Is homosexuality harmful?

Discussion for Christian perspectives on ethical issues such as abortion, euthanasia, sexuality, and so forth.
Locked
PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9031
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 340 times

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#106

Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:51 am

Audacity,
Either stick with the bible or nature, going back and forth is confusing you.
The issue with homosexuality in the bible is different than the issues with homosexuality in nature, ie: Biology.

And no, the nature of a human is NOT whether they are left or right handed but that they have two hands.

Jac is right, you have no idea what "nature" refers too.

User avatar
Audacity
BANNED
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 16 times

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#107

Post by Audacity » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:23 am

PaulSacramento wrote:Audacity,
Either stick with the bible or nature, going back and forth is confusing you.
The issue with homosexuality in the bible is different than the issues with homosexuality in nature, ie: Biology.
Of course it is. The Bible deals with right and wrong whereas biology deals in facts. However, its terminology need not be screwed with (please note my explanation of the contextual use of "homosexuality"). Now, I recognize why this is sometimes done. To require some of the remarks in the Bible to conform to the facts of life is sometimes just too embarrassing and difficult to deal with. That's why believers sometimes need to redefine terms in order to save scripture from its failings; however, seldom is this slight of hand divulged, leading others into a purposeful morass of misunderstanding. Not saying this is what you're necessarily doing, but it does have some of the ear marks.
And no, the nature of a human is NOT whether they are left or right handed but that they have two hands.
Now, I asked you a very simple, straight forward question:

......................"And just what is your definition of "natural"? Kind of important here."

which you ignored, either because it was too difficult to answer or . . . . . .? So, how about giving it a shot. Just pick the definition of "nature" you have in mind from those below (Source: the Merriam-Webster Dictionary), or give us your own.

By "nature" I mean:

1 a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence
..b : disposition, temperament

2 a : a creative and controlling force in the universe
..b : an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual

3 : a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics <documents of a confidential nature><acts of a ceremonial nature>

4 : the physical constitution or drives of an organism; especially : an excretory organ or function —used in phrases like the ...call of nature

5 : a spontaneous attitude (as of generosity)

6 : the external world in its entirety

7 a : humankind's original or natural condition
. b : a simplified mode of life resembling this condition

8 : the genetically controlled qualities of an organism

9 : natural scenery


Thank you.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#108

Post by Jac3510 » Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:35 am

The fact that you don't already know the answer to that really says a lot. The fact that you think it's relevant to ask Paul to clarify or specify says a lot.
These users liked this post by Jac3510:
PaulSacramento (Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:42 am)
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9927
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 632 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#109

Post by Kurieuo » Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:57 pm

What is the natural function of sexes? What driving natural goal does such fulfil? Anything other, is unnatural -- male-male, female-female, human-sheep, dog-cat.

Now if one purposefully tries to go against the natural telos, there are certain natural boundaries in place that restrict how far one can go. That said, breaking with the intended order of things, other things begin to break down and need more and more "fixing" -- but our trying to "fix" often makes matters worse often via unnatural interventions. (e.g., gay couples having children via artificial means, a child missing out on both their natural parents in a natural family unit)

There is a reason why, whether you believe in purely natural forces or God, things work a certain way in world.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

User avatar
Audacity
BANNED
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 16 times

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#110

Post by Audacity » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:15 pm

Kurieuo wrote:What is the natural function of sexes? What driving natural goal does such fulfil? Anything other, is unnatural -- male-male, female-female, human-sheep, dog-cat.
Off hand question: Assuming the following:

.....1) Your suggestion (claim?) that the sole function of our sexual organs is for reproduction.

.....2) Aside from a desire to reproduce, men are driven to having sexual intercourse by the sexual pleasure they derive
........from it.

.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.

QUESTION: Why then did god give women a clitoris, whose sole function is to provide sexual pleasure?

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9927
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 632 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#111

Post by Kurieuo » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:14 am

Audacity wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:What is the natural function of sexes? What driving natural goal does such fulfil? Anything other, is unnatural -- male-male, female-female, human-sheep, dog-cat.
Off hand question: Assuming the following:

.....1) Your suggestion (claim?) that the sole function of our sexual organs is for reproduction.
My claim is the primary biological purpose of the sexes is reproductive, this is seen in our social structure heavily built upon family and nature of our biology. The man complements the woman and vice-versa. The intention is to create a stable foundation, for children (reproduction) who then require looking after as helpless babies and raising them into adults, and the circle of life repeats.

