Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[TinMan]

Are you implying that these factors are not valid contributors to moral decay because they are in Mein Kemp?

are you saying they are?

 

[TinMan]

Couldn't I ask you the same question for implying that raising children by a homosexual couple is healthy?

you made the actual claim that means it's up to you to back it up.

But since you can't you have to change the topic.

Unlike you I can back up the "implied claim"

Mario I. Suárez, Elizabeth W. Stackhouse, Jeffrey Keese & Christopher G. Thompson. (2023) A meta-analysis examining the relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and children's developmental outcomes. Journal of Family Studies 29:4, pages 1584-1605.

Christine D. Neresheimer & Moritz M. Daum. (2021) Parenting Styles of Gay Fathers. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 17:2, pages 102-117.

Michael A. Richards, Esther D. Rothblum, Theodore P. Beauchaine & Kimberly F. Balsam. (2017) Adult Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Couples: Demographic “Thriving”. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 13:1, pages 1-15.

Heather Sharples. (2017) Widening Inclusion for Gay Women Foster Carers — A Literature Review of the Sociological, Psychological and Economic Implications. Practice 29:1, pages 37-53.

Gipsy Hosking, Monique Mulholland & Barbara Baird. (2015) “We Are Doing Just Fine”: The Children of Australian Gay and Lesbian Parents Speak Out. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 11:4, pages 327-350.

Alicia L. Fedewa, Whitney W. Black & Soyeon Ahn. (2015) Children and Adolescents With Same-Gender Parents: A Meta-Analytic Approach in Assessing Outcomes. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 11:1, pages 1-34.

Katie M. Heiden Rootes. (2013) Wanted Fathers: Understanding Gay Father Families through Contextual Family Therapy. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 9:1, pages 43-64.

Jarred Pennington & Tess Knight. (2011) Through the lens of hetero-normative assumptions: re-thinking attitudes towards gay parenting. Culture, Health & Sexuality 13:1, pages 59-72.

Alicia Crowl, Soyeon Ahn & Jean Baker. (2008) A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 4:3, pages 385-407.

David Henehan, EstherD. Rothblum, SondraE. Solomon & KimberlyF. Balsam. (2007) Social and Demographic Characteristics of Gay, Lesbian, and Heterosexual Adults with and Without Children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 3:2-3, pages 35-79.

ScottD. Ryan, LauraE. Bedard & MarcG. Gertz. (2007) The Influence of Gender on the Placement of Children with Gay or Lesbian Adoptive Parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 3:1, pages 15-34.

Stephen Erich, Patrick Leung & Peter Kindle. (2005) A Comparative Analysis of Adoptive Family Functioning with Gay, Lesbian, and Heterosexual Parents and Their Children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 1:4, pages 43-60.

Stephen Erich, Patrick Leung, Peter Kindle & Sharon Carter. (2005) Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Families: An Exploratory Study of Family Functioning, Adoptive Child's Behavior, and Familial Support Networks. Journal of Family Social Work 9:1, pages 17-32.

Pamela S. Lassiter, Daniel Gutierrez, Brian J. Dew & Lyndon P. Abrams. (2017) Gay and Lesbian Parents. The Family Journal 25:4, pages 327-335.

Francis A. Carneiro, Fiona Tasker, Fernando Salinas-Quiroz, Isabel Leal & Pedro A. Costa. (2017) Are the Fathers Alright? A Systematic and Critical Review of Studies on Gay and Bisexual Fatherhood. Frontiers in Psychology 8.

Sherri Sasnett. (2014) Are the Kids All Right? A Qualitative Study of Adults with Gay and Lesbian Parents. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 44:2, pages 196-222.

Fiona Tasker. (2010) Same-Sex Parenting and Child Development: Reviewing the Contribution of Parental Gender. Journal of Marriage and Family 72:1, pages 35-40.

Alicia L. Fedewa, Whitney W. Black & Soyeon Ahn. (2015) Children and Adolescents With Same-Gender Parents: A Meta-Analytic Approach in Assessing Outcomes. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 11:1, pages 1-34.

Alicia Crowl, Soyeon Ahn & Jean Baker. (2008) A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 4:3, pages 385-407.

Terry McVannel Erwin. (2007) Two Moms and a Baby. Women & Therapy 30:1-2, pages 99-149.

Stephen Erich, Patrick Leung & Peter Kindle. (2005) A Comparative Analysis of Adoptive Family Functioning with Gay, Lesbian, and Heterosexual Parents and Their Children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 1:4, pages 43-60.

Stephen Erich, Patrick Leung, Peter Kindle & Sharon Carter. (2005) Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Families: An Exploratory Study of Family Functioning, Adoptive Child's Behavior, and Familial Support Networks. Journal of Family Social Work 9:1, pages 17-32.

