are going to hell.

This is just stupid.

And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
022: And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
023: And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
024: And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
025: And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Straight out of the Bible.

Okay, so this isn't entirely clear about what exactly happened, but it's still nowhere near any of the bull**** you just said.

So let's assume this means that Ham raped his father. Then Noah cursed him. Sounds a lot like a condemnation of homosexuality to me.

Also, it's before the New Testament when all the JESUS STUFF happened and pretty much completely changed the playing field.

Yes, it did. There are, however places in the New Testament, after all the "JESUS STUFF" where homosexuality is condemned.

You don't understand the context of the Bible. That's ok though, you share this in common with 95% of self-described Christians.

I'm not really even sure where you decided to infer that I don't understand the context of the Bible, since nothing I said could have reasonably been interpreted that way, but whatever.

You win the coveted KilroyZTC™ Most Meaningless Sentence of the Day Award

Yay?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by manarius13

Maybe, but it also means that your point is pure conjecture based off of assumptions that cannot be proven.

It means both points are, hence there is not much profit in discussing either.

Originally Posted by manarius13

First of all, several generations of what data? The number of people who are openly gay? Or who participated in surveys? Whoopee. We still have no idea how many were actually gay compared to how many were open about it.

1. Surveys. Which are, y'know, designed to encourage as many people as possible to self-report, by professionals, using promises of anonymity and other tactics.
2. General awareness. Believe it or not, using your eyes to observe the world you live in can help you make reasonable assessments on occasion.
3. "We have no idea". BS. If we had no data we would have no idea. The fact that the data defines a floor rather than a ceiling is pretty much irrelevent, unless you think 2/3rds of the homosexual population are in the closet or something it would be kind of hard for any variance to have an impact on the conclusion.

Originally Posted by manarius13

Secondly, no, that is not nearly enough data. To draw any reasonable conclusion, we would need to have data spanning a much larger time period, and many different cultures (where homosexuality is perceived differently). The view of homosexuality in America is dramatically different today than it was even 10 years ago. And 50 years ago. And 100 Years ago. Etc.

We do have data spanning that long, it's just less scientific in various degrees. There are studies of sexuality which were conducted as far back as the 18th century, using what was essentially Baconian methodology; not up to modern standards, but data is still data. You're also putting too much emphasis on induction in general. We have enough data to decide which of our theories has the highest verisimilitude.

Originally Posted by manarius13

And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
022: And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
023: And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
024: And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
025: And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Straight out of the Bible.

Okay, so this isn't entirely clear about what exactly happened, but it's still nowhere near any of the bull**** you just said.

Perhaps that's because you're quoting the wrong thing? LMAO.

19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

19:37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

19:38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

Originally Posted by manarius13

So let's assume this means that Ham raped his father. Then Noah cursed him. Sounds a lot like a condemnation of homosexuality to me.

Or of... GASP... rape? Either way, doesn't matter. New Testament means New Covenant. It's hard to tell what Noah's covenant even entailed, except that God viewed him as moral and tasked him with preserving life on the planet.

Originally Posted by manarius13

Yes, it did. There are, however places in the New Testament, after all the "JESUS STUFF" where homosexuality is condemned.

Who is the speaker, what is the context, and what is their specific claim? Not Jesus, not a divine revelation, and not a claim of divine revelation. At least if memory serves.

Originally Posted by manarius13

I'm not really even sure where you decided to infer that I don't understand the context of the Bible, since nothing I said could have reasonably been interpreted that way, but whatever.

Most passages condemning homosexuality are Old Testament, the rest are minor proclamations of (relatively) minor Christian authorities.

[manarius13]

1. Surveys. Which are, y'know, designed to encourage as many people as possible to self-report, by professionals, using promises of anonymity and other tactics.
2. General awareness. Believe it or not, using your eyes to observe the world you live in can help you make reasonable assessments on occasion.
3. "We have no idea". BS. If we had no data we would have no idea. The fact that the data defines a floor rather than a ceiling is pretty much irrelevent, unless you think 2/3rds of the homosexual population are in the closet or something it would be kind of hard for any variance to have an impact on the conclusion.

1. Surveys, which are, y'know, not always representative of the whole, nor are always reported honestly.

2. Copout.

3. I think that a very large proportion of homosexuals, possibly even a majority, are indeed in the closet. There are tons of gays who are afraid to come out because of the perceptions of homosexuality. It's safe to assume that the percentage was even higher the further back you go, considering the relative tolerance of the day. So yes, this could very well affect the conclusion a lot, and we honestly have no way of knowing how much.

