“Gay” versus Straight
[info added 7/11/09 in RED]
During a recent back-and-forth with a poster, I commented that she and I had a fundamental disagreement that necessarily caused us to disagree on all related issues. The difference is that she believes homosexuality is the moral equivalence of heterosexuality.
Friends, that’s just plain wrong.
First, there’s the biblical argument. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality (and by this term I mean the act, not the inclination) is wrong. Homosexual apologists try to explain away the verses (“They’re talking about idol worship.”) but the fact remains they cannot come up with even ONE verse that says homosexuality is good or that it is even condoned.
We constantly hear about “gay Christians” but that is an oxymoron. Homosexuality is clearly condemned in Scripture. We don’t talk about “adulterous Christians” or “pedophile Christians” or “blasphemous Christians,” so why use “gay Christians” as if it makes sense when, in reality, it is a slap in the face of God?
Of course, they can ignore the Bible and say that these “ramblings by old men” don’t count, but that just puts the apologists further out on the thin ice. You see, without relying on the Bible as the rule for what’s right and what’s wrong, they are forced to rely on a slippery slope of moral relativism. In other words, what’s right today could be wrong tomorrow, then right again next week. They have NOTHING to base their values on. Nothing.
Second, there is no redeeming social value that homosexuality has brought to society. None. That’s not to say that certain homosexuals haven’t done good things… what I’m talking about is homosexuality itself.
What has homosexuality brought to society? How about disease (anal and oral sex lead to sickness like AIDS)?
[And here's a thought: the liberals that tout homosexuality as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality usually tend to be Darwinists as well. The funny thing is, however, that Darwinism and homosexuality are just not compatible.
After all, Darwinism teaches about the survival of the fittest. That's the core teaching about evolution. The bad, the defects, die off, and the strong, healthy creatures reproduce, giving the world a more advanced, better creature.
The problem is, homosexuals don't procreate, so, according to the survival of the fittest, they wouldn't be the fittest. Under evolution, they would die off in one generation.]
The problem society made a generation ago was to “accept” homosexuality. What had once been outlawed (sodomy), and rightly so, was now legalized. It was, at that time, still considered disgusting by most people, but it had become legal.
The legalization of sodomy led to the acceptance of homosexuality (thank you, Hollywood, for your propaganda) which led to civil unions which led to same-sex marriage. At that point, there was no longer ant legal difference between homosexuals and straight people. That opened the legal door for homosexuality to be taught–and even promoted–in the public schools (see Massachusetts for an example).
And once that Pandora’s box was opened, it opened the door for pedophiles, polygamists, and other perverts. It’s just a matter of time before they fight for–and win–their legal “rights.”
Do I personally believe homosexuals should have civil rights?
Of course… but as individuals, not for what they do.
The act of homosexual sex is wrong, against nature, and should not have laws protecting it.
Hello…just curious, you address homosexuals…but since unbelievers or those who don’t follow the Bible would count under the same category of homosexuals…should there not be laws protecting us from our freedom to not believe?
First, I’m not sure what you mean when you say “since unbelievers or those who don’t follow the Bible would count under the same category of homosexuals…”
As far as your question is concerned, it was strangely worded but if I understand what you’re saying, the answer is yes, there should be laws to protect the freedom to believe or nor believe.
Thomas Jefferson’s “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” was remarkable piece of legislation:
VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
[Sec. 1] Where as Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
Just a note… I’ll be editing the above essay as thoughts come to mind.
Well, one of your arguments is: “What has homosexuality brought to society? How about disease (anal and oral sex lead to sickness like AIDS)?”
Homosexuals aren’t the only people who do things like anal and oral sex, if you’re against that kind of intercourse. Even if AIDS began with homosexuals, it doesn’t mean all homosexuals are causing disease. There are definitely heterosexual people spreading AIDS too. Should sex in general be forbidden?
A lot of people frequently misquote Darwin. Darwinism isn’t just about “survival of the fittest”. Darwin didn’t even say that. Just as in human society, animals engage in altruistic behavior that don’t necessarily result in benefit. Even Darwin himself says that. So you seem to endorsing a very immoral ideology yourself…
Why do you even refer to Darwinism, which is scientific? Do you believe in evolution?
I don’t think we disagree that people should have individual rights, but to say that homosexuality, an act involving at least two, is immoral…I would like more evidence. You can also read my first post “Homosexuality and the Bible” for a better idea.