This is the primary objective, and nature does it's best to make the opposite sex appealing to the other (we see across many species), is in order for life to be sustained. Or, as I believe God creates an attraction to opposite sexes. Therefore, a diversion from such is a perversion of nature -- something abnormal or going wrong.

For human beings, a large part is psychological, and our elevated levels of spirituality makes such matters more complex than merely animals who don't really fuss about questions of life and death, finding meaning and purpose and the like -- but seem largely contented with just living (until we show them greater comforts).
Audac wrote:.....2) Aside from a desire to reproduce, men are driven to having sexual intercourse by the sexual pleasure they derive
........from it.
Of course, sexual pleasure encourages reproduction, that's it's primary purpose. Doesn't mean pleasure can't be had in non-primary ways. Consider that in war, if one completes secondary and tertiary objectives, but fails the primary objective, then the mission is a failure on a primary level. So then, if one uses their sexual organs for secondary objectives, which fail to miss their primary objectives...
Audac wrote:.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.
And? So men are the physically stronger counterpart, such feeds in well with understanding what the role of the "human male" might be. I.e., protector of their family. It doesn't mean such too can't be misused or abused.
Audac wrote:.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.
I don't really understand your issue. Female pleasure is something we'd expect if God wishes two to come together as one. Natural reproduction can happen without female orgasm. It could just be all about the man. The fact men don't simply orgasm, but women do too, shows a more intimate connection to be had between man and woman.

To get grapgic... the penis seems an ideal tool for this too, since the vulva thickens as the woman is turned on causing a pull during penetration alongside the natural rubbing of the penis against the clitorus which helps stimulate a woman to orgasm. The woman's vagina vice-versa seems the ideal match to stimulate the man to orgasm.
Audac wrote:QUESTION: Why then did god give women a clitoris, whose sole function is to provide sexual pleasure?
Read above. Also, I think a more challenging question would be why did women evolve a clitorus.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9031
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 340 times

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#112

Post by PaulSacramento » Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:43 am

Don't even bother guys.
Sheesh.

User avatar
Audacity
BANNED
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 16 times

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#113

Post by Audacity » Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:22 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Audacity wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:What is the natural function of sexes? What driving natural goal does such fulfil? Anything other, is unnatural -- male-male, female-female, human-sheep, dog-cat.
Off hand question: Assuming the following:

.....1) Your suggestion (claim?) that the sole function of our sexual organs is for reproduction.
My claim is the primary biological purpose of the sexes is reproductive, this is seen in our social structure heavily built upon family and nature of our biology. The man complements the woman and vice-versa. The intention is to create a stable foundation, for children (reproduction) who then require looking after as helpless babies and raising them into adults, and the circle of life repeats.

Okay, so the function of our sexual organs isn't solely for reproduction. I assume then that you believe they're also there to give pleasure. Understood. No need to go into my four assumptions any further. However, we do have this curious remark of yours:
This is the primary objective, and nature does it's best to make the opposite sex appealing to the other (we see across many species), is in order for life to be sustained. Or, as I believe God creates an attraction to opposite sexes. Therefore, a diversion from such is a perversion of nature -- something abnormal or going wrong.
So how do you explain same-sex attraction? A failure of God's attempt to create an attraction to opposite sexes? Or is it a matter of people having such an attraction, but deciding instead to be attracted to those of the same sex? If so, how do you think this occurs: "Hmmm, I 'm really attracted to that busty brunet over there, but I think I'll decide to like that handsome hunk of a guy brooding in the corner over there instead." My only question would be, How does one decide to to like A over B? Isn't liking something pretty much an unconscious reaction rather than a consciously directed one?
Last edited by Audacity on Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Audacity
BANNED
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 16 times

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#114

Post by Audacity » Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:26 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:Don't even bother guys.
Sheesh.
We get it! We get it! You can't define "natural." So be it. :shakehead:

Have a good day :wave:

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 91 times
Been liked: 139 times

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#115

Post by Byblos » Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:32 pm

Audacity wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Don't even bother guys.
Sheesh.
We get it! We get it! You can't define "natural." So be it. :shakehead:

Have a good day :wave:
If you're really interested, do yourself a favor and listen to this. Yes, it is over an hour long but it's a broad subject.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
Audacity
BANNED
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 16 times

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#116

Post by Audacity » Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:46 pm

Byblos wrote:
Audacity wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Don't even bother guys.
Sheesh.
We get it! We get it! You can't define "natural." So be it. :shakehead:

Have a good day :wave:
If you're really interested, do yourself a favor and listen to this. Yes, it is over an hour long but it's a broad subject.
An hour and 45 minutes? I don't think so. But thank you anyway.

