God And Homosexual Sex

[Ethan Staubach]

Well to me, regarding this subject, it comes down to these questions in order:

1. Is the Abrahamic God real?
2. If so, does he have our best interests at heart?
3. Is the Bible valid?
4. Does the Bible speak out about homosexuality?
5. Are the interpretations by the person asserting the arguments based on what they read valid?

I would make the argument that you don't even need God's existence to justify why homosexuality is wrong via natural law. However, I will answer all your questions one by one. I also noticed that Skwim responded to me too, which I'll be getting to soon which may answer any questions you'd ask about this.

1: For this first part I first have to prove (or reason at least) God's existence. I'll do this by merely copying and posting Saint Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God (Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments):

"The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Thereforee at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
   

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance
2. Most natural things lack knowledge.
3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; this being we call God."

Second I have to express why the Abrahamic God and not another God is real. I believe the Abrahamic God is real because he has revealed his existence to us in history. We see this happen constantly throughout the Bible. From Old Testament to New the fact that he has revealed himself. Whether it's through Moses, Abraham, Noah, Jesus, or so on. For every single one of these to be made up, it would have to be the greatest scam in all of history. Even that does not deny the existence of God, that denies the Abrahamic God in particular, but I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Not only that, but throughout history and into modern-day we continue to see miracles. The Catholic Church actually has a site that keeps tracks of modern miracles. These are those that science cannot explain. (Miracles - Latest News :: Catholic News Agency (CNA))

2: Being the creator, God is the standard of morality. You cannot justify morality without the existence of God as stated in one of Thomas Aquinas' proofs. God grants a life eternal of bliss to those who are good and righteous so I would, in fact, say that those are our best interests. (I wouldn't make the morality of Hell argument if I were you, that seems to be an easy to defeat stance)

3: The Bible is valid as it is the most accurate ancient writing of all. There are around 25,000 thousand archeological findings to back it up and nearly 25,000 manuscripts that attest to its accuracy. There are also many extra-biblical writings from the same time that back up its claims. (Especially those about Christ) All prophecies in the Bible (except those pertaining to the second coming) have been fulfilled. Given all these pieces, I would, in fact, say that it is reliable.

4: Yes, the Bible speaks out very loudly against homosexuality.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah “acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust.” Ezekiel says that Sodom committed “abominable things” (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9).

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

"The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine." (1 Timothy. 1:9-10)

5: There aren't many ways to interpret these verses other than the view that homosexuality is sinful.

I would like to know your opinion on this. I noticed that your profile said "Abrahamic Religion" which is rather general. I'd like to know more about your personal beliefs so that I can better angle my argument. I hope you found this helpful, cheers.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I would like to know your opinion on this. I noticed that your profile said "Abrahamic Religion" which is rather general. I'd like to know more about your personal beliefs so that I can better angle my argument. I hope you found this helpful, cheers.

It's going to take some time for me to process all these arguments. But I do want to give you a thumbs up as quite frankly, this is probably in the top 50 best serious posts I've seen on this forum, in my 7 months here.

If you have watched the TV show Young Sheldon, I mostly grew up identifying with atheism and I seemed to have been born pretty smart, like the show, and also was born into a Christian family, like the kid on the show.

I decided to focus more on religion after playing a religion focused video game, though it wasn't a Christian video game, called Golden Sun.

So for a few years I identified as Christian. But it wasn't for me. Also, I did mention I was smart - but health problems have gotten in the way of that and furthering my education over the years properly. So I don't consider myself smarter than most adults, but I seemed to be pretty smart as a kid.

Anyway, I joined this forum 7 months ago, was kind of more of a liberal Christian. But I wasn't happy. I explored panenthesim, but wasn't satisfied. I explored Baha'i, but they don't accept homosexuality either, much like most Christian denominations. So I changed my profile back to "Abrahamic God" and am exploring Hinduism on the side, slowly.

You may ask why I would want a religion that accepts homosexuality. All through my life, I have seen myself as transgender more or less, a woman instead of a man, and said gender dysphoria got a little bit worse some time ago. So I have made the big decision to become transgender. Ie, take hormones, making myself a lady.

Okay so, that's not 100% homosexual, but there are philosophical reasons why I further link the two. Reasons that I don't really care to talk about right now.

So while this answer may not be what you wanted, well, I was honest.