Ruip, your analogy about AIDS is all wrong. Look at it this way: There is a local gang (complete with colors) that is repeatedly stealing from a convenience store. The owner, in his wisdom, bans them (readily recognizable by their colors) from entering the store. The fact that other random people may steal as well would not justify banning ALL people from the store.
Studies have shown that, at least with homosexual men, promiscuity is off the charts. THAT, my friend, spreads disease. THAT, my friend, is why “gay” men have such a short life span. Common sense and science both testify to the fact that you cannot perform certain acts without paying the physical consequences. If you smoke three packs of cigarettes a day, your chances of getting lung cancer are huge compared to the non-smoker. If you engage in anal sex, your chances of getting AIDS or some other STD are HUGE compared to the people who engage in normal, monogamous sex.
You claim Darwin didn’t mention “survival of the fittest.”
“This preservation of favourable variations, and the destruction of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest.” — Darwin, Charles (1869), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (5th ed.), London: John Murray, pp. 91–92, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F387&pageseq=121.
Finally, you say you want more evidence that homosexual sex is immoral. Before I do that, I’m asking you to answer the question I posed earlier: What social good has homosexuality brought about?
I read your post about homosexuality and the Bible (as well as several others) as you requested. All that shows is that you, for some reason, are a very bitter person who has no interest in an open, civil debate (I base this on your comments calling people who think like me “you idiots).
Your diatribe is full of holes, straw men, and ad hominems.
My point is preventing homosexual acts is NOT going to eliminate disease. There are tons of other STD’s that heterosexuals/bis are spreading around.
Yet you’re going to prohibit ALL of their rights while letting heterosexuals who spread disease off the hook? What has MAN in general done that’s good? Doesn’t the Bible say we’re all born with sin? I’m just being your devil’s advocate.
OK, I forgot that Darwin actually said that, my apologies. Let’s go by your theory then. You’d rather let all homosexuals eventually become extinct? There are deeper ethical implications–is it right to let someone die or help them as Jesus would?
Actually, I’m not very bitter, as you can see from the posts on this page. That is one of the ways of writing I find entertaining. And by judging my writing because it sounds bitter, aren’t YOU committing ad hominem?
If you think my Bible arguments are wrong, I’d like to hear a counter claim. I don’t claim to be right–they are just my opinions. And I still want to know what kind of Christian you are, because that affects how you view the Bible.
I like that you’re passionate about your views at least…
Ruip, you’re coming to illogical conclusions that have nothing to do with what I said. I pointed out AIDS as ONE bad thing homosexuality has brought to society (even though there are disagreements over how AIDS started, there is NO argument that it has been homosexuals who spread the disease here in the U.S., and tainted the blood supply). You still refuse to tell me one good thing homosexuality has brought. Answer that question, and we can continue on.
Your argument isn’t very clear either, which may be why mine isn’t.
You write:
“What has homosexuality brought to society? How about disease (anal and oral sex lead to sickness like AIDS)?”
Just because homosexuals spread the disease in the states does NOT mean their homosexual acts caused it. Just because HIV BEGAN with homosexuals doesn’t mean it is CAUSED by homosexuals. HIV is a virus that can be transmitted by needles or blood borne pathogens…NOT just sex. I don’t care if something BEGAN with somebody–if you want to prove your point, you have the burden to show that a ‘homosexual’ lifestyle causes AIDS but given the other ways of transmitting it, it might not be homosexuals’ original fault (http://www.avert.org/howcan.htm).
But what exactly is ‘homosexuality’? This is the point I didn’t clarify before. Heterosexual people do things like anal and oral sex too among themselves too. They might even try it people of their own gender. How is homosexual behavior any different from heterosexual? It isn’t.
That’s why I can’t answer if homosexuality has brought any good–the term ‘homosexuality’ is vague. I think you should use a different term because ‘homosexual’ behavior leaves a negative connotation for people who actually are homo.
By the way, you still haven’t answered what kind of Christian you are. Do you believe the Bible is inerrant?
The term “homosexuality” is vague? I don’t think so. Let’s use a working definition of a man who has sex with a man, or a woman who has sex with a woman.
OK never mind. looks like you’re an inerrantist.
Does that mean you won’t answer the question about what good thing homosexuality has brought to society?
Last time I respond. I already have here and on my blog:
“I’ll answer the question “what good for society has homosexuality (not homosexuals) done but spread diseases like AIDS”?
Again, even though you Christians want to blame ‘homosexuality’ because your Bible tells you, I am stressing that homosexual behavior inherently does not cause spread of disease. I put ‘homosexual’ in quotes because defining it simply as an act is an oversimplification that some of you apparently choose to use anyway.
