Is Homosexuality Really A Sin?

[antistuff 0]

My views on that matter is that it would be 100% morally wrong for our country to make homosexuality illegal.

Isn't it in a lot of places? Or is that some sort of urban legend?

[semaj550 0]

That's what I was questioning in the first place. In a more broad sense...is it ok in your opinion for people to do things that you deem immoral? If so, to what degree? I think we can establish a universal objective 'statement' to cover that.If someone thinks pre-marital sex is ok, and you don't...shouldn't they still be allowed to do it? Laws are set up to insure the stability of a society, and morality is a personal matter on how one best sees fit to govern their own lives.Right? Just like someone following a religion different that yours, or none at all.

Sure, people are perfectly free to do things that I deem immoral. God gave them free will just as much as He did me, why should mine be more important?An autonomous society is free to determine the norms by which its members are expected to live. If the US government wants to pass a law to specifically allow gay marriage, more power to it. The beauty of democracy is that, as a people, you get exactly what you deserve. If the US wants to permit gay marriage it wouldn't be the first time it permitted immoral behaviour.None of that really speaks to the morality of gay marriage though. I understand your point and concede the legal side of it but that can't make gay marriage moral.

[semaj550 0]

Semaj, you misunderstood me when you quoted me.I was not relating morality to the law of the country.If you read what I wrote, I mentioned morality AND legality. But I completely understand that you didn't comb over my post... I rarely have the time to do that myself :PMy views on that matter is that it would be 100% morally wrong for our country to make homosexuality illegal. There is no case that needs to be made on a moral basis other then the fact of the case that the opposition would need to make on why homosexuality should be considered immoral (the word of God does not fly). And yes, government must be 100% secular as well. And no, this country is not founded off of Christianity.On a legal note, homosexuality does not infringe the rights of anyone and making it illegal is taking away freedoms from the people.

Back to what I've been saying all along. If we are going to discuss this we need an objective, universal, and immutable morality against which to measure our behaviour. Until we can agree on what that is, there is no point in discussing this. You're argument is 100% correct provided that yours is the only morality which exists. Mine obivously differs and there are billions of other people out there who differ from both of us. If morality is relative to a particular person then nothing any of us does could be considered immoral.

[semaj550 0]

Wrong and wrongMorality would be the worst thing in the world if everything was 100% definable. What can be discussed is what is good for society... examples such as the golden rule, try not to kill, try not to steal, etc etc... These are wonderful moral codes to live by and certain complex situations can and should be discussed. The more and more complex we can take a moral code (with the ability to grow and expand), the better. I would relate it to why science is sooooo much better then religion when it comes to truth. There IS no absolute truth. This allows our knowledge of truth to grow... to expand... to find what is new... to take what is already known and know it in a more complex manner. Religion spouts absolute truth. The end of the road, so to speak. It allows no room for improvement... no nothing. Morality shouldn't be subject to pure absolutes, though. AND just because morality ISN'T subject to absolutes doesn't mean, IN ANY WAY, that we are allowed to run all 'nilly willy' (I just wanted to say that ) and do anything you want whenever you want. It's been pointed out numerous times that people who are not religious in any way whatsoever have no problem living a good moral life. In fact, the percentages would show you that people without religion live better moral lives as a whole... less divorce as a %, less jail time as a %, etc. We talk the talk AND walk the walk with this stuff unlike how Republicans paint Al Gore, I guess...Morality, also, is not worth discussing if it was run by religious absolutes. Actually, there would be nothing to discuss at all. Every situation would be crystal clear. Same thing if there was only one sect of Christianity that EVERYONE followed. Everything would be crystal clear.... and THAT would be morally wrong. It allows no room for improvement... no accountability for change, etc.

Okay. Assuming that everything quoted above is true, prove to me that Hitler's attempt to purify the human race was immoral.

[antistuff 0]

Back to what I've been saying all along. If we are going to discuss this we need an objective, universal, and immutable morality against which to measure our behaviour. Until we can agree on what that is, there is no point in discussing this. You're argument is 100% correct provided that yours is the only morality which exists. Mine obivously differs and there are billions of other people out there who differ from both of us. If morality is relative to a particular person then nothing any of us does could be considered immoral.

So no God no right and wrong?Your so close. Take the next step, free yourself.

[jmkiser 0]

Okay. Assuming that everything quoted above is true, prove to me that Hitler's attempt to purify the human race was immoral.

Because psychopathic mass murdering stunts the positive growth of the human race. Many of the top future minds, bodies, etc. were probably murdered along with millions of innocent defenseless people.None of what I just said had any basis from any religion or Bible.See how it's done?

