• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is spreading the idea that homosexuality is a sin hurtful to society?

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
"I think it is harmful to spread the idea that homosexual conduct is acceptable, normal, even beneficial."

How so? What harm does it do?
Inexperienced young people are exposed to a steady stream of a single viewpoint accepting of homosexual behavior, as well as sexual immorality. Such serve as a green light, IMO, for young ones and older ones to engage in risky conduct that can lead to STDs, emotional turmoil, unwanted pregnancies, and damaged consciences. I believe the far more serious consequence is a damaged relationship with the One who created us and gives directions on proper sexual conduct.(1 Corinthians 7:2,3)
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
Inexperienced young people are exposed to a steady stream of a single viewpoint accepting of homosexual behavior, as well as sexual immorality. Such serve as a green light, IMO, for young ones and older ones to engage in risky conduct that can lead to STDs, emotional turmoil, unwanted pregnancies, and damaged consciences. I believe the far more serious consequence is a damaged relationship with the One who created us and gives directions on proper sexual conduct.(1 Corinthians 7:2,3)
You have effectively said nothing at all. Be specific of how it causes harm and please provide supporting creditable research.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Inexperienced young people are exposed to a steady stream of a single viewpoint accepting of homosexual behavior, as well as sexual immorality. Such serve as a green light, IMO, for young ones and older ones to engage in risky conduct that can lead to STDs, emotional turmoil, unwanted pregnancies, and damaged consciences. I believe the far more serious consequence is a damaged relationship with the One who created us and gives directions on proper sexual conduct.(1 Corinthians 7:2,3)

What I deem "sexual immorality" probably differs from you. You probably lump in all consensual acts you don't agree with for whatever reasons (likely Biblical) - but I would say that immorality only enters the picture when you don't respect the feelings of the other party involved. Things like men taking advantage of women, or vice versa, one night stands come to by lying to the person about "long-term" intentions, or how much the person actually likes the other, people using sex as a form of reward - either withholding until they get what they want, or promising sex in return for some other act or service, promiscuity to the point that you are "cheating" on someone you care about, and thereby hurting feelings, etc. The acts themselves have no moral consequences in my eyes unless someone is being hurt against their will - which would include things like STD transmittal.

Anyway, as long as sex is being partaken in responsibly, there is no problem with an acceptance of homosexual behavior. In fact, I would go as far as to say that if no one pointed out homosexuality, never called anyone "gay" or set apart anyone in an particular way in conversation for a few generations, then any lingering stigma associated with homosexuality would likely evaporate. Same with race. If no one ever started an anecdotal story anymore with "So, there was this black/white/Hispanic/asian guy..." - whether the story was positive or negative - then in a few generations there wouldn't be nearly as much division between those of various colors of skin. Because you're right about one thing... the kids are where we have our chance to get out from under this discriminatory behavior.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
I don't know if I'd call atypical genitalia "abnormal." The continued frequency of those born with these traits makes it a pretty "normal" occurrence
I was born without a left ear. My condition is called "microtia", and estimates for its occurrence vary between 1 in every 3000 children and 1 in every 8000 children, last time I checked. Would you say that missing one or both ears from birth is abnormal? I would. For a sexually dimorphic species like humans, intersex individuals are abnormal. Note: This doesn't mean "bad" or "less valuable". It means just that: Not normal, not fitting in with the overall observed trend.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I was born without a left ear. My condition is called "microtia", and estimates for its occurrence vary between 1 in every 3000 children and 1 in every 8000 children, last time I checked. Would you say that missing one or both ears from birth is abnormal? I would. For a sexually dimorphic species like humans, intersex individuals are abnormal. Note: This doesn't mean "bad" or "less valuable". It means just that: Not normal, not fitting in with the overall observed trend.
"Abnormal" is one way to put it on an individual level - looking at the pool of all births, one would hedge bets toward what people consider "normal" as representing the next individual. Though with any sort of frequency of appearance, an appearance of yet another occurrence, statistically speaking, should be anticipated. Therefore, in the overall trend that is consistently being experienced by humanity, it is normal for 1 in every 3000 to 1 in every 8000 to be born with the condition you experienced.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
I was born without a left ear. My condition is called "microtia", and estimates for its occurrence vary between 1 in every 3000 children and 1 in every 8000 children, last time I checked. Would you say that missing one or both ears from birth is abnormal? I would. For a sexually dimorphic species like humans, intersex individuals are abnormal. Note: This doesn't mean "bad" or "less valuable". It means just that: Not normal, not fitting in with the overall observed trend.
It's not abnormal for you. :)
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
"Abnormal" is one way to put it on an individual level - looking at the pool of all births, one would hedge bets toward what people consider "normal" as representing the next individual. Though with any sort of frequency of appearance, an appearance of yet another occurrence, statistically speaking, should be anticipated. Therefore, in the overall trend that is consistently being experienced by humanity, it is normal for 1 in every 3000 to 1 in every 8000 to be born with the condition you experienced.

It's not abnormal for you. :)
In that sense, yes, I agree with both of you. :)
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Somehow, it's our society that produces homosexuals. Our culture is the source of homosexuality.

Which culture is that? Oh, wait...it doesn't matter. Because ALL cultures have degrees of homosexual activity.
It can be suppressed and moved underground (current Saudi Arabia) or it can become a cultural norm (more rarely, but Sparta, for example).
But I don't see evidence that it is our society or culture that 'produces' homosexuals.
 
Top