Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ankoku Teion
    Offline

    Ankoku Teion Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    17

    Is it morally acceptable to prohibit homosexual acts?

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Ankoku Teion, May 11, 2015.

    regardless of your opinion of the act itself, is it really moral to prevent someone doing it, or to condemn them if they have?

    personally speaking i say no, it isn't. i put great store by matthew 7, which says judge not lest you be judged. it also instructs us to remove the plank from our own eye before removing the speck from another's.

    i take this to mean that the moral guidance in the rest of the bible is for us to take on board and correct ourselves with, not to judge others by, especially those who do not share my own beliefs.

    anyone agree? anyone disagree?

    i'd be interested to see the stand point of any other religions on the matter
     
  2. BayView
    Offline

    BayView Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    5,068
    I can imagine hypothetical situations in which a ban would be morally acceptable, but they're all pretty far fetched and limited. (Like, if a group of people were lost in space and were rescued by homophobic aliens and the only way to ensure the aliens help was to ban gay sex... that level of far-fetchedness).

    In this world? Hell, no. No religious backing for my opinion, just a belief that the state should not impose laws for any victimless behaviour. As long as there's true consent to ANY sexual practices, the practices are no business of anyone uninvolved.
     
  3. Ankoku Teion
    Offline

    Ankoku Teion Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    17
    fair enough. your hypothetical situation might make an interesting comedic story though.
     
  4. Link the Writer
    Offline

    Link the Writer Flipping Out For A Good Story. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    11,199
    Likes Received:
    4,209
    Location:
    Alabama, USA
    Um, nein.

    To make this more than a two-word post: Absolutely not. It's none of our damned business. In any event, I was always taught that according to the Bible, I needed to contemplate my own actions first before contemplating the actions of others.
     
  5. Ankoku Teion
    Offline

    Ankoku Teion Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    17
    exactly, hence mathew 7 and the analogy of the plank, its a warning against hypocrisy. this is why i feel comfortable with friends who are openly gay or of different religious backgrounds. many christians seem to forget that the very foundation of our religion is a message of tolerance and accepting others.
     
    Link the Writer likes this.
  6. AlcoholicWolf
    Offline

    AlcoholicWolf Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    Moldova
    Trying to condone homosexual love through the bible is just as bad as trying to prohibit it through the bible.

    It's time we stopped taking moral advice from a two thousand year old book. It is meaningless. I really don't believe the bull crap about Christianity being a religion of tolerance. It's just another method of social control. A cult founded in Roman times that demanded absolute devotion by its followers. Then adopted by Rome to unite its crumbling empire under one, fanatical, controlling religion.

    Lets just forget all about religion and practise empathy instead. God doesn't exist. Our fellow humans do. Why don't we listen to each other instead of a make-believe deity and a book of fairy tales.
     
    GuardianWynn, Twist and outsider like this.
  7. Ankoku Teion
    Offline

    Ankoku Teion Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    17
    i wasn't condoning it per say, i was simply saying that i don't oppose it. i think your view of christianity is a little skewed. and in truth terrible things have been done in the name of christianity so i cant blame you. but that doesn't change that we are supposed to follow the golden rule: love your neighbour as you love yourself.

    im not sure what you class as absolute devotion.

    also, you didnt answer the question, or perhaps i just didnt see it. i take it you agree with the consensus so far?
     
  8. AlcoholicWolf
    Offline

    AlcoholicWolf Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    Moldova
    I'm sure loving thy neighbour can be done without the strict adherence to a religious text and threat of eternal damnation. After all, Christianity as with other religions simply adopted moral guidelines already set out in Ancient Greece and Rome... after adding their own new ones, such as condemning the love between two men, further reducing the rights of women, peoples of other faiths, etc.

    As for the question, prohibiting any kind of victimless behaviour is unacceptable. Not to mention pointless, as people will continue to do it anyway. Especially things such as homosexualité, which have been with us since the dawn of copulation. You just end up wasting prison space.
     