[semaj550 0]

Because psychopathic mass murdering stunts the positive growth of the human race. Many of the top future minds, bodies, etc. were probably murdered along with millions of innocent defenseless people.None of what I just said had any basis from any religion or Bible.See how it's done?

I'm soooooo glad you bit. ;)Rape furthers the postive growth of the human race. Many more top future minds, bodies, etc. could probably be procuded if we allowed rape.Shall we go ahead and allow that then?

[antistuff 0]

Because psychopathic mass murdering stunts the positive growth of the human race. Many of the top future minds, bodies, etc. were probably murdered along with millions of innocent defenseless people.None of what I just said had any basis from any religion or Bible.See how it's done?

What if somebody doesn't care about the positive growth of the human race? Who are you to impose your morality on them?

[BWToth 0]

Yes, Kiser fvcked up. But, While morality IS subjective to a point, I still believe their is some universal truth out there, whether that can ever be proven, or even articulated is another matter. And I'm 99.9% sure that no religion has it.You'd have to do some sort of Descartes mind game where you start with what is 99.9% known to be good in all cases, and then only add things that also fit the bill. But you have to start with a universal goal first. For instance, goal: proliferate the human race.1st Truth: Procreating is Good, Not Procreating is Bad2nd Truth: Doing things that create a better situation for your offspring to procreate is Good.Etc.Also anything that could have gray area would not be a universal truth, or the action that one does to fulfill the truth. So for example, if you are fulfilling the goal of helping your offspring procreate...you cannot kill someone else's offspring so that your offspring can eat them because it impedes someone else from acheiving a one of the universal truths.However, the flaw with this idea is that someone could start with the goal of their morality being the destruction of mankind, in which case their first truth would be Procreating is Bad. But, biology and nature, something that humans have no control over tells us that our goal is to procreate therefore we can establish that an ideology whose goal is to procreate is better than an ideology who's goal is the destruction of mankind.Hmm....Would anyone here object that we can determine that the goal of mankind is procreation at the most simple level. From either within a religious 'box' or outside religion.??I think if we devise a premise on which all future discussion is based then we could progress much more efficiently.

[jmkiser 0]

I'm soooooo glad you bit. ;)Rape furthers the postive growth of the human race. Many more top future minds, bodies, etc. could probably be procuded if we allowed rape.Shall we go ahead and allow that then?

no no no I didn't **** up btw, it's my 21st bday (well 3 and a half hours into it) and I'm a bit intoxicated, but this is more then answerable.Rape is not a healthy form of procreation. Not only does it ruin the life of the mother, but it also (usually) hurts the childhood of the kid. It also is wrong, illegal, hurtful, life-ruining, etc etc etc etc... the negative of rape does not overcome the good of birth.

[jmkiser 0]

What if somebody doesn't care about the positive growth of the human race? Who are you to impose your morality on them?

I'm definitely not one to impose morality on anyone. But I do live in a society where there are laws against infringing on someone's personal rights. Rape = a DRASTIC infringement on someone's personal rights.

[semaj550 0]

no no no I didn't **** up btw, it's my 21st bday (well 3 and a half hours into it) and I'm a bit intoxicated, but this is more then answerable.Rape is not a healthy form of procreation. Not only does it ruin the life of the mother, but it also (usually) hurts the childhood of the kid. It also is wrong, illegal, hurtful, life-ruining, etc etc etc etc... the negative of rape does not overcome the good of birth.

Well happy birthday!Why should we care if it ruins the life of the mother? In your last post you said that immorality was that which stunted the postive growth of the human race.As for it being wrong, illegal, hurtful, life-ruining, etc., where did you get that idea?

[semaj550 0]

Yes, Kiser fvcked up. But, While morality IS subjective to a point, I still believe their is some universal truth out there, whether that can ever be proven, or even articulated is another matter. And I'm 99.9% sure that no religion has it.You'd have to do some sort of Descartes mind game where you start with what is 99.9% known to be good in all cases, and then only add things that also fit the bill. But you have to start with a universal goal first. For instance, goal: proliferate the human race.1st Truth: Procreating is Good, Not Procreating is Bad2nd Truth: Doing things that create a better situation for your offspring to procreate is Good.Etc.Also anything that could have gray area would not be a universal truth, or the action that one does to fulfill the truth. So for example, if you are fulfilling the goal of helping your offspring procreate...you cannot kill someone else's offspring so that your offspring can eat them because it impedes someone else from acheiving a one of the universal truths.However, the flaw with this idea is that someone could start with the goal of their morality being the destruction of mankind, in which case their first truth would be Procreating is Bad. But, biology and nature, something that humans have no control over tells us that our goal is to procreate therefore we can establish that an ideology whose goal is to procreate is better than an ideology who's goal is the destruction of mankind.Hmm....Would anyone here object that we can determine that the goal of mankind is procreation at the most simple level. From either within a religious 'box' or outside religion.??I think if we devise a premise on which all future discussion is based then we could progress much more efficiently.