We do have data spanning that long, it's just less scientific in various degrees. There are studies of sexuality which were conducted as far back as the 18th century, using what was essentially Baconian methodology; not up to modern standards, but data is still data. You're also putting too much emphasis on induction in general. We have enough data to decide which of our theories has the highest verisimilitude.

Data is absolutely still data, but biased/incomplete/unreliable data is not credible data.

Perhaps that's because you're quoting the wrong thing? LMAO.

That would do the trick.

Although I still don't see what this particular passage has to do with the credibility of the Bible on the whole. It isn't condoning what happened, just recording it.

Most passages condemning homosexuality are Old Testament, the rest are minor proclamations of (relatively) minor Christian authorities.

Not really. Paul (arguably the most influential Christian after Jesus) mentions it several times. It's almost 1am and I'm going to sleep, so I won't go find them for you, but I daresay a quick web search would yield the results you're looking for.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by manarius13

In the King James translation of the Bible

Bible fail. Use the NSRV if you're going to make biblical quotations.

[Reincarnate]

All Bibles are Bible Fail

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by manarius13

1. Surveys, which are, y'know, not always representative of the whole, nor are always reported honestly.

In order for lack of population growth to be a concern, the surveys would have to be innacurate by a factor of 3. Even very biased surveys rarely rise to this level of innacuracy.

Originally Posted by manarius13

2. Copout.

You're arguing that homosexuals aren't a relatively small minority. If you somehow polled the entire planet, do you think you would get agreement or disagreement on this assesment?

Originally Posted by manarius13

3. I think that a very large proportion of homosexuals, possibly even a majority, are indeed in the closet. There are tons of gays who are afraid to come out because of the perceptions of homosexuality. It's safe to assume that the percentage was even higher the further back you go, considering the relative tolerance of the day. So yes, this could very well affect the conclusion a lot, and we honestly have no way of knowing how much.

Self-reporting on an anonymous survey =/= coming out. This would essentially exclude gays who were paranoid and gays who refused to identify as gay on the basis of shame or self-hatred from self-reporting. And again, it would have to be off by a factor of at least 3. There would have to be 2 times as many self-hating gays as gays willing to self-report anonymously.

Originally Posted by manarius13

Data is absolutely still data, but biased/incomplete/unreliable data is not credible data.

There is no credible data, only credible interpretations of existing knowledge. Before you get confused, the difference is this:

A: "The data says X, therefore X"
B: "If the data is true, then X, based on an interpretive framework which includes premises Q, R, P"

Incomplete means very little. It means the data defines a floor, so instead of 10%, we read it 10%< . Not a huge difference, and again, unless it's greater than 10% by a factor of 3 or more, it's not really substantive for purposes of this discussion.

Originally Posted by manarius13

Although I still don't see what this particular passage has to do with the credibility of the Bible on the whole. It isn't condoning what happened, just recording it.

Well, God saved Lot and his family from Sodom because he viewed them as moral. God is also omniscient, even knowing the future. It's a minor narrative flaw in the scheme of things, but I'm still going to point it out here.

Originally Posted by manarius13

Not really. Paul (arguably the most influential Christian after Jesus) mentions it several times. It's almost 1am and I'm going to sleep, so I won't go find them for you, but I daresay a quick web search would yield the results you're looking for.

I saw. I'm going to be completely honest and say that I don't know what Paul's relationship was with God, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it wasn't quite on the same level as Jesus, perhaps even Moses. It's also worth noting the context of the passage of Romans 1:21-32, which mentions people who were preached to about God, but made images of him in the likeness of "corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things". This sounds an awful lot like a pagan culture who listened to Christians prostheletyze but opted to retain the nature-worshipping aspects of their spirituality; who interpreted the Christian God within the framework of their religion rather than accepting the Christian faith as a whole.

In that context, you have to understand that Homosexuality is something very different then from what it is now; it is a part of Pagan culture, of a larger context of degeneracy. The essential point of the passage is that a group of people were given the word of God and opted to neglect it, and to persist in Pagan practices which led them away from the word of God. Homosexuality is referenced because it was a Pagan practice. I would assume that the ancient Pagan practice of homosexuality is also quite different from the practice of Homosexuality today, not least because it isn't associated with the same spiritual context.

[fido123]

I'm not really going to full out because I think I've said everything there is to say throughout this thread, but:

1) You think there's something "just not quite right" about it. Perhaps you just think it's repulsive and you really don't want to picture two dudes going at it? There's nothing logically "wrong" about same sex relationships.

