I am fairly new to the world and I like the idea of equally expressing ones opinion on any matter that may be brought up.

Although like most human beings I do find it difficult to rationalise other people’s headstrong opinions on matters that are particularly controversial. One matter that hits home is the subject of homosexuality and the denunciation that shadows the homosexual existence, whether it is simply frowned upon or hit head on with nothing but hatred and disgust.
What I find hard to understand is the way that homosexuality is so thoughtlessly unaccepted. I would like to know why for starters, sparing the one sentence reasoning and really tell me why with a little more detail than “it’s wrong.”

Why is it wrong? What can be wrong about expression? I know that is an open question, so I will cut it down a little. I have witnessed answers in the past that compare homosexuals with paedophiles and people who commit bestiality. I see no connection, the last two mentioned are crimes and they are crimes for a reason, these crimes have victims and these victims are subject to cruelty, abuse, suffering trauma and more. It is a violation on human and animal rights and cannot be compared to an act that is between two consenting adults.

So please share your opinion.

Nice question.
Good luck on your quest.
I think anything is ok between consenting adults so I will refrain from giving my thoughts but Im sure runner and co will be along soon to "enlighten" you.
hehehehe
Just remember it is not about what they or anyone else thinks. The important thing is that you think. Think for yourself and come to your own decisions.

Thank you

My mind is just as set in stone as the next person, I have my opinions and I will stand by what I believe in to the best of my ability.

I also think it's good to listen to other people, regardless of how much I disagree with them. :) We have to learn to live with each other sometime lol

Nicnoto

Throughout history most cultures have considered homosexuality as abnormal. At the end of the day all people hold to a philosophical belief. In a secular society we are led to believe that homosexuality is harmless. The many diseases spread through sodomy disagrees. Certain body parts were never designed to go in the passage where we excrete waste.

I personally think it is a shame that 'gay' activist continue to promote their behaviour as normal expecting everyone to accept their worldview. They are very absolute in their belief. God never designed us to commit homosexual acts.

Homosexuality is no more wrong or right than adultery or fornication according to the Scriptures.

You mention homosexuality being compared with bestiality or paedophile. A good arguement can be made that if you reject God's standards and rulings you will make up your own. Some ethicist feel that bestiality in some circumstances is okay. It depends whether you make up your own morality base or accept God's.

Oh, Oh, I just thought of something.

I recently heard about the new feminist issue of Birth Rape. It's when doctors or mid-wives penetrate the woman in any way during a birth without asking permission.

By that rationale, whenever a vet sticks their hand up a cow, that's rape! It should be outlawed!

It's an animal rights issue.

Runner

God never designed animals to commit homosexual acts too right? Yet over 1500 species do. I am aware that this is circumstantial but sex is still performed among two animals of the same sex in nature.

Some ethicist also believe rape is ok too, the difference being when the act is complete, a victim is left behind.

You refer to disease, yes gay men contribute to the spread of AIDS, as did many other people engaging in unsafe sex from the 1980's to now, I have little to say on this subject other than the HIV was distributed by various immoral means, not only comprising of gay men.

Adultery and fornication. Adultery is betrayal of the one you are committed to (I'm referring to Western culture and society), immoral.
Fornication is sexual intercourse before marriage, immoral

Homosexuality - romantic feelings towards those of the same gender, immoral how?

I disagree with stereotypical "queens" and the homosexual tarts and (excuse my language) sluts of society, as much as I disagree with man-whores and women of the sort.
However I do believe in love between two people of the same sex, unfortunately love is not gender specific. Love in my experience is the connection between two peoples "spirits" above physical attraction. I see how this is wrong in gods eyes.

Sorry I *don't see how it is wrong in gods eyes

Nicnoto,
Careful using the name of god you will invoke the god squad and any hope of a rational discussion will be lost.
Anything is ok so long as it is between two consenting adults and does not hurt any other person. There are a few exceptions to the rule like the logic that tell's you murder is not OK even if the vicim agrees.
You do not have to like it personally to tollerate it, just because you don't agree with something does not mean it must be destroyed.

Nicnoto, you seem to be a little jumbled with what you do and do not find acceptable:

**I disagree with stereotypical "queens" and the homosexual tarts and (excuse my language) sluts of society, as much as I disagree with man-whores and women of the sort.**

Why Nicnoto, do you disagree with people being the labels you have given to them. It's nobody's business really is it? and especially if they are not hurting anyone. It's a bit double standards I think.