 

[Ethan Staubach]

So where has this "Natural law" been expressed? As far as I know natural law is simply an observable law relating to natural phenomena. And one of these natural phenomena is homosexual sex, which occurs throughout the animal kingdom:

Homosexual behavior among animals:

"4 Some selected species and groups

4.1 Birds
4.1.1 Black swans
4.1.2 Laysan albatross
4.1.3 Ibises
4.1.4 Mallards
4.1.5 Penguins
4.1.6 Vultures
4.1.7 Pigeons
4.2 Mammals
4.2.1 Amazon dolphin
4.2.2 American bison
4.2.3 Bats
4.2.4 Bottlenose dolphins
4.2.5 Elephants
4.2.6 Giraffes
4.2.7 Marmots
4.2.8 Lions
4.2.9 Polecat
4.2.10 Primates
4.2.10.1 Bonobo
4.2.10.2 Gorillas
4.2.10.3 Japanese macaque
4.2.10.4 Оrangutans
4.2.10.5 Monkeys
4.2.11 Sheep
4.2.12 Spotted hyena
4.3 Reptiles
4.3.1 Lizards
4.3.2 Tortoises
4.4 Insects and arachnids
4.4.1 Dragonflies
4.4.2 Fruit flies
4.4.3 Bed bugs"
(Source: Wikipedia)​

So homosexual sex among humans is certainly within keeping of natural law, just as is left-handedness.


Obviously masturbation falls into that category, which means that 99.998 percent of the people on earth have broken this natural law, yet as far as I know god hasn't seen fit to impose the death penalty on any of them for breaking this one. By the way, just where is this law (Re. Using one of the reproductive organs for something it is not designed for), written?

.

I would first encourage you to look at the post that I just responded to Kat Kat with, you may find it very helpful. Now, I've seen this argument before and I've never been swayed by it as I find it easy to repel.

Natural law in the way I see it isn't necessarily "natural phenomena". If we were to consider that definition then of course homosexuality would be considered natural as humans themselves are natural. I would define natural law (in this instance) as something being used in a way that it isn't meant to be used. Using it in an "unnatural way" breaks natural law.

Your argument states that because animals do something that makes it okay for us to do. There are animal species that are by their nature cannibalistic, does that make it okay for humans to be cannibals. Of course not. Your argument also makes the assumption that animals cannot commit unnatural acts, I find this line of thought to very fallacious, I can imagine you now understand why.

I never said that being left-handed was unnatural in any way. It's perfectly natural. This argument was attacking a strawman.

Yes, I think masturbation is immoral. Again, it breaks the natural law, I have already explained enough about that. The only biblical quote I can think of from the Bible that says anything about the death penalty in regards to sexual sin is:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

And that refers more to the rules of an ancient society rather than laying out a moral principle or reaction that people should have to homosexuality. The law of not using sexual organs for anything other than for their intended use is not written anywhere. I have not claimed as much at any point. What I will claim though is that you can reach this conclusion through logic without there being any need for it to be written.

There is a reason that Penis + Anus does not equal baby while Penis + Vagina does. This is natural law, the correct use of body parts versus the incorrect uses. I have not tried to use any theological arguments since your profile says that you are an atheist, but the Bible does condemn homosexuality very strongly.

 

[Ethan Staubach]

It's going to take some time for me to process all these arguments. But I do want to give you a thumbs up as quite frankly, this is probably in the top 50 best serious posts I've seen on this forum, in my 7 months here.

If you have watched the TV show Young Sheldon, I mostly grew up identifying with atheism and I seemed to have been born pretty smart, like the show, and also was born into a Christian family, like the kid on the show.

I decided to focus more on religion after playing a religion focused video game, though it wasn't a Christian video game, called Golden Sun.

So for a few years I identified as Christian. But it wasn't for me. Also, I did mention I was smart - but health problems have gotten in the way of that and furthering my education over the years properly. So I don't consider myself smarter than most adults, but I seemed to be pretty smart as a kid.

Anyway, I joined this forum 7 months ago, was kind of more of a liberal Christian. But I wasn't happy. I explored panenthesim, but wasn't satisfied. I explored Baha'i, but they don't accept homosexuality either, much like most Christian denominations. So I changed my profile back to "Abrahamic God" and am exploring Hinduism on the side, slowly.

