Why is homosexuality wrong?

[The Atheist]

And lesbians can't conceive without a man somehow involved. I don't see the point you're trying to make.

That was the entire point - no matter how gay one might be, the opposite sex is going to be required if kids are a desired outcome.

The gay community doesn't want to take over and turn everyone gay, thus ending procreation.

Pity, really. I think the dynamic of how homophobes handle the dichotomy homosexuality or no [other person] sex would be pretty entertaining!

 

[LBN]

In the future we will just reproduce through mitosis.

 

[rocketdodger]

It isn't "homophobia". It's homo-hatred.

Except that there are no instances of hatred without some underlying fear in humans, so homohatred includes homophobia.

 

[Wildy]

I was going to start a thread on it, but I think here might be a good place anyway.

Biblically speaking is there anything that God supposedly said that makes being a lesbian wrong?

 

[yairhol]

Homosexuality is wrong. Otherwise why would Ahmadinejad kill his people for being gay? Oh wait, he said there aren't any homosexuals in Iran. Right, he hung them all.

 

[TX50]

Germanic tribesmen were disgusted by Roman legionnaires who committed homosexual acts, and would put them to death just for that.

Where does that idea come from? I don't recall anything like that
from any of the Roman authors I've read. Many of the Roman historians
during the "Imperial periods" liked to compare the decadence of the
Romans with the virtue of the barbarians, so statements like the above
(if it's authentic) usually need to be viewed in context.

However, it is true that the Romans themselves were (perhaps surprisingly)
tolerant of all sorts of things.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Biblically speaking is there anything that God supposedly said that makes being a lesbian wrong?

I'm pretty sure it's biblically fine for a woman to have sex with another woman, as long as her father or husband commands it.

 

[yairhol]

I'm pretty sure it's biblically fine for a woman to have sex with another woman, as long as her father or husband commands it.

Can he join in if the women accept him?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Where does that idea come from? I don't recall anything like that
from any of the Roman authors I've read. Many of the Roman historians
during the "Imperial periods" liked to compare the decadence of the
Romans with the virtue of the barbarians, so statements like the above
(if it's authentic) usually need to be viewed in context.

However, it is true that the Romans themselves were (perhaps surprisingly)
tolerant of all sorts of things.

They where not that tolerant, it is just that they classed taboo actions in an entirely different fashion from what we are used to.

A roman man should not be penetrated, but only penetrate, and it did not really matter what the sex of the individual he penetrated was. Also oral sex was right out for a proper roman citizen, as who would take anything you say seriously after making your mouth unclean in that fashion?

So just because they had different taboos does not mean that they did not have strong taboos.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm pretty sure it's biblically fine for a woman to have sex with another woman, as long as her father or husband commands it.

Giddity.

 

[yairhol]

A roman man should not be penetrated, but only penetrate, and it did not really matter what the sex of the individual he penetrated was.

So that only leaves the possibility of the man penetrating a woman.
Was there a catch in that sentence that I did not get?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So that only leaves the possibility of the man penetrating a woman.
Was there a catch in that sentence that I did not get?

You are failing to take slaves and non citizens into account.

 

[yairhol]

You are failing to take slaves and non citizens into account.

I got it now. Roman times were the best, sexually speaking. Kind of like the U.S. in the 60's.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I got it now. Roman times were the best, sexually speaking. Kind of like the U.S. in the 60's.

Ah it was such a downer when they made child prostitution illegal, having to wait until your slave is 8 to have sex with them was a real blow to the scene.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

It's wrong because homosexuals are in the minority. Duh.

Just like it's wrong to be left-handed or play the bagpipe.

I guess you're really out of luck if you're a homosexual who plays the bagpipes left-handed....

 

[biomorph]

It's wrong because homosexuals are in the minority. Duh.

Just like it's wrong to be left-handed or play the bagpipe.

I guess that just leaves the ambidextrous bisexual bagpipe manufacturer as a fence-sitter........

regards
bm

 

[DoubtingStephen]

I was going to start a thread on it, but I think here might be a good place anyway.

Biblically speaking is there anything that God supposedly said that makes being a lesbian wrong?

Certainly there is nothing in the Bible, Old or New Testament, that condemns a woman for being lesbian. Likewise there is nothing in the Bible that condemns a man for being gay.

It is only sexual activity that is condemned in the context of homosexuality, and it certainly is possible for a male or female to be homosexual without ever having had any sex with another person.

The patriarchal and sexist attitude that prevails in the Bible would seem to suggest that a biblical author would consider sex to be impossible without at least one male involved. After all, women were merely property in those days.

A related question might be, if a woman has engaged in lesbian sexual activity does this forfeit her virginity, thus making her tainted goods with reduced or nil resale value?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Certainly there is nothing in the Bible, Old or New Testament, that condemns a woman for being lesbian. Likewise there is nothing in the Bible that condemns a man for being gay.

It is only sexual activity that is condemned in the context of homosexuality, and it certainly is possible for a male or female to be homosexual without ever having had any sex with another person.

The patriarchal and sexist attitude that prevails in the Bible would seem to suggest that a biblical author would consider sex to be impossible without at least one male involved. After all, women were merely property in those days.

A related question might be, if a woman has engaged in lesbian sexual activity does this forfeit her virginity, thus making her tainted goods with reduced or nil resale value?

More important biblical questions, if a person of the same sex rapes your daughter do you have to force them to marry your daughter? I was wondering about sons, but that standard does not appear to apply to sons in the case of heterosexual activities so it would be moot.

 

[Meadmaker]

The article below discusses specifically Jewish views on homosexuality, with a discussion of various interpretations of the old testament references to homosexuality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_homosexuality

Of course, Christians would also have some new testament references that may or may not be interpreted as condemning homosexuality for different reasons.

(FWIW: For those who don't know, I'm a member of a Reform Jewish congregation.)

If you read it, you can see a very clear pattern of reasoning in the interpretation of the text on homosexuality. Whatever our biases are about the subject, the text says it.

 

[wuschel]

Why is homosexuality wrong?

Having only skimmed through the responses, it seems that "mu" as the canonical answer hasn't been suggested so far?