See, herein lies the problem. I don't disagree with your post completely. I suspect you and I share a fairly similar view of morality so it would probably fairly easy for us to sit down and draw up a framework which we can agree constitutes morality. But so what? If morality is as subjective as all that it is worthless. What do you do about the people who don't subscribe to it? Are they immoral? If so, why? Maybe we're the immoral ones because we don't agree with them. I know that you have it in your head (and quite correctly so) that there are these universal truths. But how are they universal if a portion of the human race doesn't agree to them? Clearly something else is required to sustain them.

[semaj550 0]

I'm definitely not one to impose morality on anyone. But I do live in a society where there are laws against infringing on someone's personal rights. Rape = a DRASTIC infringement on someone's personal rights.

Societal norms do not and cannot equate morality, they vary far too much from society to society.

[jmkiser 0]

Well happy birthday!Why should we care if it ruins the life of the mother? In your last post you said that immorality was that which stunted the postive growth of the human race.As for it being wrong, illegal, hurtful, life-ruining, etc., where did you get that idea?

Ah, I didn't mean for it ONLY as what helps the positive growth of the human race. Many morals are dictated by society. We even have many that are pretty silly, but we do them just because (example: holding doors open for women) and most of us do them happily.We do have human conscience and our morality has a lot to do with what our parents give down to us from what they learned. Then interactions with society and pretty much the nature of our environment dictates most of our moral codes.And I don't know a person in the world that runs their moral code strictly from religion alone. If most religious people were honest, too, they would admit that they are run by society more then they are run by their religion.Thanks for the comment! ... and I'm going to go get ready for lunch with the father, early dinner with the mother, and for the "official" night out on the town

[jmkiser 0]

Societal norms do not and cannot equate morality, they vary far too much from society to society.

We have plenty of societal norms that equate to subjective morality. Some men find it important to treat women in a special way and some treat them as sisters and make them open their own doors and buy their own drinks.There are plenty of morals (mostly unimportant) that are different between locales. There are also plenty of more important morals (regarding killing, raping, etc.) that are standard throughout anywhere you go in this country.That is the reality of today and we're doing just fine.Ideal absolutes do not and cannot equate to morality. And you can't attribute rules such as "do not kill" to religion either... absolutes of religion have been around for a long time, but society as a whole has become more moral over time. Just think about the dark ages until now. It was a slow, but still-growing process that creates more and more civilized societies.

[jmkiser 0]

See, herein lies the problem. I don't disagree with your post completely. I suspect you and I share a fairly similar view of morality so it would probably fairly easy for us to sit down and draw up a framework which we can agree constitutes morality. But so what? If morality is as subjective as all that it is worthless. What do you do about the people who don't subscribe to it? Are they immoral? If so, why? Maybe we're the immoral ones because we don't agree with them. I know that you have it in your head (and quite correctly so) that there are these universal truths. But how are they universal if a portion of the human race doesn't agree to them? Clearly something else is required to sustain them.

Ah, but that's the thing... we don't have that. A framework, I understand... some type of base. This has a lot to do with why we have certain laws we do. Raping someone is clearly across the line, therefore, society steps up and makes that unacceptable. People who commit this act are punished by society (or the product of society... government). Government laws are NOT the basis for morality, society is. We could sit down and lay out certain frameworks... as I've stated beforeTry not to kill.Try not to rape. (I say try because of possible screwed up situation where someone is going to kill 20 people in a building unless you rape one person... messed up situations like on "Saw", but that is just why I say "try" instead of "do")Golden Ruleetc.Same thing with human rights. As we've discovered that it is wrong to treat black people in the way we have, the product of our society (government) has put in enforcements to make sure they are treated equally. Same thing as women... Homosexuals are probably next.(On another topic, this is an area where I could start talking about how I hate our pro-active controlling government where instead of being a product of the people, they are know the rulers of the people... bahhabhabhabhabhabhabha;lsdkfja;lksdfj;asldkfja;sldkfja;sldfkjasld;fk)

[semaj550 0]