You may ask why I would want a religion that accepts homosexuality. All through my life, I have seen myself as transgender more or less, a woman instead of a man, and said gender dysphoria got a little bit worse some time ago. So I have made the big decision to become transgender. Ie, take hormones, making myself a lady.

Okay so, that's not 100% homosexual, but there are philosophical reasons why I further link the two. Reasons that I don't really care to talk about right now.

So while this answer may not be what you wanted, well, I was honest.

Thank you, I really appreciate your honesty and the level of respect that you have shown me, even despite the fact that my arguments go against everything you believe. I find that it is extremely hard to find someone these days willing to have a civil and respectful discussion and I really appreciate that my second day on this site I could find someone as kind as you.

I have seen the TV show Young Sheldon (at least parts of it) and during some of the parts where Sheldon challenged the preacher, I was practically smacking my head on the table because of how idiotic they made his character. (The preacher)

I'm very sorry that health problems got in the way of education. Things like this always remind me that I need to be thankful for those good things I have in my life. (Especially given today is Thanksgiving)

I would like to make a few comments about gender dysphoria (I don't mean to be rude as I hope you understand by now).

One thing that I found interesting that you said was, "You may ask why I would want a religion that accepts homosexuality." I find this interesting because it says something about the type of mindset that you are in right now. Instead of looking for the "true" religion, you seem to be looking for one that suits how you feel. I'd just like to pose the question: What is the point of only being part of a religion that you want to be? I think the idea is that religion isn't supposed to be something that you choose based on how you feel, but on what is actually true.

I'd also like to inform you that the Roman Catholic Church (of which I am a part of) isn't against Homosexuality. In fact here are some verses from the Catholic Catechism on the matter:

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave sin. Tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (2357)

"The number of men and women who have homosexual tendencies is not choosing their homosexual condition; for most of them, it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (2358)

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." (2359)

As you can see, the Catholic Church does not condemn homosexual inclinations. It condemns homosexual acts. We believe that those who are homosexual are called to abstinence and celibacy. There may be a place in this church for you yet. If you ever, and I mean EVER have any questions about faith and the Catholic Church, you are free to contact me.

Hope you have a great Thanksgiving - Ethan Staubach

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

One thing that I found interesting that you said was, "You may ask why I would want a religion that accepts homosexuality." I find this interesting because it says something about the type of mindset that you are in right now. Instead of looking for the "true" religion, you seem to be looking for one that suits how you feel. I'd just like to pose the question: What is the point of only being part of a religion that you want to be? I think the idea is that religion isn't supposed to be something that you choose based on how you feel, but on what is actually true.

I've made it my life goal to improve my health as part of my focus on improving my life. My health improves when I listen to psychology, as well as consult the opinions of medical people and as I learn more about such stuff.

The medical field, well most of it, isn't going to tell you that homosexuality and transgender are wrong. But it pretty much has the solution to curing some people's gender dysphoria. Which is prescribing some people hormone replacement to become transgender.

But back to the question - there existed a time when I was deeply into religion. I learned / was taught to see my own mental struggles as spiritual warfare, as evils and demons affecting me. I even tried to get off medication because religious leaders told me it would improve my life. Following the advice of religious leaders and religion alone put me at a very dark place in my life, and could have put me back years in my development as a person had I continued down that path.

So I now think of religion as being second or third in my life.

 

[Ethan Staubach]

I've made it my life goal to improve my health as part of my focus on improving my life. My health improves when I listen to psychology, as well as consult the opinions of medical people and as I learn more about such stuff.

The medical field, well most of it, isn't going to tell you that homosexuality and transgender are wrong. But it pretty much has the solution to curing some people's gender dysphoria. Which is prescribing some people hormone replacement to become transgender.

But back to the question - there existed a time when I was deeply into religion. I learned / was taught to see my own mental struggles as spiritual warfare, as evils and demons affecting me. I even tried to get off medication because religious leaders told me it would improve my life. Following the advice of religious leaders and religion alone put me at a very dark place in my life, and could have put me back years in my development as a person had I continued down that path.

So I now think of religion as being second or third in my life.