Runner, you said **Certain body parts were never designed to go in the passage where we excrete waste.**

Oh really? Do you know anything about male sexual anatomy?

dotto,
what a load of crap ! :-)

Dear Nicnoto,

Richard Dawkins in his book, "The God Delusion,"
gives his own amended Ten Commandments. Amongst
them he says:

"Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages
nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs
in private whatever their inclinations, which
are none of your business."

In today's society you apparently can't get away
with saying, "If you try to stop me from insulting
homosexuals it violates my freedom of prejudice."

But you can get away with saying, "It violates my
freedom of religion." What's the difference?
Yet again, religion trumps all!

Dawkins tell us that:

"The thing you notice about religious people is their
wonderful Christian charity. What kind of an electorate
could, term after term, vote in a man of such ill-informed
bigotry as Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North
Carolina? A man who has sneered, "The New York Times,"
and the "Washington Post," are both infested with
homosexuals themselves. Just about every person down
there is a homosexual or lesbian..."

Imagine that.

I guess the answer to that question is, I suppose, as
Dawkins points out, "the kind of electorate that sees
morality in narrowly religious terms and feels
threatened by anybody who doesn't share the same
absolutist faith."

Attitudes to homosexuality reveal much about the sort of
morality that is inspired by religious faith.

Nicnoto, welcome to OLO.

I don’t feel inclined to get embroiled in the nitty-gritty of this age-old debate. Suffice to say that I entirely agree with you.

Cheers.

Nicnoto

'God never designed animals to commit homosexual acts too right? Yet over 1500 species do. I am aware that this is circumstantial but sex is still performed among two animals of the same sex in nature.'

You might have noticed that animals do all sorts of things that are gross to humans. Human being have been made with inbuilt consciences unlike animals which think nothing of licking each others backsides. I certainly view man who was created in God's image above that.

I do not care, or wish to put these folk on a pedestal or down.
This morning the world will like me on my trip to work be listening for details .
Of great damage and even Murders because one man one Church thinks religion gives him/them the right to be bigots.

dotto

Jumbled how?, I wrote that I disagree with it, not that I find it unacceptable, I will accept the behavior and treat those behaving like that no differently to anyone else, I just don't agree with their actions in a way that I would not partake in that myself.

I disagree for obvious reasons, I am not a fan of blatant promiscuity. In my opinion it displays a lack of self respect and it IS hurting people, look at the children that lose their virginity at the age of 12 - 16. They're kids and they mimic what they see.

I am not responsible for labeling these people with how I described them either, you have society to thank for that.

Foxy

Thank you for that information, I agree with it, and I agree with the morality inspired by religious faith, not the condemnation of people who aren't devout (I am aware that this is a radical minority)

Ludwig
Thank you

runner

I understand but I was comparing homosexuality among humans to homosexuality among animals, I put forward an undertone that if homosexuality is unnatural, then why do animals so naturally do this.

lol individual! yes, very funny.

I'm pleased you're so amused.

So many of these discussion just come back to religious bigotry and the particular god that one happens to believe in or the "Holy Book" that you think was written by Him. It is all so surreal and absurd to me and is why I don't believe in any of it, or the proclamations of its own laws. After all, it has many such as slavery and murder that are considered obscene in today's society.
As most of the posters here suggest, If there is no victim, what is so terrible about two members of the same sex having affection for each other and manifesting it in a sexual manner? It doesn't appeal to me but they are perfect at liberty to indulge if they wish.

This is really above religion. It is really about nature.
The male and female parts are designed to go together.
The purpose is to produce children.
The above is fundamental and cannot be disputed.
Male and female will copulate for enjoyment but the act is still natural.

Anything else is a distortion of the natural order.

On other threads some of those arguing in support of homosexuality
here pontificate about how we are distorting nature.
Yet they do not see the contradiction.

Bazz,
Spot on! Of course the uneducated do not recognise the natural science of biology and the natural organs of reproduction. For them any concenting adult that has an orifice even of the same sex they can poked - no worries. For such a view of course one must dismiss any form of God or moral values. I see Nicnoto's point of commitment and loyalty in a long relationship, rather than one night stands.

Bazz <"The male and female parts are designed to go together.
The purpose is to produce children.
The above is fundamental and cannot be disputed.
Male and female will copulate for enjoyment but the act is still natural."

I agree that male and female humans are required, and 'fit together' well, for reproduction.