Ah, I didn't mean for it ONLY as what helps the positive growth of the human race. Many morals are dictated by society. We even have many that are pretty silly, but we do them just because (example: holding doors open for women) and most of us do them happily.We do have human conscience and our morality has a lot to do with what our parents give down to us from what they learned. Then interactions with society and pretty much the nature of our environment dictates most of our moral codes.And I don't know a person in the world that runs their moral code strictly from religion alone. If most religious people were honest, too, they would admit that they are run by society more then they are run by their religion.Thanks for the comment! ... and I'm going to go get ready for lunch with the father, early dinner with the mother, and for the "official" night out on the town

But the original issue was that we were trying to prove that Hilter's actions were immoral. Much to our chagrin, we've yet to actually do that in this discussion. People don't wake up one day and decide, "I want to do something evil." Rather they have a view of the world and of right and wrong that greatly differs from ours and they go on doing what they think is right. I'm pretty sure that Hitler was 100% convinced that he was doing good, I highly doubt he ever considered his actions immoral. So why does American society have the right to trump Nazi society when it comes to morality? Because we find one more tasteful than the other? That hardly holds any weight when you think about it.Are we acting moral so long as we do what our parents taught us to?I also agree that religion is not the sole source for morality. I contend that God is, see more in my next post.And enjoy your birthday!

[semaj550 0]

We have plenty of societal norms that equate to subjective morality. Some men find it important to treat women in a special way and some treat them as sisters and make them open their own doors and buy their own drinks.There are plenty of morals (mostly unimportant) that are different between locales. There are also plenty of more important morals (regarding killing, raping, etc.) that are standard throughout anywhere you go in this country.That is the reality of today and we're doing just fine.Ideal absolutes do not and cannot equate to morality. And you can't attribute rules such as "do not kill" to religion either... absolutes of religion have been around for a long time, but society as a whole has become more moral over time. Just think about the dark ages until now. It was a slow, but still-growing process that creates more and more civilized societies.

If it's subjective it isn't really morality. At least not in the sense that we are trying to discuss. One is free to have one's own morality but what we are discussing is an overriding morality which is universally applicable regardless of one's own tastes. Some guys believe that a woman should be treated no differently than a man, does that make them immoral? After all isn't that what the women's lib movement was about?It's these "more important" morals that I would like to focus on. Where do they come from? How can people who are so vastly different agree on a prohibition against killing or raping on such a fundamental level? And more to my original question, how is it that we can almost unanimously agree on the immorality of Hilter when we can't agree on things which are far more simplistic?

[semaj550 0]

Ah, but that's the thing... we don't have that. A framework, I understand... some type of base. This has a lot to do with why we have certain laws we do. Raping someone is clearly across the line, therefore, society steps up and makes that unacceptable. People who commit this act are punished by society (or the product of society... government). Government laws are NOT the basis for morality, society is. We could sit down and lay out certain frameworks... as I've stated beforeTry not to kill.Try not to rape. (I say try because of possible screwed up situation where someone is going to kill 20 people in a building unless you rape one person... messed up situations like on "Saw", but that is just why I say "try" instead of "do")Golden Ruleetc.Same thing with human rights. As we've discovered that it is wrong to treat black people in the way we have, the product of our society (government) has put in enforcements to make sure they are treated equally. Same thing as women... Homosexuals are probably next.(On another topic, this is an area where I could start talking about how I hate our pro-active controlling government where instead of being a product of the people, they are know the rulers of the people... bahhabhabhabhabhabhabha;lsdkfja;lksdfj;asldkfja;sldkfja;sldfkjasld;fk)

I think I should be a little more explicit. I am positing that morality is not man-made and cannot be because no one man has a greater right to determine what is moral than another. Just as BW contends that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, a majority consenus is not all that is required to decide issues of morality. Quite simply, I am saying that without God (regardless of any religion's interpretation of Him) an objective, universal morality does not exist.

[11 to 1 0]

Yes, Kiser fvcked up. But, While morality IS subjective to a point, I still believe their is some universal truth out there, whether that can ever be proven, or even articulated is another matter. And I'm 99.9% sure that no religion has it.You'd have to do some sort of Descartes mind game where you start with what is 99.9% known to be good in all cases, and then only add things that also fit the bill. But you have to start with a universal goal first. For instance, goal: proliferate the human race.1st Truth: Procreating is Good, Not Procreating is Bad2nd Truth: Doing things that create a better situation for your offspring to procreate is Good.Etc.