Ah...I see. Sometimes (depending on the religion) religious leaders meddle where they have no business being. I suppose in a matter of speaking, religion is taking care of your health as well (more long term albeit). Many times your spiritual health affects your physical. I say this as someone who suffers from a mental illness. (Heavy OCD)

 

[Ethan Staubach]

In that story, "God's grand design" is for no women at all and relations between men and animals.

Read Genesis: woman is a Plan B. Eve is only created when none of the animals prove to be acceptable to Adam.

If God is omnipresent then doesn't that mean that he knew that none of them would be acceptable to Adam, therefore always was a part of the plan. From what I see, you are only seeing half of the picture.

 

[Ethan Staubach]

So what does god think of those who don't do as they were supposedly designed for, such as the millions who have divorced, or those who remain spinsters and bachelors? Is there some punishment for them as there is for the practicing homosexuals? From what I've read, there isn't, so why single out homosexuals?


Which would include the activities, to one degree or another, of every single person on the planet. So why single out practicing homosexuals? Homosexual sexual activities are just as mutually consensual as those of heterosexuals. They bring mutual pleasure to both, can draw each together, and can be expressions of love. Yet for some reason god ignores these aspects of homosexual sex and despises it. Why?

Nope, in god's eye there's something wrong with these homosexuals acts in of themselves. What is it, and why is it so? Oddly enough, he doesn't care to tell us, but condemns homosexuals for engaging in them. Nice guy, this god of Abraham.


.

Actually yes, divorce is considered sinful in all three of the major Abrahamic religions and is punished as all sin is (including homosexuality).

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Matthew 5:32)

“The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful." (Malachi 2:16)

"But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him." (Corinthians 7:11-13)

"Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8-9)

You may be referring to:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

This is actually referencing an older culture (Jewish) in which the punishment for homosexuality was death. This isn't God telling us to put Homosexuals to death as shown by the way the sentence is structured, nor is it saying that this is the fate of all Homosexuals. It is merely saying that homosexuality is a sin. This sin is taken by God just as any other sin is. (Such as divorce) The only Godly "punishment" these sins will bring IN THIS LIFE is driving you away from God. Remember that every sin stacks up.

Hope this helps clear things up for you, cheers.

 

[Ethan Staubach]

Yea, I got it. Which is why I asked: if our lives are so inconsequential, much less what we specifically do in the bedroom, then why would your God sentence people to death over it?



What if we aren't?

Our God loves every single one of us with all his heart. Every time one of us sins, we hurt God because we are defying him. Our lives are not inconsequential to God. God does not sentence people to death over homosexuality.

You may be thinking of this verse when you say that:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

This is actually referencing an older culture (Jewish) in which the punishment for homosexuality was death. This isn't God telling us to put Homosexuals to death as shown by the way the sentence is structured, nor is it saying that this is the fate of all Homosexuals. It is merely saying that homosexuality is a sin. This sin is taken by God just as any other sin is. The only Godly "punishment" these sins will bring IN THIS LIFE is driving you away from God. Remember that every sin stacks up.

We are all tested. Whether or not you believe in God, you can believe in that. Whether it is a higher power testing us, or just the universe, up to you to judge.

Since I noticed that your profile said that you don't currently have a religion, let me present to you the logical proofs of God as compiled by Saint Thomas Aquinas:

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2. Most natural things lack knowledge.
3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

I hope this helps clear things up for you, cheers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's wrong because it breaks natural law. What is the purpose of male and female reproductive organs? To produce a child. So when you use one of the said organs for something it is not designed for, that breaks natural law. Therefore why it is a sin and why it is wrong. The whole basis of why this is considered to be wrong revolves around the idea of natural law.

If that were the only reason for sex, why wouldn't humans only want sex when they're fertile?

Other mammals go into heat; they only desire sex when they're likely to conceive. Other mammals - including some of our closest relatives - have overt ovulation: when a female is fertile, there are clear outward signs.

Humans have a sex drive all the time, not just during windows of fertility. Human females have covert ovulation; they give no obvious outward signs of when they are or aren't fertile.

If we're in the mood for inferring intentional design from the form of a thing - and it sounds like you are - then if we're being honest with ourselves, we have to acknowledge the inescapable conclusion: humans were designed for a lot of non-procreative sex.

 

[Left Coast]

Our God loves every single one of us with all his heart. Every time one of us sins, we hurt God because we are defying him. Our lives are not inconsequential to God. God does not sentence people to death over homosexuality.