    GuardianWynn likes this.
  9. Ankoku Teion
    Offline

    Ankoku Teion Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    17
    i like your answer, but i will agree to disagree about christianity
     
  10. Mckk
    Offline

    Mckk Moderator Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    2,534
    I think another thing to keep in mind is this: even Christians themselves do not agree on this matter. Both schools of thought - those who believe the Bible prohibits gay sex and those who do not believe that - arose from much genuine studying, pondering, and prayer. What I'm saying is, we should be careful about dismissing each other when fellow Christians are in disagreement, and we should be careful about simply saying, "Well you just misinterpreted the Bible." Because to be honest, as flawed human beings, how can we be so certain our understanding - or anyone's understanding - of the Bible is absolutely correct? We really don't. So, I do believe we should hold onto our convictions and hold onto them firmly - but not be so quick to denounce the equally firm and well-thought-through convictions of those who disagree with us. Have a little humility - isn't that all God ever asked of us? Be merciful, and walk humbly with your God.

    Personally I believe it's between that person and God - especially if that person is a Christian. I'm also opposed to Christians who denounce other Christians as "false believers" or "backsliding" because they believe differently on this matter, or that gay individuals can't possibly be Christians.

    I don't believe any of us would ever get everything right - and I certainly don't believe any of us has understood the Bible perfectly and has been able to apply everything in the Bible as God intended flawlessly. Do everything you do by faith, for the glory of God. If an individual (speaking of Christians here) has genuinely sought God and loves Him, and after much study and prayer is convinced that the Bible does not prohibit gay relations, then I will choose to consider that person's faith and conviction as sincere. If I see Christ and His virtues in a gay Christian - what do I care that they're gay, and what do I care if their theological standpoint leads them to be convinced that the Bible does not prohibit gay sex? They are my fellow brother or sister with the Holy Spirit in them, and I will honour them.

    I have come to liken the self-righteous Christian and the self-righteous church who enjoys pointing the finger to the Pharisees, whom Jesus rejected. Those who were supposed to be His own and held the truth will be left at the gates. And all those whom we have hurt - these so-called sinners - are those Jesus will personally come to welcome and feast with Him. We, the church, the supposed "children of God", are the ones who need forgiveness for the hurt we have wrought. It's like the Bible all over again with Israel being constantly prideful and in need of returning to God - so the church today must repent and learn the ways of grace, as Christ set up for us, rather than be so certain of our own righteousness that we're prepared to bar the gates of heaven from God's own creation, shamelessly judging who is fit and worthy to enter.

    God alone is judge. We were simply called to love.
     
    Ankoku Teion likes this.
  11. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,601
    Likes Received:
    5,875
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Homosexuality has nothing to do with morals. Neither does pre-marital sex. People conflate social and cultural mores with morality but they aren't directly connected.

    Morality isn't the set of rules we follow, it's the emotion we experience of fairness and right and wrong. It exists in individuals on a continuum from absent to excess but with most of us on that middle part of the bell curve. The evidence for this is in brain research and research in the moral behavior in non-human primates.

    Upon this natural state we are born with, nurture is then imprinted. When people come to believe certain behaviors are right and wrong, they apply that right and wrong emotion to those behaviors, thus the indirect connection.

    The question should be, is the sociocultural more against homosexual behavior outdated and in need of change and the answer is clearly, yes.

    As for religious determinants of social norms, much as people who believe in said norms think they apply universally, they do not. The belief they apply universally is a fallacy fraught with negative consequences.
     
    Aled James Taylor likes this.
  12. BayView
    Offline

    BayView Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    5,068
    You're presenting a lot of opinions as facts, here.

    First, that there's no direct connection between morality and sexual mores. Perhaps that's how you define morality, but it's not the only way to use the word. One definition is "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society", which sounds like a pretty close synonym for your definition of mores.

    Also, the idea that religious norms shouldn't be applied universally is also just an opinion. There are people of various religions who disagree with this approach and feel that their rules do apply to everyone, since they are issued from the one god who rules the entire world/universe. You may disagree with that approach (I certainly do) but that doesn't make their opinion a fallacy.
     