However, it is well known that heterosexual couples can and do also practice anal sex for enjoyment. Often married couples do this as well.
Back in the days before contraception was freely available, anal sex was used more often between heterosexual couples. It just wasn't talked about in polite society.

If indeed God did make humans as being able to fit together normally in only one way (as suggested above) why did He allow the male reproductive organ to be of a size to also fit into the human anus?

Just a thought.

Interesting. and it couldn't be for the simple fact' because of our billions, that the human race has come to the point somewhere in our subconscious, that the need to breed is no longer the main driving force, hence the growing numbers of the homosexuality which is increasing, seeing that the world is experiencing a NO room to expand,( at the consequences of the environment- which its also at its living end, which could be an indicator of a race that's reached its end.

)http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/857941


Just a thought.

...and we are governed by nature, and not a god.

TTM>

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20080517183252data_trunc_sys.shtml

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427196/

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002282

http://www.physorg.com/news84720662.html

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1605/3031.full

To me.......it seems to be a stopper for all that's natural in the living world.

The number of living things that practice it( homosexuality), is just

as long as the number of people that fear it.

TTM>

Having been a cattle breeder I have never witnessed two bulls engaged in anul sex. In fact put two bulls together in a breeding herd and one will fight the other to the death, or retract to another area.

Is this because bulls have not heard about human evolution or over population? Obviously both have come about by human theorising.

Yes Philo, you're a cattle breeder so what would the point be of having a gay bull, if you're breeding cattle? None, basically. How do you know there are not any homosexual bulls? A bull that didn't mate with cows wouldn't be kept by a cattle breeder, would it? What use would it be to a cattle breeder? So how would you know that there were no homosexual bulls if they'd all been bred out of existence?

There is no homosexual animals who only choose or prefer sex with their own male gender.

Philo, how about reading this link and getchaself edgeicated!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

It even comes complete with a pic of two homosexual penguins who have coupled, and were also given an egg; the egg was successfully cared for and hatched by the homosexual penguins.

The link shows numerous species of animals that display homosexual behaviour, and provides dozens of extra links for you to delve into the vast knowledge base of homosexuality in animals.

Philo, I'm sure you'll study all the links and become quite knowledgeable regarding the facts. Isn't that great!

Fascinating stuff, TTM and Johnny30.

Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality!

If you lock up two males penguins in a zoo cage you might observe them having simulated sexual acts. Why? Because their instinct is to procreate. However place them in the wild and they prefer sex with the complementary gender for breeding. Even if given an egg their paternal instincts recognise that it needs to hatch. Many males of the species recognise the care of their offspring must be maintained. This does not prove male homosexuality. The instinct is to breed not merely have an emotional attraction to the same sex

Some males who cannot relate well to women prefer the company of other males. However they still want sexual pleasure and find anul sex an answer and call it natural.

LOL Winli........I.ll have the red handbag with the matching shoes. lol.

What is it? Is it two men together, that seems so off? But you don't mind two women getting it on. WTF!

Any one of my children could turn out to be gay, and I will love them no matter what this hypercritical world says.

Aids will catch the reckless. Why do you think they invented it "the virus", and yes they did.
Aids was made to rid mankind of its unwanted "drug user and even the unwary heterosexual"

A christian conspiracy sum might say.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/03/animals-are-gay.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1b-XYgFeM

and bulls dont act out on each other...

Bullsh@t!

Do you people even read before you post?

TTM>

Smile.

Philo,

Interesting theory based on the stereotype of male prisoners but did those penguins have sex? (Admittedly the initial reference to the 1500 animal species seemed to imply that sex was involved in all cases so you might have been led into that assumption.) I am only aware of the rumours that the penguins have kept company with a male instead of a female, tried to hatch a rock instead of an egg, and stole an egg that they hatched and the occupant grew up to be a lesbian. They are seen internationally as a poster example of the naturalness of homosexuality.

Nicnoto,

I wondered where you were going due to the reference to animal acts making homosexuality God designed while rejecting rape and bestiality in your first post due to being unethical.