Simply put, if homosexuality or intercourse with the same gender caused disease, then two males or females, in both cases of being infected AND healthy, would have to somehow produce or cause the disease. But is this the case for healthy people? No. The CDC says (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm):
“HIV is spread by sexual contact with an infected person”
It doesn’t matter if you do ‘homo’ stuff–if you’re healthy, you can’t spread disease sexually.
The origin of this negative stereotype about homosexuality spreading disease is that statistically, a homosexual has a higher probability of having an STD, but as I have repeatedly said. correlation is NOT equal to causation.”
Cheers.
And, as everyone can see, Ruip did NOT answer the question because he/she can’t. And then Ruip has, hopefully unintentionally, misquoted the question I posed. He claims I asked, “What good for society has homosexuality (not homosexuals) done but spread diseases like AIDS?” Here is the ACTUAL question from my original post:
“What has homosexuality brought to society? How about disease (anal and oral sex lead to sickness like AIDS)?”
In further postings, I clarified the question: “What social good has homosexuality brought about?”
But what Ruip is answering is a different question,. He’s answering a question I DIDN’T ask by saying “homosexual behavior inherently does not cause spread of disease.”
Sorry, Ruip, but that was not the question I asked.
I really would like you to give it another try but…
Shut up. You don’t know how to read.
Maybe if you pray for me, I’ll answer the question in an irrational way that suits your inerrant views. Prayer works after all doesn’t it?
I quote my comment from Saturday: You “are a very bitter person who has no interest in an open, civil debate…”
You can avoid the direct question I asked of you, and hurl all the invectives you wish, and all you accomplish is to make yourself look like a fool.
That’s too bad because I really wanted to see if you could come up with an answer to that question. I guess I should have known better.
Ruip has decided, like most cowards, to forgo the discussion here and respond on his own site (where, by the way, he won’t post any of my comments). So for any of you who are interested, here is the well-thought out response from Ruip (please pardon the language he uses):
–
A retarded website asks what good has homosexuality done for society besides spread diseases like AIDS…and even though I answer their question, they won’t acknowledge it because they want me to phrase the question word for word. I still answered the question even if I typed it in a different way dumbass. You whine and moan about my not answering your question (even though I did) but I’d like you to answer my question of what kind of Christian you are. If you’re a Bible inerrantist, there’s no point with me arguing with your dumbass anyway because you’re just going to say the Bible is absolutely true.
Regardless, if your reading comprehension is that pathetic, you shouldn’t be whining about homosexuality publicly. If you understand my response, you’ll know why the question is poorly phrased to begin with. Read this response and decide for yourselves:
The retard essentially asks what good for society has homosexuality (not homosexuals) done but spread diseases like AIDS“? (compare with their question, I’m not going to their shitty site anymore)
I simply rephrased it for the sake of a more precise, scholarly discussion, to ‘whether you can blame homosexuality for causing disease.’ But they are so retarded that they think I don’t answer the question because I simply didn’t physically cut and paste their question word for word. Read what I write rather than counting the words dumbass.
I actually do answer the question, and my answer is: homosexuality inherently does not cause spread of disease (<– there’s your answer stupid! Do I have to make it any clearer?). I put ‘homosexual’ in quotes because defining it simply as an act is an oversimplification that some of you apparently choose to use anyway.
–
Wow. That was clever, Ruip. You certainly scored a lot of points with that.
And as is so evident, you did NOT answer the question. I asked "what good had homosexuality brought to society?" You chose, however, to answer a mythical question like "Did homosexuals cause the spread of AIDS?"
If anyone wants to see the nonsense he's posted, feel free to visit http://ruip.wordpress.com.
Your question NOW is: “What has homosexuality brought to society? How about disease (anal and oral sex lead to sickness like AIDS)?”
But strangely, in your post above, you say, “what good had homosexuality brought to society?”
In your own words, “Wow. That was clever,” Do some quick editing?
Anyhow, you can have your little victory. I’m sure God is proud. It’s ironic that for someone who’s supposed to preach Jesus’ word, in his own sin, he is quite bitter rather than loving towards the people he is supposed to convert.
Thanks for leaving a good impression on Christians.
So there is NO mistake: I did NOT edit my original post (except the red text that was added — as noted at the beginning of the post), nor have I edited any of my comments. My original question and answer are just the way I posted them. No changes. For you to accuse me of editing my question is really low since YOU have done exactly that on your now deleted site.