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 91 times
Been liked: 139 times

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#117

Post by Byblos » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:08 pm

Audacity wrote:
Byblos wrote:
Audacity wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Don't even bother guys.
Sheesh.
We get it! We get it! You can't define "natural." So be it. :shakehead:

Have a good day :wave:
If you're really interested, do yourself a favor and listen to this. Yes, it is over an hour long but it's a broad subject.
An hour and 45 minutes? I don't think so. But thank you anyway.
Then please don't claim we can't define "natural" when you're unwilling to invest the time in it. :wave:
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
Nessa
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3360
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:10 pm
Christian: Yes
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 557 times
Been liked: 304 times

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#118

Post by Nessa » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:09 pm

Audacity wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Audacity wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:What is the natural function of sexes? What driving natural goal does such fulfil? Anything other, is unnatural -- male-male, female-female, human-sheep, dog-cat.
Off hand question: Assuming the following:

.....1) Your suggestion (claim?) that the sole function of our sexual organs is for reproduction.
My claim is the primary biological purpose of the sexes is reproductive, this is seen in our social structure heavily built upon family and nature of our biology. The man complements the woman and vice-versa. The intention is to create a stable foundation, for children (reproduction) who then require looking after as helpless babies and raising them into adults, and the circle of life repeats.

Okay, so the function of our sexual organs isn't solely for reproduction. I assume then that you believe they're also there to give pleasure. Understood. No need to go into my four assumptions any further. However, we do have this curious remark of yours:
This is the primary objective, and nature does it's best to make the opposite sex appealing to the other (we see across many species), is in order for life to be sustained. Or, as I believe God creates an attraction to opposite sexes. Therefore, a diversion from such is a perversion of nature -- something abnormal or going wrong.
So how do you explain same-sex attraction? A failure of God's attempt to create an attraction to opposite sexes? Or is it a matter of people having such an attraction, but deciding instead to be attracted to those of the same sex? If so, how do you think this occurs: "Hmmm, I 'm really attracted to that busty brunet over there, but I think I'll decide to like that handsome hunk of a guy brooding in the corner over there instead." My only question would be, How does one decide to to like A over B? Isn't liking something pretty much an unconscious reaction rather than a consciously directed one?
Are you implying that our likes, preferences and attractions deem what is right and/or natural?

User avatar
Storyteller
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3030
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:54 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: UK
Has liked: 186 times
Been liked: 333 times

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#119

Post by Storyteller » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:16 pm

Another function for the female orgasm, I believe, is to aid the sperm on their journey, the contractions help apparently.

Audacity... forgive me if this comes across as obtuse but I am genuinely curious, you really think homosexuality is natural? I define it as unnatural, purely because if the human race was homosexual, we'd soon be extinct.

To answer your question about attraction, no you don't "choose" who you fall in love with but that doesn't make it right. What about paedophiles? I saw a heartbreaking film a while ago, a 22 year old guy who opted for chemical castration because he had sexual feelings for his six year old niece, he told his family, doctor and sought help. He didn't give in to his urges, could the same point not be argued for homosexuals?

As for why we women have a clitoris, sure, for pleasure. We, I believe, are the only species to have sex for fun, for pleasure. Maybe that's to encourage us to seek a fulfilling, faithful relationship, a way to love another? I once asked a priest if masturbation was wrong, his answer was yes, a (Catholic) friend said perhaps but only because it normally involves fantasies of other people and takes your focus off God. Personally I think it's a great thing but it can, like most things, be abused.
Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof - Kahlil Gibran

User avatar
Nessa
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3360
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:10 pm
Christian: Yes
Creation Position: Undecided
Has liked: 557 times
Been liked: 304 times

Re: Is homosexuality harmful?

#120

Post by Nessa » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:17 pm

Kurieuo wrote: To get graphic... the penis seems an ideal tool for this too, since the vulva thickens as the woman is turned on causing a pull during penetration alongside the natural rubbing of the penis against the clitorus which helps stimulate a woman to orgasm. The woman's vagina vice-versa seems the ideal match to stimulate the man to orgasm
Great explaining!

You didnt even need diagrams :P

A professional once told me that only a low percentage of women are able to achieve orgasm via penetration.

I actually doubt that is true and is just a misbelief some might have.

Locked