You may be thinking of this verse when you say that:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

This is actually referencing an older culture (Jewish) in which the punishment for homosexuality was death.

Did your god give that command to the Israelites as the passage says, or didn't he?

This isn't God telling us to put Homosexuals to death as shown by the way the sentence is structured,

You know the Torah wasn't originally written in English, right? The passage is very obviously a set of commands.

nor is it saying that this is the fate of all Homosexuals.

LOL no, just the ones who dare to have sex. Honestly, this is how you rationalize this stuff to yourself?

It is merely saying that homosexuality is a sin. This sin is taken by God just as any other sin is. The only Godly "punishment" these sins will bring IN THIS LIFE is driving you away from God. Remember that every sin stacks up.

We are all tested. Whether or not you believe in God, you can believe in that. Whether it is a higher power testing us, or just the universe, up to you to judge.

There's no evidence the universe "tests" us; theres no evidence it does anything consciously at all.

Since I noticed that your profile said that you don't currently have a religion, let me present to you the logical proofs of God as compiled by Saint Thomas Aquinas:

A little off topic for this thread, and as an ex-Catholic, trust me, not my first rodeo with Aquinas. Perhaps start your own thread if you want to talk through the Five Ways.

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2. Most natural things lack knowledge.
3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

I hope this helps clear things up for you, cheers.

It certainly clears up your position, but I don't find it convincing.

 

[Ethan Staubach]

If that were the only reason for sex, why wouldn't humans only want sex when they're fertile?

Other mammals go into heat; they only desire sex when they're likely to conceive. Other mammals - including some of our closest relatives - have overt ovulation: when a female is fertile, there are clear outward signs.

Humans have a sex drive all the time, not just during windows of fertility. Human females have covert ovulation; they give no obvious outward signs of when they are or aren't fertile.

If we're in the mood for inferring intentional design from the form of a thing - and it sounds like you are - then if we're being honest with ourselves, we have to acknowledge the inescapable conclusion: humans were designed for a lot of non-procreative sex.

That is not the only reason for sex, I never claimed that it was. I just said that you should only use it for what it is designed. That would be a penis in a vagina. As a Catholic I believe that another reason for sex is a consummation of the marriage. Natural law would mean that penis in anus would not be considered natural, a point which you didn't even make mention of. Conveniently ignored most likely. The consummation point would, of course, answer your point on sex drive.

 

[Ethan Staubach]

Did your god give that command to the Israelites as the passage says, or didn't he?



You know the Torah wasn't originally written in English, right? The passage is very obviously a set of commands.



LOL no, just the ones who dare to have sex. Honestly, this is how you rationalize this stuff to yourself?



There's no evidence the universe "tests" us; theres no evidence it does anything consciously at all.



A little off topic for this thread, and as an ex-Catholic, trust me, not my first rodeo with Aquinas. Perhaps start your own thread if you want to talk through the Five Ways.



It certainly clears up your position, but I don't find it convincing.

Obviously the Torah wasn't written in English. I think what you don't understand is the difference between the New and Old Covenants. This was God giving law to the Israelites. The Old Covenant was ABOLISHED once Jesus came. Sins, however, don't change. What was a sin then, remains a sin now. The difference was the time period, things needed to be done differently because of the weak state of the Jewish people. Of course, homosexuality is still a sin as it obviously breaks the natural law, the difference is in how we deal with it. Jesus has died for our sins, and by doing so, abolished the old covenant which is what these laws are under. That's the same reason why Christians are allowed to eat pork and such. Old covenant versus new.

Yes, homosexual acts are immoral, as understood through both natural law and God-given commands. Homosexual people are called to celibacy, as are many straight people. As stated earlier, in this time of the New Covenant, homosexual acts are not punishable by death. Given your Christian background, I'm surprised you don't know the difference between the two covenants.

Of course, these last two sections roll back to the 5 proofs of God. Besides, I wasn't talking about us being consciously being tested by the universe in the third to last section. On a day to day basis, our character is tested. This is undeniable whether or not you are religious. Every day brings new challenges.

Hope this helps clear things up, cheers.

 

[Skwim]

Natural law in the way I see it isn't necessarily "natural phenomena".

By your qualification here, "isn't necessarily," it's clear you possibly could regard it as a natural phenomenon. Good.