KarenI. Fredriksen-Goldsen & PaulineI. Erera. (2004) Lesbian-Headed Stepfamilies. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 8:2-3, pages 171-187.

Stephen Erich, Heather Kanenberg, Kim Case, Theresa Allen & Takis Bogdanos. (2009) An empirical analysis of factors affecting adolescent attachment in adoptive families with homosexual and straight parents. Children and Youth Services Review 31:3, pages 398-404.

Norman Anderssen, Christine Amlie & Erling André Ytterøy. (2008) Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 43:4, pages 335-351.

Jorge C. Armesto. (2002) Developmental and contextual factors that influence gay fathers' parental competence: A review of the literature.. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 3:2, pages 67-78.

Charlotte J. Patterson & Richard E. Redding. (1996) Lesbian and Gay Families with Children: Implications of Social Science Research for Policy. Journal of Social Issues 52:3, pages 29-50.

 

[TinMan]

You need to turn to God and repent for your homosexuality.

I fight against racism to....do you think that makes me black?

 

[Taken]

you are the one who said it

Identify What is “IT” you are talking about?

was given only to certain people at a certain time. If you really believe that why aren't you asking?

Identify What is “THAT” you are talking about?

 

[Wrangler]

you need to ask the people claiming that discrimination isn't a bad thing at all. Wait, isn't that what you think?

Agh! I see. You don't need evidence to engage in slander. "Evidence" is only a burden the other side has.

I've said it for decades. If the Left did not have DOUBLE STANDARDS, they'd have none at all.

 

[Wrangler]

are you saying they are?

Of course! Read The Fate of Empires by Sir John Glubb. This is not humanity's first rodeo.

 

[CadyandZoe]

People can't be separated from an intrinsic part of themselves.

Our sexual orientation is preprogrammed from birth toward the opposite sex. Homosexual behavior is not an intrinsic part of being human.

Jesus and the Apostles teach us that sin is an intrinsic part of our being. The idea that I am a sinner at heart is a major tenet of our belief. (Romans 7) And yet, we are exhorted to stop giving our members in service to sin and start giving our members in service to righteousness. (Romans 6) Being a sinner by nature is not in my power to fix. But I am able to live in service of righteousness contrary to my nature.

Those who practice homosexuality have decided to give their members to the service of sin and unrighteousness. Paul refers to homosexuality as a degrading passion, which is something to be avoided. But, he says, since some of them have rejected God, God has given them over to a depraved mind -- a mind not worthy of being called a mind. And as evidence, Paul argues that such men and women act contrary to nature, wearing on their bodies the evidence against them.

For some reason, this seems to have escaped your notice.

When right wingers get on about this its' usually trying to use the horrible catch phrase hate the sin love the sinner....even though what is called love looks exactly like hate

Again, we don't judge oughtness based on political affiliation. Murder is wrong no matter who does it. Homosexual behavior is wrong no matter who does it.

you just did that in your first paragraph here.

If I reject the notion that homosexuals are born that way, then how can you accuse me of bigotry? In case you forgot, bigotry is "prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group." If I reject the notion that homosexuality constitutes a unique group, then how do you say that I am prejudiced against a group that I know doesn't exist?

The topic of this thread is concerned with the oughtness of homosexual practice. I side with those who agree that homosexual behavior is a degrading passion that ought not to be practiced. It is wrong, a sin, and those who have such a practice should repent and stop the practice. I would say the same thing about any other sin.

Not only this, I have never advocated for a course of action with regard to homosexuals. I said nothing more and nothing less than the fact that it is wrong for males to have sex with other males and for females to have sex with other females. I also agree with Paul the Apostle who observed that males who have sex with other males willfully subject themselves to irrationality in order to serve their pleasure.

Again, we are evaluating a behavior and an intent, not a classification of people.

you can deny the earth is not round all you like but that won't change anything about the shape of this planet.

One can prove that the earth is round, but one cannot prove that orientation is an inherited trait.

I never called you or anyone else here racist.

Really? Why are we spending an inordinate amount of time focused on genetic traits? Wasn't it you that drew a parallel between being a homosexual and being black.

still wrong. discrimination treating people unfairly based on the membership or perceived membership in a minority.

On the contrary, if the talk is concerned with morality -- right and wrong, then one must draw a distinction between "lawful" and "moral" because the meaning of the concept of "fairness" depends on the context.

The term "discrimination" has at least three distinct meanings: 1) prejudice, 2) differentiation, and 3) discernment. Not all discrimination is prejudice. I gave you two examples of "discrimination" that were not prejudice: age discrimination and marital status. The law recognizes age discrimination as a beneficial form of differentiation. It isn't safe or healthy for a bartender to serve alcohol to a minor.

The point is, that gay men and women lived in "matrimony" for many years before they sued for the ability to be "legally" recognized as "Married" because the Law differentiates between "married" and "single" people. There is a built-in prejudice against being single and built-in favors for those who are married.