It has always seemed to me that the problem with trying to define some Universal Morality is that people tend to focus on specific actions - or absolute caveats. For instance this: 1st Truth: Procreating is Good, Not Procreating is Bad2nd Truth: Doing things that create a better situation for your offspring to procreate is Good.There are many cultures with behaviors that are geared toward reducing the opportunity for procreation, in this way, they sustain themselves in an ecosystem that won't support a larger population. These kinds of societies have some pretty rigid and often shocking (to us) practices. Morality as a system of behaviors prescribed or proscribed will always be situational and never absolute. In the end, for me, it comes back to Jesus: "Love one another." All the rest is commentary.

[jmkiser 0]

Thanks for the sentiments, Semaj!Regarding morality, I would not attest to the ideal that there is a universal moral code. I would recognize that there is a tendency (uh oh, dangerous word ) towards some overalls. As I said before, some of the more universal ones, such as the Golden Rule, are decently accepted... not by everyone, of course. And then in our society alone (to only some people), there are littles ones... like holding doors open for women. That doesn't apply to everyone nor does it need to apply to everyone at all.I believe that an outlined, distinct, defined moral code would be defeating of purpose and cause problems. BWToth would be great at coming up with philosophical situations to abolish anything so concrete as that.The things I mention are not to be taken as set in stone rules, but merely suggestions on the way things tend to work overall. I do not suggest that everyone HAS to abide by them, but it is the society that I live in and I wouldn't want to live in a society without them.Subjective morality does exist. In other parts of the world, cannibalism is revered. These societies are perfectly fine with this, therefore, I have no reason to step in and say anything. If anyone was being repressed by a society's moral code, that might be a bit different... only to an extent. Hitler's world view was problematic... of course not to him, but I have more then enough reasons due to the effects of his actions to be able to look him straight in the face and disagree with his moral integrity.Morality is not something set in stone, nor should it ever be set in stone. I would like to live in a society where the people have a tendency to set their morals by standards such as the Golden Rule. This morality also affects other things in people... efficiency, civility, etc. This is all ideal speak, though.What does not make sense to me is to look at God for this sense of morality. Which God? What is this God like? If it is an omnipotent being, then why would murder even matter? It would be like us stepping on an ant. I would completely stand behind the philosophical argument that it couldn't be possible for an omnipotent being to feel emotion towards us, the lead animals on earth. And how in the world did the omnipotent being (of which we have no proof of contact to any human on earth), set up a moral code and why does it differ all over the world?I think discussing morality and then comparing it to God makes little to no sense at all.

[Loismustdie 0]

But the original issue was that we were trying to prove that Hilter's actions were immoral. Much to our chagrin, we've yet to actually do that in this discussion. People don't wake up one day and decide, "I want to do something evil." Rather they have a view of the world and of right and wrong that greatly differs from ours and they go on doing what they think is right. I'm pretty sure that Hitler was 100% convinced that he was doing good, I highly doubt he ever considered his actions immoral. So why does American society have the right to trump Nazi society when it comes to morality? Because we find one more tasteful than the other? That hardly holds any weight when you think about it.Are we acting moral so long as we do what our parents taught us to?I also agree that religion is not the sole source for morality. I contend that God is, see more in my next post.And enjoy your birthday!

I personally don't think that we have any right to judge an individual such as Hitler, because what he obviously lacked respect for- life- we commit the same sin as well, just in different ways. I read an article in Time where a group is upset because certain abortion clinics were trying to convince women to not have abortions. Not denying them- just making an effort to convince them otherwise. The group contends that the clinics,"Made the women feel bad." Seriously? Really? Let's assume these were grown women- no one can make them feel bad. If they feel bad, that's on them. Let's assume that these were young girls- shouldn't have been having sex in the first place, and definitely do not have a mind to make a decision like that, so whether or not they feel bad is irrelevant-they shouldn't even be allowed to make that kind of choice.

[semaj550 0]

It has always seemed to me that the problem with trying to define some Universal Morality is that people tend to focus on specific actions - or absolute caveats. For instance this: 1st Truth: Procreating is Good, Not Procreating is Bad2nd Truth: Doing things that create a better situation for your offspring to procreate is Good.There are many cultures with behaviors that are geared toward reducing the opportunity for procreation, in this way, they sustain themselves in an ecosystem that won't support a larger population. These kinds of societies have some pretty rigid and often shocking (to us) practices. Morality as a system of behaviors prescribed or proscribed will always be situational and never absolute. In the end, for me, it comes back to Jesus: "Love one another." All the rest is commentary.

I think you're pretty much correct but it runs much deeper than that. Love is a lot more than just a warm, fuzzy feeling.

[David_Nicoson 1]

I thought this was apropos.

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

October 2002

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:Dear Dr. Laura:Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.Your devoted fan,Jim