If we were to consider that definition then of course homosexuality would be considered natural as humans themselves are natural.

would define natural law (in this instance) as something being used in a way that it isn't meant to be used. Using it in an "unnatural way" breaks natural law.

So natural law = when a thing is used in a way that it isn't meant to be used. Other then being an example rather a definition of the term, your example is unintelligible. Think about it.

Your argument states that because animals do something that makes it okay for us to do.

No, my argument is that human homosexual sex is within natural law, as the term is defined.

Definition of natural law

: a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law
Source: Merriam-Webster unabridged​

There are animal species that are by their nature cannibalistic, does that make it okay for humans to be cannibals. Of course not.

So what? It was your argument that homosexual acts "breaks natural law," and all I was showing you was that they were completely in line with natural law.

Your argument also makes the assumption that animals cannot commit unnatural acts, I find this line of thought to very fallacious,

As would I if I ever made such an assumption, but I don't. If an act is well outside normal conduct I might very well consider it unnatural.

I never said that being left-handed was unnatural in any way. It's perfectly natural. This argument was attacking a strawman.

I suggest you look up the strawman fallacy.

Yes, I think masturbation is immoral. Again, it breaks the natural law,

*sigh* Lacking your definition of natural law I can't really address what you think about it. Want to give your definition of "natural law" another try?

And that refers more to the rules of an ancient society rather than laying out a moral principle or reaction that people should have to homosexuality. The law of not using sexual organs for anything other than for their intended use is not written anywhere. I have not claimed as much at any point.

Then how did you come up with your claim that "So when you use one of the said organs for something it is not designed for, that breaks natural law."? I assume god didn't whisper it in your ear or write it in a cloud you were gazing at.

There is a reason that Penis + Anus does not equal baby while Penis + Vagina does. This is natural law, the correct use of body parts versus the incorrect uses. I have not tried to use any theological arguments since your profile says that you are an atheist, but the Bible does condemn homosexuality very strongly.

No, the Bible condemns homosexual sex very strongly. It says next to nothing about homosexuality: sexual attraction or the tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex.

And just to be clear, my profile says I'm an agnostic.

.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is not the only reason for sex, I never claimed that it was.

You did, actually.

I just said that you should only use it for what it is designed. That would be a penis in a vagina.

... you assume. How presumptuous is it of you to assume that you know the mind of God?

As a Catholic I believe that another reason for sex is a consummation of the marriage. Natural law would mean that penis in anus would not be considered natural, a point which you didn't even make mention of. Conveniently ignored most likely.

If it's "natural" for you to pull prejudices out of your anus and call them "natural law," why wouldn't it be any less natural for someone to do the opposite with a penis?

And since the anus is the way to access the male "G spot" - the prostate - it stands to reason that God wanted guys to put something up there.

The consummation point would, of course, answer your point on sex drive.

Not at all, actually.

 

[Left Coast]

Obviously the Torah wasn't written in English. I think what you don't understand is the difference between the New and Old Covenants. This was God giving law to the Israelites.

Thank you. Your god commanded people to be executed for having gay sex. It wasn't justified 3,000 years ago any more than it is today.

The Old Covenant was ABOLISHED once Jesus came. Sins, however, don't change. What was a sin then, remains a sin now.

And what was a hideous, unjust punishment for a non-crime then, remains a hideous, unjust punishment for a non-crime now.

The difference was the time period, things needed to be done differently because of the weak state of the Jewish people.

I'm sorry, your god commanded the execution of gay people because of the "weak state of the Jewish people?" That makes no sense. You are trying to defend the indefensible.

Of course, homosexuality is still a sin as it obviously breaks the natural law,

I don't subscribe to "natural law" moral theory so that doesn't hold much weight with me.

the difference is in how we deal with it. Jesus has died for our sins, and by doing so, abolished the old covenant which is what these laws are under. That's the same reason why Christians are allowed to eat pork and such. Old covenant versus new.

Yes, homosexual acts are immoral, as understood through both natural law and God-given commands. Homosexual people are called to celibacy, as are many straight people. As stated earlier, in this time of the New Covenant, homosexual acts are not punishable by death. Given your Christian background, I'm surprised you don't know the difference between the two covenants.