2) If anybody is to pull the God card and uses that as an excuse to hate on homosexuals, perhaps you should look at the Bible a little closer. If you're a good Christian you won't judge homosexuals for what they do. Jesus wouldn't call them names and talk crap about them. Also the same guy who called homosexuality an abomination was the same guy who said eating shellfish was an abomination.

[Chrissi]

The bible says a lot of things. It doesn't mean being gay is wrong. If being gay is wrong because of the bible saying it's an abomination for a man to sleep with men, then it's also wrong to eat shellfish or pork, slavery is perfectly okay, you need to stay away from women during their periods and burn everything they touch, etc...

It's very selective to pick that passage out of the bible, and not follow the rest of it or take it as seriously.

[xBBx Takedown]

I'm tired of people using the bible as a damn reference. Just because the bible says it's wrong to be gay doesn't entirely mean the bible is always right. Being gay is a choice and there isn't anything wrong with it. If another person likes the same sex of that person, it's whatever. They do what they want them to do. Honestly, gay people have more respect and heart then straight people. Gays in relationships manage to last longer because they don't have to worry about cheating. Now if you are straight, you will most likely cheat. So if you think being gay is wrong...you are ****ed up in the head. Believe the bible all you want, but that doesn't always tell the truth. The truth lies within yourself. I support anyone who is gay ^__^

[Without A Contraceptive]

Originally Posted by manarius13

This is just ignorant, and there is a lot more to the issue than meets the eye. In the King James translation of the Bible, there are several passages which clearly condemn homosexuality. It is called an abomination. Now, that said, I have seen arguments that the passages were translated in a manner other than how they were meant, or that in the context of the times, the words didn't mean the same things. Some of the passages had good arguments against them, but others were shaky at best.

youre probably the best troll ive seen in awhile

but if youre serious...
ya you got it champ, the ancient text's meaning of an "abomination" is completely different from that of modern day. in fact, any bible scholar will tell you that the term was used to mean "something frowned upon, but accepted". eating shrimp was also called an abomination, and people were to be stoned to death for mixing fabrics etc..

to address the "u cant prove being gays not a choice" contention, i'll just keep it simple. it isnt a choice, the gene has been found; it is a matter of fact now. do a little research (gOOgle) and youll find out for yourself.

you can buy into the (certain parts that work for you) bible literalist mumbo jumbo if you want, but anyone out there with a working brain will laugh at how utterly ignorant you are

[ichliebekase]

Rofl, so I've only read a little bit of this. I'll throw some change in here.

The bible is a joke and should not be considered into any form of thinking [opinion]. Especially since there are probably billions of different interpretations of the bible, and we will never know which is considered the most "correct".

Being gay is not wrong. Like WAC said, there's literally a gay gene. I know countless gay people and they're not bad people, they lead normal lives just like you and me, they just have sex with someone of the same sex. Oh well, get over it.

[Cenright]

And so he says:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

It's not wrong to be gay.

We can all have opinions, back and forth about wrong and not wrong. Kilroy says God doesn't exist, and so it isn't wrong. What does that have to do with anything? That is looking skin deep at the problem.


Yes, I believe in God; yes, I believe being gay to be wrong.
Let's throw that out for now, and just pretend that God doesn't exist, and look at the issue again.



If there is no God, then you believe in evolution.
People talk about a gay gene, when really it is just some alterations in genetic makeup. If it was a gene, it would be bred out, because NO ONE would be passing it on. That leaves it being and error/mutation/disorder. It is obviously not beneficial, because it is the type of thing that if it was a gene, natural selection would always breed OUT of the human race. Only human "intelligence"(and I use this term loosely) would have caused it not be bred out, if it was a gene.

This is the same reason why Super-mini-teacup Dogs are still around. Humans find them cute, even when those breeds are a disorder, even a de-evolution(if you believe that type of thing). It is why many of the types are weak, sterile, etc. Nature is TRYING to get rid of them. Humans deliberately breed that into the dogs, even though Nature would have wiped the things out. They are not better in any natural way, but they pander to the whims of human nature. Those dogs need nearly everything done for them, and would die because they are 100% dependent.


So really people, STOP using God as your right or wrong, because if you believe in the Bible, then you believe being gay is wrong, as it is very explicit about "men who lie with men" being detestable.

We can say God this, or No God that, but how about just looking at the topic of Gay being right or wrong in your Godless world, because we all know where the issue would stand in a world WITH God.