Accordingly, the only way that a so-called "gay" person can be protected as a group, is to first be recognized as a legitimate biological classification. Thus, the terminology changed. We used to say, "homosexual," which means "a person who sleeps with the same sex; now we say "orientation" which means a person born with a particular predisposition toward one sex or the other. This unfortunate move necessitated a redefinition of the term "gender" and all the insane craziness associated with that move.

This only proves the point that the more a society rejects the existence of God, the more stupid it becomes.

 

[Wrangler]

People can't be separated from an intrinsic part of themselves.

So, rape and murder ought to be legalized, along with the entire criminal justice system? If not why not since such bad behavior can't be separated from an intrinsic part of themselves?

 

[TinMan]

Our sexual orientation is preprogrammed from birth toward the opposite sex.

for many people, but not all

Homosexual behavior is not an intrinsic part of being human.

Yes, it is and denial won't change that

Again, we don't judge oughtness based on political affiliation.

and we don't judge wrongness based on ideology

Murder is wrong no matter who does it. Homosexual behavior is wrong no matter who does it.

Murder can be objectively shown to be harmful. Different sexual orientation cannot

If I reject the notion that homosexuals are born that way,

you can reject that disease is caused by microscopic organisms but that won't make bacteria go away.

then how can you accuse me of bigotry? In case you forgot, bigotry is "prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

That is discrimination

If I reject the notion that homosexuality constitutes a unique group, then how do you say that I am prejudiced against a group that I know doesn't exist?

Denying people exist won't make them go away

The topic of this thread is concerned with the oughtness of homosexual practice.

Homosexuality. Nothing about practice

I side with those who agree that homosexual behavior is a degrading passion that ought not to be practiced. It is wrong, a sin, and those who have such a practice should repent and stop the practice. I would say the same thing about any other sin.

and you are entitled to your opinion. just don't expect everyone to agree with you

Not only this, I have never advocated for a course of action with regard to homosexuals. I said nothing more and nothing less than the fact that it is wrong for males to have sex with other males and for females to have sex with other females. I also agree with Paul the Apostle who observed that males who have sex with other males willfully subject themselves to irrationality in order to serve their pleasure.

Again, we are evaluating a behavior and an intent, not a classification of people.

I'm sure you would prefer to think this

One can prove that the earth is round, but one cannot prove that orientation is an inherited trait.

one can provide over whelming evidence for both. Of course, that evidence won't convince someone who bases their perception on ideology rather than actual fact. I am reminded of the story of how the cardinals absolutely refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they already knew that the earth was the center of the universe.

Really? Why are we spending an inordinate amount of time focused on genetic traits? Wasn't it you that drew a parallel between being a homosexual and being black.

Don't distract from the fact you lied when you said: "you unjustly and unfairly accuse me of racism."

On the contrary, if the talk is concerned with morality -- right and wrong, then one must draw a distinction between "lawful" and "moral" because the meaning of the concept of "fairness" depends on the context.

The term "discrimination" has at least three distinct meanings: 1) prejudice, 2) differentiation, and 3) discernment. Not all discrimination is prejudice.

Just like how many words have multiple meanings and how we differentiate the meaning of such words in context. Pretending that a word means something else despite context is at best a childish word game and the only reason to play such a game is deception. When someone says they can't use their computer because their mouse is not working no one tries to claim that the mouse being talked about is a small furry rodent. At the same time trying to claim that advocating the denial of rights and legal protections for a minority is nothing more than observing the difference between the majority and the minority is just a blatant lie. Trying to hold onto that lie leads to things like having to pretend that something like a lynching had nothing to do with prejudice but just decerning the nature of how things are.

The point is, that gay men and women lived in "matrimony" for many years before they sued for the ability to be "legally" recognized as "Married" because the Law differentiates between "married" and "single" people. There is a built-in prejudice against being single and built-in favors for those who are married.

Just like how interracial couples could live in a pretend marriage until they sued of legal recognition. But of course denying interracial couples legal recognition of marriage was not and could have not been based in prejudice.

Accordingly, the only way that a so-called "gay" person can be protected as a group, is to first be recognized as a legitimate biological classification.

Bull.

 

[TinMan]

So, rape and murder ought to be legalized, along with the entire criminal justice system? If not why not since such bad behavior can't be separated from an intrinsic part of themselves?

Because they are not intrinsic just like how the hate you demonstrate is not intrinsic to yourself.

 

[TLHKAJ]

Please consider that the current state of science is not interested in finding the truth. The current state of science is to support a particular political cause. Any so-called study concluding that sexual orientation is innate is highly suspect for obvious reasons.

".....science falsely so called...."

1 Timothy 6:20-21
[20]O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
[21]Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. (The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana.)