  13. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,601
    Likes Received:
    5,875
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    I told you the basis, "The evidence for this is in brain research and research in the moral behavior in non-human primates."

    You can call that opinion, I call it an evidence based conclusion which I am willing to change if new evidence comes to light showing it is not the correct conclusion.

    Yes, people do define morality as their mores, but it is not biologically correct. When one looks at the biological basis for feelings of right and wrong, it becomes clear that sociocultural learning takes place on top of the mechanisms for such feelings.

    Religion adds ritual and arbitrary rules calling them moral. Is eating shellfish immoral? Is it immoral not to worship on the Sabbath? Those examples are clearly religious values that are not universal. If it's universal, such as not murdering other people, then it is not based in religion.

    And not every more is learned. Cruelty, murder, altruism, and a sense of fairness, for example, have a biological basis. Again, we know this because we see these moral behaviors in non-human primates, as well as we see them across cultures and appearing in young children before they have had time to learn such behaviors.

    Of course there are exceptions but in this case exceptions can be explained by the variation in human brains and by cultural imprinting on children. So we don't mind smashing bugs but cruelty to animals has some innate immorality attached to it. In many cultures though, that cruelty becomes the norm very early on, while in others it's learned that smashing bugs is immoral. The kernel of morality still began in the brain and with no cultural intervention, people would probably smash bugs and not be cruel to kittens.

    As for sexuality, that is complex as to what is learned and what is innate. Adult bonobos have sex with juveniles, chimpanzees normally don't. That isn't learned behavior it is inherited behavior. Homosexual paring in humans is obviously natural and given it is harmless in and of itself, I fail to see a moral argument against it.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2015
  14. thirdwind
    Offline

    thirdwind Contributing Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,349
    Likes Received:
    2,891
    Location:
    Boston
    To answer a question like this, you'd have to first define morality. So what's your definition of morality?
     
    GuardianWynn likes this.
  15. Jack Asher
    Offline

    Jack Asher Wildly experimental Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,571
    Likes Received:
    2,053
    Location:
    Denver
    I think everyone can remember that religion has no morality. Or at least the case was (sort of) made. So whatever the opposite of religion is, I guess.

    As far as the Baha'i faith is concerned there is nothing wrong with homosexual love. Homosexual sex is . . . well we don't really use the word sin, so I guess we'd have to go with immoral. That fits in line with pretty much every other religion on earth, so it's really not off the wall here.

    On the other hand, expecting non-Baha'is to follow Baha'i law is about as apocryphal as you can get. Baha'is don't drink or serve alcohol, but we wouldn't try to outlaw drinking. It you're trying to be a good Baha'i you follow the religious laws. If you don't you're "not in good standing" and can't vote or hold office. You might get shunned by the community, which is sad, but there's no law that says you must be.

    I've met homosexual Baha'is, some of them in relationships. I assume they just weren't having sex, but honestly didn't and still don't care. The same can't be said for every Baha'i, but openness, inclusion, and an attitude of non-judgement, are all a big part of the Faith.
     
  16. Ankoku Teion
    Offline

    Ankoku Teion Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    17
    if i could like this twice i would. very well said.
     
    Mckk likes this.
  17. Ankoku Teion
    Offline

    Ankoku Teion Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    17
    you seem very hung up on the homosexuality part. perhaps i should rephrase the question," can a christian morally pass judgment or correct a non-christian?" it was an essay question you see, they conceal the debate they want in the first part of the question then provide a context, they also lay a trap for the unwary student.
     
  18. Ankoku Teion
    Offline

    Ankoku Teion Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    17
    interestingly a study in recent years has shown that sexuality is decided and fixed between the ages of 5 and 7. before that there is no sexuality.
     
  19. Aled James Taylor
    Offline

    Aled James Taylor Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2013
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    462
    Location:
    UK
    Matthew 7: 1-2 ‘Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

    Firstly, this passage relates to people judging other people. For a Christian to state, “Homosexual acts are wrong,” is not a judgement on any individual but a statement of belief regarding an issue, so, according to my reading of it, the passage doesn’t apply.

