Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Today's ethics question

What arguments can you provide that concludes that homosexuality is not wrong or that homosexuality is wrong?
And I'll add a second part to it from previous discussions...
What arguement, other than Scripture or Religious beliefs, have led you to the conclusion that same sex marriage is wrong?

4 comments:

Kristopher said...

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination

i think that's sufficient.

Jonathan Blundell said...

Leviticus 11:7-8 And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

I think that's sufficient to ban football too then.

Fred said...

The question of homosexuality being wrong or not wrong is an interesting question which must be answered. Is it possible to even define wrong without scripture or religious beliefs? There must be absolutes. You may say, "There are no absolutes." That is making an absolute statement and therefore it proves itself false and its antithesis must be true. There are absolutes.

What is wrong or bad for me may be right or good for you, depending on our respective perspectives. It may be wrong for me to have more money than you, in your opinion. Therefore, in your opinion, it could be right for you to take my money from me. I may not think it is all right for me to have more money than you, but I definitely would think it wrong for you to take my money from me.

Another issue must be considered. Sexual relationships are only the thermometer of the relationship. They are not the air conditioner which relieves the sweat of the day. They are not the heater that warms the chill from the outside world. A temporary port in the storm gives short term relief, but it is nothing compared to the securtiy, relief, comfort, provision, peace and satisfaction of being safe in one's home port. The question then becomes, "Do you want many relationships without depth, or one in which you and your partner are intimately commited to each other in every way for your lifetime?"

Look at the positive benefits of
the opposite of homosexual practices. Proponents of "free sex," as they have called it, have actually researched, surveyed, and reported that those men and women in monogamous heterosexual relationships are more satisfied and happy than those people indulging in the "free sex" world of multiple heterosexual or homosexual relationshipos.

Those couples in monogamous heterosexual relationships also report greater satisfaction, greater sexual intimacy, and more frequent sexual intercourse than those engaging in multiple heterosexual relationships. Therefore, multiple heterosexual or homosexual partnerships are not the best or the most enduring sexual relationships.


If wrong is defined as not good for you, then homosexual relationships are just as bad for you as multiple heterosexual relationships. Sexual relations with any one means that you are exposed to the same sexually transmittted diseases (STD's)to which that partner has been exposed. Therefore, it is as dangerous as having sexual relations with all of that partners' sexual partners.

Consider "same sex marriage." Male homosexuals live to an average age of less than 45 years. Their lifespan is shortened by the STD's, other diseases, and injuries brought on by their homosexual practices and the high number of partners with whom they engage in unnatural sexual relationships. The male body is not made for such acts. I do not think I need to explain that statement.

The average life span of lesbians is not known by me--but they definitely live a shorter life and have more STD's than those in monogamous heterosexual relationships. The female body is not made for homosexual relationships. Lesbians suffer from STD's even as their male counterparts.


Same sex unions (I will not equate them with marriage.) are not nearly as good, compared to heterosexual monogamous marriages even if monogamous and for the lifetime of the people so "united."

Have you ever heard of anyone or is there anyone who can point to any same sex union in which both partners have never had sexual relationships with anyone else?
Men and women interact differently than men with men or women with women. VIVA LA DIFFERENCE!

It is far easier (and better) to intimately know and become known by one partner in one's lifetime than to try to even be satisfied or satisfy more than one partner.

You can decide if homosexual relationships are right or wrong. You can decide if you are willing to suffer the consequences of repeated cheap thrills or if you are willing to commit to realizing the ultimate relationship among humans on this earth.

I thank my Lord Jesus Christ that he will enable you to realize the best relationship among humans and with himself if you will trust him and commit your life to him.

"Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart." Psalm 37:4

(The question of right or wrong can best be answered from Scripture because it portrays God as he has revealed himself to us. Would you like that answer?)

Jonathan Blundell said...

I don't have a problem saying that Scripture condems homosexuality and I don't have a problem agreeing with that or believing that. But I think that if it's really true, we should have an argument outside of Scripture.
When I tell an unbeliever that "the Bible tells me so." That's like a Muslim telling me, "Well you should do this because the Koran tells me so."
I'm don't buy into their faith and I'm not going to buy into what their "standard or absolute for living" tells them.
When someone asks me if abortion is wrong, I say yes. Not because scripture tells me that, but because you're stepping on the rights of another individual.
Your rights end when you step on the rights of someone else. When you end the life of the baby/fetus/embryo you're pushing your rights on to them. That's wrong. Yes, scripture tells me it's wrong, but to the unbeliever it "sounds foolish."