 

[TLHKAJ]

Murder can be objectively shown to be harmful. Different sexual orientation cannot

Wrong (or "different") sexual orientation cannot be shown to be harmful? Read very carefully. Verse 27 is especially relevant to what you stated.

Romans 1:24-32
[24]Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
[25]Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
[26]For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
[27]And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
[28]And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29]Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30]Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31]Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32]Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Either you believe the truth of God's Word or you don't. Take it, or leave it.
Scripture says that this lifestyle comes through the list of one's own heart. It is equated with turning the truth of God into a lie. It is against God's created nature. It is vile, and unseemly. It is a reprobate act of defilement. Scripture plainly says that there is a natural use for the body (male to female/female to male). It plainly states that male with male or female with female is against His created nature and it is vile, unclean, reprobate, lustful (as opposed to love) ...it is not truth, but a lie.

 

[Wrangler]

Because they are not intrinsic

You are drawing an arbritrary line between the evil doing that is intrinsic from the evil doing that is not intrinsic. Christians don't do that.

 

[TLHKAJ]

There are those who ignore evidence when it doesn't align with their particular political ideology but that doesn't change the evidence.

Who will you believe? God, or science falsely so called?

Do you believe in aliens?

 

[CadyandZoe]

and we don't judge wrongness based on ideology

Well, if you refer to political ideas, I agree. But ideology has gotten a bad rap, especially since we all have an ideology in various stages of development. I am speaking as a student of Jesus Christ, according to his ideology, which includes concepts such as "love your neighbor as yourself", "love your enemies", "pray for those who persecute you", and "the father forgave the prodigal son."

Murder can be objectively shown to be harmful.

The oughtness of murder doesn't depend on utility. Murder is wrong because only God has the right to terminate another man's life.

That is discrimination

Not if the group doesn't exist. I am not convinced that deviant sexual orientation is innate.

Denying people exist won't make them go away

Believing that fantasy characters exist doen't make them real. We can play games all day. Try thinking a bit deeper.

Homosexuality. Nothing about practice

It's a matter of expectation. In the context of a Christian message board, any question of right or wrong will be focused on the oughtness of a practice. On a cosmetics board, one might find a thread entitled "Blond: wrong or right?" But one would expect a discussion concerning hair color preference. That is, "Should I dye my hair blond or leave it brunette?" And whether a particular hair color is "right" or "wrong" depends on intangibles. Dying the hair is not a moral issue.

I understand your argument that orientation is not a moral issue because, like hair color, orientation is just another attribute of human existence. I disagree for obvious reasons. How can we get more obvious than to remove our clothing to see that males and females have parts that are unique to their sex and unique to their role in reproduction? Any so-called orientation that is contrary to the design of reproductive organs is not conducive to the purpose and is, therefore, a learned behavior.

one can provide over whelming evidence for both.

I am not convinced that a scientist found proof of innate deviant orientation. I can believe, however, that someone paid a scientist to make such a claim. Scientists are sinners and liars just like the rest of us. Some are honest, some are corrupted. But I don't need a scientist to tell me what I already know to be true. Form fits function.

Just like how interracial couples could live in a pretend marriage until they sued of legal recognition. But of course denying interracial couples legal recognition of marriage was not and could have not been based in prejudice.

Bull.

How do you know someone is black? Look at his body. How do you know that a man is gay? Look at his behavior.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Unlike you I can back up the "implied claim"

Yeah, with a bunch of false news so-called "scholars"

 

[TinMan]

Wrong (or "different") sexual orientation cannot be shown to be harmful? Read very carefully. Verse 27 is especially relevant to what you stated.

Romans 1:24-32
[24]Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
[25]Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
[26]For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
[27]And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
[28]And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29]Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30]Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31]Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32]Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Either you believe the truth of God's Word or you don't. Take it, or leave it.
Scripture says that this lifestyle comes through the list of one's own heart. It is equated with turning the truth of God into a lie. It is against God's created nature. It is vile, and unseemly. It is a reprobate act of defilement. Scripture plainly says that there is a natural use for the body (male to female/female to male). It plainly states that male with male or female with female is against His created nature and it is vile, unclean, reprobate, lustful (as opposed to love) ...it is not truth, but a lie.

It is your opinion, and that isn't objective

 

[TinMan]

You are drawing an arbritrary line between the evil doing that is intrinsic from the evil doing that is not intrinsic. Christians don't do that.

Christians don't call others evil because of their petty personal prejudices.

 

[TinMan]

Who will you believe? God, or science falsely so called?

Do you believe in aliens?

I question your personal interpretations and ideas about God and i trust in objective science

 

[TLHKAJ]

I question your personal interpretations and ideas about God and i trust in objective science

Unlike yours, my "ideas about God" are rooted in His Word. Why do you place fake science above the Word of God?