I'm well acquainted with the idea. It's interesting, though, that you're apparently unaware that the New Testament reiterates the assertion that people who have gay sex deserve to die (Romans 1). And regardless, it was just as abhorrent to kill people for having gay sex before Jesus as it was after Jesus.

There is nothing immoral about gay sex. Criminalizing what consenting adults do in the bedroom is a terrible, authoritarian thing to do now, just like it was back then.

 

[Left Coast]

Here's a video from a philosophy professor explaining some of the painfully obvious problems with "natural law" sexual ethics. His whole series of videos addressing objections to homosexuality is quite good.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is simple.
Only humans have a soul and free will. Free will is what allows us to sin and go against God's order.
God has created all of nature and all animals have only reproductive sex, because that is the order God made.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bonobo-sex-and-society-2006-06/
Expect is not. Sex has a social function.

So here are the fun parts:
Bonobos have souls and free will and are made in God's imagine and sin.
Bonobos don't have souls, free will and don't sin, because God have made Bonobos to have no reproductive sex and thus non-reproductive sex is natural, because God have made the Bonobos.
Or the Bonobos are made by Satan and God haven't made all of Nature.
Or there are other ways to understand God, than the tradition of Abrahamic religion.

Hi @KAT-KAT I am not you, yet I am similar to you. I am atypical when it comes to human neuro-diversity. So are you.
Now it is not easy to be atypical, but here is a coping trick. Learn to be proud of you as you. I can say - I am atypical and not just a disorder. I am a human like everybody else. I am not a disorder, I have a difference in regards to other humans, but I am proud of that, because I have learn to do that and not take on the negative judgment of some humans. I am not just my disorder. I am much more that than, but my "disorder" is also what have taught me to accept all human diversity as human and not wrong/evil/bad. (We can do morality and ethics if you like).

Now it gets weird. You don't have a disorder as a negative. You are a difference(atypical), but that doesn't define your worth as a human. All humans have worth in God's eye and it is other humans, that judge you as without worth.

So if you look for God, here is maybe something for you. Unitarian Universalist Association There are other ways to God than this, but here is a trick. No human can judge you with God. Only God can do that. Since I am not God, I can't judge you with God. I can only look at God's work, us and indirectly see God through love and acceptance of all humans as having worth. That is the core of my faith. If all-loving are to make sense, that we are all loved by God and thus to condemn other humans as not made in God's picture, is to go against God in my view/faith.
Either God made me with my difference since that is how I am in part or God made Satan and Satan made me, but then God in effect made me so.
Now I have learned to be me, because that is how God made me. And I don't accept the judgement of other humans in the name of God, because then they are in effect judging God in the name of God.

Stand tall as you and be proud that you are you. Not that it makes to better or worse than other humans, but be proud to be you. I am atypical and I am proud of that, because I don't hate myself, I have learn to love myself as me and be proud that I have learned as me. I live as me as one of God's children.
Peace, my follow human.

 

[InChrist]

So what does god think of those who don't do as they were supposedly designed for, such as the millions who have divorced, or those who remain spinsters and bachelors? Is there some punishment for them as there is for the practicing homosexuals? From what I've read, there isn't, so why single out homosexuals?


Which would include the activities, to one degree or another, of every single person on the planet. So why single out practicing homosexuals? Homosexual sexual activities are just as mutually consensual as those of heterosexuals. They bring mutual pleasure to both, can draw each together, and can be expressions of love. Yet for some reason god ignores these aspects of homosexual sex and despises it. Why?

Nope, in god's eye there's something wrong with these homosexuals acts in of themselves. What is it, and why is it so? Oddly enough, he doesn't care to tell us, but condemns homosexuals for engaging in them. Nice guy, this god of Abraham.


.

I don't see the scriptures singling out homosexuality, maybe some Christians or churches do, but from the biblical perspective "sin is sin" whatever form it takes and God will judge accordingly anyone who consistently practices sin who has not repented and found forgiveness and new life in Christ.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not the only reason for sex, I never claimed that it was. I just said that you should only use it for what it is designed. That would be a penis in a vagina. As a Catholic I believe that another reason for sex is a consummation of the marriage. Natural law would mean that penis in anus would not be considered natural, a point which you didn't even make mention of. Conveniently ignored most likely. The consummation point would, of course, answer your point on sex drive.

Not "unnatural" merely uncomfortable if done wrong. Many Catholics would disagree with you: