Why do I do this to myself?I mean sure, they call this piece "15 Reasons Why Homosexuality Is Wrong and Hurts Society", so maybe the title makes it too enticing to not tear into.
A societal acceptance of same sex relationships gives vulnerable children the impression that same sex relationships are good, moral and healthy. Not only does the Bible condemn such behavior, but medical professionals have affirmed that these kinds of sexual relationships are unhealthy.
Wow. Homosexuality is bad because children might think that homosexuality is good. Awesome point there.As for the medical problems, there are two major kinds of that I am aware of. Higher incidence of STD's, which is due to their "promiscuity" (exacerbated by their inability to marry, quite possibly). And higher incidence of certain forms of mental illness, usually depression, due in no small part to the stigma placed on being homosexual to begin with. The vices that come along with this (alcohol use, drug use, smoking, whatever), as well as similarly high rates of mental illness, also happen to occur in other subjugated minority groups.
Logically speaking, if everyone's sexuality was expressed heterosexually, then humanity will survive and perpetuate our own kind for generations to come. But simply put, if everyone's sexuality was expressed homosexually, we would go extinct. Therefore homosexuality is counter productive to the survival of the human race.
Interestingly, this argument was the only one I needed to think that homosexuality was bad. When I was in sixth grade. But, now I realize that it is asinine, because the fate of humanity if everyone were gay is irrelevant to whether the remote segment of a larger heterosexual population that happens to be gay should be treated fairly. What you do is akin to claiming that giving birth to a male is immoral, because if every person in the world gave birth to a male, we would die out. If you want to claim that homosexuality is immoral merely because we cannot breed that way, I really would like to know your view on vows of chastity. Perhaps Jesus sinned after all, for not being fruitful and multiplying?
Naturally speaking, there is the necessity of each of the male and female contributions to a child's life. (It has already been proven that boys without fathers end up in jail and practice destructive behaviors a great deal more than those who have fathers.) The vast majority of the public knows instinctively that it would be better if both parents are present in a child’s life. Once concealed research shows that a child who is brought up in a homosexual home may be more likely to engage in homosexuality. But is it loving to expose children to the predominantly damaging lifestyle of homosexuality?
So if children need mother and father figures that badly, mandate that every single parent and same sex couple get a guardian of the opposite gender to serve as the missing parental figure. Problem solved. Of course, you don't actually care about whether children are getting the best possible home environment to assure that they can be all that can be; you just want to be able to say that gay people are bad because hetero couples are good. And then, of course, your patented "gay is bad because others can become gay" argument. Awesome.Same sex unions may be loving and monogamous from a worldly viewpoint, but if they had “real godly love” they would not subject each other to unnatural sexual activity that leads each other into sin. When we lead others into sin, we are no longer walking in love. In regards to homosexual monogamy, homosexuals remain faithful to one partner about 25% of the time. This is a much lower fidelity rate, than their heterosexual counterparts, which is 80%. It is not unusual for homosexuals to have hundreds of sexual partners in a life time.
Yep. Being gay is bad because gay sex is bad. Being gay isn't loving because who would subject someone they love to something as bad as gay sex? I am so close to just telling this guy to get off my internet forever. People should not be exposed to things that make them want to stab their eyes out in a combination of fury and temporary insanity. There are limits to free speech.
Anyway, lower fidelity rates would be mitigated if they had an ultimate goal to which to head for in their relationships, and a way to make it seem legitimate. Which is what marriage does for all those good hetero couples.
One of the reasons that Homosexual couples should not be able to adopt children or take in foster children is that according to many studies, the life span of homosexuals is much lower than that of heterosexuals. These tragic conditions create a much less stable home life for that child.
They have lower average life expectancies due to high incidence of death by AIDS (and possibly suicide). Unless those couples are HIV positive, they should have relatively normal life expectancies. Just don't deal out kids to the outliers.Children should not be exposed to the higher levels of domestic violence of homosexuals. Another reason that same sex couples should not care for foster or adoptive children is that same sex couples experience much higher levels of domestic violence than their heterosexual counterparts. Some studies show that the rate is at least three times higher than that of heterosexual couples.
Wow. He's just pulling off the sexual preference equivalent of racial profiling at this point. Just trying to spout out random things that kinda-sorta correlate with teh ghey, see it what sticks, and call homosexuality evil as a result of merely being roughly associated with some other kind of unrelated activity. I mean, I would love for him to show how homosexuality is "wrong" without having to resort to things that have nothing to do with sexual preference and to show that it "hurts society" without society hurting them first. But, I guess I'll just have to settle for this. Anyway, the increased level of domestic violence doesn't occur in a vacuum: it occurs in an environment where same-sex relationships need to be more covert, and where the partners often need to be more cut off from external support (and potential mediators or people who could intervene) due to the stigma associated with the relationship. The fact that they need to isolate themselves more, whether to hide the relationship, or due to a falling out with family after revealing their true sexuality, is conducive to an abusive environment. And the fact that males tend to be more abusive, and gay male relationships have two men could just increase the odds of an abusive relationship on merits of that alone.As much as 33% of child molestation is committed by homosexuals, and yet they only make up about 3% of our population
And the tacking on of unrelated evils continues. Do you know how he probably got that percentage? Because approximately 10% of all males are molested before age 13 and 20% of females are, meaning that molested boys make up 33% of all victims of child molestation. It makes sense on its face. Except...."A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."
Whooops. Turns out that the pedophiles don't have to be gay to like prepubescent boys. Who would've guessed?
There is absolutely no evidence in the 6000 year history of the Holy Bible of the wedding of homosexual couples
LOL. You knew that "because the Bible says so" had to come in somewhere. Had no idea that he'd toss in "because it's tradition" at the same time though.Should it not seem odd that the definition of the institution of marriage, as being between a man and woman, for the past 6000 years is being thrown out for something less than what is natural and stable?
Sigh. The definition has been changing constantly. It used to be polygamous. It used to be that the male had all the control. It used to require certain bizarre series of payments and exchanges on the parts of the involved families and could symbolize a greater union between those families, rather than just exclusively a union between two people. It used to be something that you could only get with a member of your own race. It used to be an exclusively religious ceremony but now is a secular contract that offers state-granted benefits.If we allow "loving and monogamous" relationships to be the standard by which we measure a legitimate marriage then I suppose that women could marry their horses or men could marry their pet dogs. This opens the door for any number of illegitimate relationships, including 52 year old men marrying 10 year old girls, brothers marrying sisters and mothers marrying sons.
The slippery slope appears. Animals can't consent and 10 year olds probably don't have informed consent (but please note that, in regards to your immutable definition of marriage...a 52 year old marrying a 10 year old wouldn't have been a problem a few hundred years ago...). And, personally, I have no problem with consensual incestuous relationships. They can start petitioning for their own rights if they want to, but I think that the sex itself isn't considered "immoral" and isn't illegal as long as it also doesn't lack informed consent (i.e. as long as both parties are of sufficient age to make the decision to have sex, and aren't tricked or coerced into doing so...a big "if" in regards to most kinds of incest).
Also: "Whereas real love in its purest form as defined in 1 Corinthians 13:6, does not rejoice in unrighteousness.Same sex relationships encourage a lifestyle that will keep one out of the kingdom of God, which puts us at odds with God Himself as sinning against Him and outside of God’s order for the family."
So, "it's wrong because it is wrong" again. I love this guy.
Keeping same sex couples from marrying is keeping them from discriminating against what is normal. Anymore than I feel discriminated against because I cannot marry my sister. Discrimination based on good judgment is a protection for the stability of society and the upholding of unalterable morals.
Did he just admit that he actually wants to marry his sister? Because that's the only way there could be any comparison. Anyway, just because you say that it is "good judgment" and that it is the "upholding of unalterable morals" does not make your judgment good, nor does it make your "unalterable morals" worthy of upholding. What you are trying to uphold are what I would like to call "immoral morals", arbitrary ones, ones that are preserved dogmatically for the sake of tradition despite the fact that it is clear to any objective eye that the "morals" are unfair, tinged with prejudice and unsuited for a new social climate. Same sex relations deny some of the most basic fundamentals of proper mechanical applications of using their genitalia. Anal sex and lesbian sex is a misuse of what sexual relations were primarily intended to produce, children and intimacy solely between a man and a woman.
"Penis goes in vagina" and obsession with procreation once again. You see deviation from "basic fundamentals of proper mechanical applications of using their genitalia" and I see "creativity". We don't all need to procreate. If we do, I am sure there are quite a few married couples who don't want to have children that you should be out haranguing right now. And we don't all need to use things for their "intended purpose". If we did, MacGyver would be a considerably less entertaining show.
Consider this that God being all knowing would have pulled out 2 ribs if he thought that Adam should have the option of having a male mate as well.
"Adam and Eve, not Adam and....uh...Steve!1!!". Uggh. This is getting sad.
Studies have shown that identical twins could each have different sexual orientations, thus showing that homosexuality has little if anything to do with genetics. On the average, when one identical twin is homosexual, the other twin is homosexual 38% of the time. This does not give much credence to the popular notion that homosexuality is genetic.
This shows that it is not solely genetic. But it also shows that it has a genetic factor, unless you mean to tell that the standard odds of any person turning gay is 38%. Which is means that when you say that "homosexuality has little if anything to do with genetics", you fail. You fail within the information that you yourself give and you don't even know it. Same sex couples should not be rewarded with the benefits of marriage, because immoral behavior should not be rewarded. It is not a matter of rights or fairness, if the act is immoral, why should that be praised or rewarded? Most do not think that adulterers or fornicators should be rewarded alimony or benefits. Should any sin be tolerated or promoted with benefits? Those who want the benefits of marriage should comply with the intent of the Creator that intended only marriage, between one man and one woman. Feelings for fairness do not determine what is right or moral or you will have moral anarchy.
Morality: now without fairness. And yes, if the act is immoral, it should not praised or rewarded. It's a damn shame that your merely claiming it to be immoral on the grounds that your religion claims it as such and that it is tangentially related to other bad things doesn't quite convince. You might have won a convert elsewhere, who knows. Stranger things have happened.