    Secondly, the passage seems to fly in the face of generally accepted Christian theology in that everyone will face judgement and be judged against God’s standards (which are impossibly high) and only escape punishment because of their faith in Jesus Christ. But the passage states that those who judge, will be judged on the basis of their own standards (which seems fair to me, and attainable).

    If someone behaves differently to you, they don’t share your beliefs. There are as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians.

    When people try to build a Christian society based on their own ‘Christian’ values, teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) would certainly be on the agenda. (By the way, many scholars believe 2 Timothy to be a forged document).

    So, if you follow the Bible, you shouldn’t judge others, because the Bible tell you not to do that. But you should judge others because the Bible tells you to.
     
    GuardianWynn likes this.
  20. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,601
    Likes Received:
    5,875
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Not sure why you think I'm hung up on anything. My point is the same for this revised question, morality does not come from religious texts. Morality comes from certain emotions the brain is biologically programmed to experience. On top of that biology, people come to believe certain things about morality given their life experiences.

    Look at the question a different way. Do individuals who are not murderers have the right to condemn a person who is a murderer? The answer is accepted as yes for the most part. Is it a moral issue? Partly. It's also an issue that we need such condemnation if we are to function successfully as a society.

    That moral condemnation does not come from any religion or Biblical text. In centuries past, (and still to this day in some areas of the world), religious texts or rules are applied as laws for the same reason one outlaws murder. People believe that for society to function well these codes of conduct are needed.

    I don't agree and think it is morally wrong for someone to use religious beliefs to determine how society should behave. If we are going to have rules, they need more reasoning than someone saying it is what they believe.
     
  21. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,601
    Likes Received:
    5,875
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Didn't I address this already in a different thread? Yes, I did, here.

    Are you repeating it here despite it having been addressed?

    Post a link to the "recent study" so we can assess it ourselves because there is overwhelming evidence your citation is wrong.
     
  22. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,256
    Location:
    California, US
    I'll answer this within the context of the religion itself, as far as my understanding goes. A Christian can morally pass judgment on the action. In other words, a Christian can recognize an action as sinful. By following the example of Christ, a Christian shouldn't shun or be hateful toward sinners. When it comes to judging the state of a person's salvation, a Christian cannot do that, because the state of a person's salvation is known only to god. So a Christian shouldn't be telling people they're going to hell.
     
    Mckk likes this.
  23. lixAxil
    Offline

    lixAxil Self-Proclaimed Senator of the RPG subforum. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2012
    Messages:
    5,504
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    The sea of fragments
    Yes
     
  24. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,922
    Likes Received:
    5,458
    Correct them regarding what? If they're running around slaughtering people willy-nilly, yeah. If they're wearing socks that clash with the color of their pants, no.

    I don't see that Christian versus non-Christian has anything to do with whether people can try to correct other people's misbehavior.
     
  25. Mckk
    Offline

    Mckk Moderator Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    2,534
    It stems from the mainstream belief of how we are told to gently correct, rebuke and teach each other and essentially help guide them back to God and His ways. It's like you would advise or encourage a friend down a certain path or do something if you think they are making bad choices - that's essentially it.

    But with religion, you are certain of your own rightness in the situation so there's less flexibility. Everyone 'should' do this in the same way that everyone should be kind to each other or no one should abuse another person. It's also often that Christians see themselves as people who hold the truth and light of God, and since everyone without God will follow their sinful nature, that makes the whole divide between Christians and non-Christians greater.

    Essentially Christians are in the light and non-Christians are in the darkness and blind to their own sin - so it's our duty, almost, to correct them. While Christians and non-Christians both sin, the non-Christian is without God to show them the right way and therefore, unlike the Christian, is unable to correct themselves.

    Personally I no longer see it as so black and white anymore, but this line of thinking is one I grew up with, and perhaps what inspired the OP's question. Eg. we are supposed to lead people to God but we are also not meant to judge, so how can you lead them if you are not to correct them?

    But it was rare that Jesus corrected people, and it was usually the Jews - His own people - he corrected when he did so. Jesus healed the sick and loved the outcast, that's all.
     
    KaTrian likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page