Eg. “Since the early 1990’s, for example, young male elephants in Pilanesberg National Park and the Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Game Reserve in South Africa have been raping and killing rhinoceroses; this abnormal behavior, according to a 2001 study in the journal Pachyderm, has been reported in ‘‘a number of reserves’’ in the region.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08elephant.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=ccc63627f454863c&ex=1167282000

Rape, bestiality and murder all in one hit! You seem to be adopting Runner's conflation of divine revelation, ethics and biology with a pinch of extrapolation. That would lead to the perverse conclusion that God designs some rather remarkable things for us. I'd suggest it is better to keep theology separate from biology unless you share the same philosophy. Just because things happen or are natural doesn't necessarily overlap with human ethics or theology. Even theology doesn't make that assumption.

Thank you for your comments. I hope the thread has served its purpose for you.

There are so many interesting comments
in this thread, and homosexuality is
certainly a complex issue. Still amid
the incredible variety of different
patterns, one thing is certain, the animal
kingdom is most definitely not just heterosexual.
On the other hand man's rationality pervades the
wholeness of his/her nature so that his/her
sensations, instincts, and impulses are not
purely animal but have th seal of rationality which
characterises them as human.

The Bible does condemn homosexuality. The issue is
whether the Bible is correct. The Bible santioned
slavery as well, and nowhere attacked it as unjust.
Are we prepared to argue today that slavery is
biblically justified?

mjpb

Thank you for your comments.

I would like to make clear that my rejection of rape and bestiality, due to it being unethical is exclusive to the human population, animals don't have ethics and are led by instinct so condemning that behavior is hypocritical in my opinion.

In conjunction with that, my point (my apologies for not making it clear) among the discussion of homosexuality being natural is an indirect retaliation to it being said that homosexuality is not natural.
If it is not natural, then why is it being performed within nature?
And if it is being performed within nature, then why is it condemned within society?

I can understand that after reading this with the notion that I believe life was created by a higher power, it may seem contradictory.

But let me assure you that I hold no faith in divinity,

*Just because things happen or are natural doesn't necessarily overlap with human ethics or theology*

I agree. It may have seemed that amongst the discussion with runner I was displaying my belief in God, but I was merely accepting runners approach.

The 'if it isn't hurting anyone' arguement can only go so far. Politics should place an importance on shaping the character of the individual, so that decisions made by such people do not become anti-social.

This is precisely why gay people should be welcomed into social norms and not excluded.

The importance of heterosexual coupling stems from the fact that dimorphic sex chromosomes create the greatest chance for diversity within a species. This not only explains the evolutionary drive of this characteristic but (in my view) carries great spiritual significance. We thrive as a species due to our wonderful genetic diversity.

Other animals rely on arbitrary means of sex determinism like temperature or certain early chemical signals. Human gender and sexual development however has a bases in our sex chromosomes which monitor the fairly broad degree to which early hormones influence our fetal growth.

The actual process of changing from a girl to a boy or maturing into a girl baby (because we all start off basically female) is the result of early hormone effects on the fetus. BUT these hormones (like all chemical interactions in the body) will effect development in a continuum and not act in a binary boy/girl way.

* Post continued here: http://dysfunctionalbydesign.blogspot.com/2010/09/conservative-arguement-for-gay.html

Foxy,

You are correct that it is a complex issue.

You are also correct that one issue is whether the Bible is correct (and of course other religion’s scriptures or doctrines that take a similar or more extreme view)

I’m not so open to the idea that the Bible sanctioned slavery in the sense that most people think of slavery primarily because ancient slavery was apparently at times more like modern imprisonment for serious crimes (eg. Leviticus making slaves of those who sacrificed their children cf. killing them or Exodus where a thief can work off their debt) and at other times hard to differentiate from employed servants. Further, the old Testament slavery seems to be a little less unpleasant than the African American slavery given Deuteronomy 15:16-17 which discusses the protocol for dealing with slaves who don’t want to be freed when they are eligible for parole. However I concede it is controversial if that helps.

Nicnoto,

You condemn promiscuity for any group (and I’m happy to let that slide for the moment) but you also disagree with “stereotypical "queens"”. Are you saying that a gay male is okay if they appear straight? The main issue with the stereotypical people is their voice. As apparently heterosexual (if not extremely macho monsterish) Mike Tyson demonstrates that is a difficult thing to shake even if you end up developing as a heterosexual. You would expect it to be particularly so when it is subculturally sanctioned. As regards the mannerisms, when you are in the male fraction of the 2.5% of the population it must be hard to know how to conduct yourself. I knew a young gay man recently who (without an apparent transgender issue) seemed to be trying to work out whether he should act more like a man or a woman because, although he knew he wasn’t a woman, he felt different to most men.

CONT

What I’m trying to suggest (without hopefully seeming too antagonistic) is that it is a bit rich for you to pronounce that people thoughtlessly unaccept an orientation when you are inconsistent in your attitude toward subcategories for no apparent reason consistent with the attitudes that you seem to express. To what do you attribute your disgust/or milder emotional reaction? Some might have recourse to ethics informed by religion or natural law or Philo’s arguments about what they consider natural based on farmyard observation or theories about an unnatural environment. You don’t seem to rely upon those things. Indeed when you were second guessing God I got the impression that you probably aren’t a fundy.

Which leads to your last post and thank you for the response. I accept the Runner thing. Thank you for explaining. It would avoid confusion if you had untangled that bit immediately. For example: “Runner I don’t believe in God but I would like to address the innuendo that homosexuality is unnatural.” rather than talking about God’s design. However I’m sure I don’t always express myself perfectly either.

Runner,

Sorry to single out something that I thought you could have handled better. I appreciate your objectivity in other discussions when you have nothing to gain personally from speaking up. Don’t take the criticism of your approach personally. Bear with me.

Dear mjpb,

I was merely trying to point out that there
are no biblical literalists, only selective
literalists. By abolishing slavery and ordaining
women, millions of Protestants have gone far
beyond biblical literalism. It's time we did the
same for homophobia.

Homosexuality is not an ethical sin. No one is
being hurt, no one is being cheated, nobody's
rights are being infringed upon. The point being
that homosexuality is regarded as a religious sin,
analgous to other Biblical prohibitions, like not
eating the carcass of a dead animal or not sleeping
with a woman during her menstrual cycle.

The real tragedy is as Father James Kavanaugh
wrote so many years ago in his book,"A Modern
Priest looks at his Outdated Church," -

"The real tragedy is that Rome does not understand
our need. We need freedom from a legalistic Church
that has transformed the simplicity of a personal
and Christian love into a world of fear and guilt.
We do not know how to find God, we have never
learned. We have only been taught to keep laws,
to avoid sin, to fear hell, to carry a cross that
we built for ourselves."

mjpb

I can understand that my attitude to some may seem inconsistent. I find communication in the form of text somewhat challenging and I'm adjusting to the lack of fluidity that a verbal discussion can offer.
To respond to this, there is one simple attribute that warrants my disapproval toward sub categories, this is blatant promiscuity.

Perhaps "stereotypical queens" was a poor characterisation. They have been stereotyped as whorish men dressed as women, this is why the stereotype was used as an example, the key word being whorish.

What I meant was Gay men who try to sleep with anything male, lesbians who try to sleep with anything female. Straight men who try to sleep with anything female, straight women who try to sleep with anything male and bisexual men and women who don't care who they sleep with.

This is entirely their own choice, but as I mentioned I only disagree with their actions to the extent that I will not adopt their attitude, I do not condemn it.

*Are you saying that a gay male is okay if they appear straight?*
No I am not.

Thank you for the clarification.

Foxy,

I agree that millions of Protestants have gone far beyond Bible literalism whether or not they would own up to it. Abolishing slavery is something that I don't consider the best example for the reasons that I have given. Perhaps I could replace it with acceptance of contraception. It is hard to reconcile the Biblical call to the married to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth with the use of contraception. Indeed I know someone who actually converted to Catholicism because he couldn't reconcile the lack of committment to rejecting contraception by the leadership in his former home in the Assembly of God group where he grew up. Since Anglicans changed their view on the topic in the 1930s and allowed for exceptions I believe every denomination other than Catholicism has also changed.

When reading the article at the following link which explains the relevant view of Cardinal Newman who the Pope is currently in the process of acknowledging as a Saint it reminded me of Fr Kavanaugh's comments that you quoted. The two obviously clash dramatically.

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/oct2002p12_1149.html

"Religion is pleasant and easy; benevolence is the chief virtue; intolerance, bigotry, excess of zeal, are the first of sins ... it includes no true fear of God, no fervent zeal for His honour, no deep hatred of sin, no horror at the sight of sinners, no indignation and compassion at the blasphemies of heretics, no jealous adherence to doctrinal truth ... and therefore is neither hot nor cold, but (in Scripture language) lukewarm ... I will not shrink from uttering my firm conviction, that it would be a gain to this country, were it vastly more superstitious, more bigoted, more gloomy, more fierce in its religion, than at present it shows itself to be."