Is being gay morally wrong?

Is being gay morally wrong?

  • Being gay is morally wrong

    Votes: 10 9.3%
  • Being gay is not morally wrong

    Votes: 59 55.1%
  • Acting on your feelings is morally wrong, ie sexual expression

    Votes: 5 4.7%
  • I think this is essentially a societal issue and not really a moral one

    Votes: 7 6.5%
  • Live and let live

    Votes: 16 15.0%
  • Gay people are an abomination and there actions are repugnent to God.

    Votes: 6 5.6%
  • Other: please xplain

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • Some radioactive monkeys are gay too.

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Total voters
    107
  • Poll closed .

Sidhe

Deity
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
12,987
Location
England
From the is gay a choice thread, since science seems to be leading to a combination of factors from genetic to birth conditions to influences?

Why is it immoral to be gay, if your stuck with it from birth why is it immoral to have these feelings or to act on them, what religion asks is that you act like a eunuch, and pretend your sexuality deosn't exist.

Here's the quote from the other thread since it is OT, and I don't want to get off the beaten track there.

Think about yourself though, had you been born straight in a world of homosexuals where straightness is morally wrong, abnormal(I know ridiculous situation) How would you feel if you were told that the way you felt naturally was immoral and that being attracted to a different sex is morally wrong?

Also think about exactly how it harms anyone? Let's face it AIDS is now pretty much a sexual disease not a homosexual one, so apart from it's the fact that two guys sleep together and have a relationship how is it doing damage from a modern perspective, who's suffering, what harm and what foul? Do you not thinking it's just an example of human practices, also do you think if it was so morally repugnant would not of Jesus mentioned it directly?

Why does it take a man a hundred or so years later to add this addendum to the bible, an addendum that specifies particular types of gay sex? No not homosexuality per se, but certain forms of it, which also happen to be the same as Jewish custom of the time(and which aren't any more, well apart

from the pederasty bit) Now you spring forward 2000 years and all homosexuality, whether from a married man or between two gay people is wrong? And the only really damming account is in Leviticus and let's face it no one follows all the odd Jewish laws in there, why didn't God say though shalt not sleep with a man of the same sex? Why does it take a set of archaic Jewish laws to pronounce this?

Frankly most Countries in Europe and some of there churches are going to hell, because they tolerate, even accept that something you are potentially born with, should not be discriminated against? Why did God put homosexuality in nature if it was wrong? Did he screw up, why do almost all sophisticated mammals indulge in it and many other non-sophisticated animals? Why do we, why is it in our genetic code?

What sense does it make to put something that is inherently sinful in man? Just to wind up religious bigots and fundies? It makes no sense?

Poll coming.
 
Performing homosexual acts is a sin. Simply "being" something isn't.
 
Well, when I say "homosexuality is morally wrong" I do not mean "attraction", which of course if beyond one's control, but actions, which anyone has control over. So no one is damned for what they are like from birth or whenever homosexuality manifests itself.

Also, bear in mind my definition of "morally wrong" is atypical.
 
Homosexuality is a "inherted" sin, there for it can be passed along from parent to child as any gene that would affect a persons choices.
 
I should point out now that "gay" as defined here is different from "gay" as defined in the "Is being gay a choice" thread. it is the same word being used differently, which is significant.

So, we need a concise definition of "being gay" and it needs to be constant.
 
Performing homosexual acts is a sin. Simply "being" something isn't.

Aye but the point is, that your asking someone to effectively stop being what they were born to be in some cases, even preachers have been unable to do this, to in effect become asexual.

Would you feel all right with having that limitation placed on your sexuality because of old societal laws, that in a modern world are considered redundant, at least in secular Europe?
 
Why do we need another thread like this? Dead. Horse. Whipped. Into. Puree.

Bottom line, is that it will be morally wrong to some, and the meaning of their entire existance to others. And neither the twain shall meet.
 
In a secular society, anything goes for as long as it doesn't hurt someone its not immoral. How ever if you want to be part of a religion you have to obey the rules.
 
Aye but the point is, that your asking someone to effectively stop being what they were born to be in some cases, even preachers have been unable to do this, to in effect become asexual.
So what? I believe I should aim towards that same goal as well.

Would you feel all right with having that limitation placed on your sexuality because of old societal laws, that in a modern world are considered redundant, at least in secular Europe?
Two things: First, I don't think this is so much a societal law as it is a moral one, which is more important. Second, I already have my "sexuality" limited by moral rules: I don't believe I can morally have sex with another man, or an animal, or with any woman I am not married to. It's not like we're saying "no sexual limitations for straight people, but gays don't get any".
 
Indeed, I use the term "ethics" and "morals" differently, and inasmuch as my opinions ever affect other people, I don't think homosexual acts are unethical. As far as others are concerned, I may as well have no opinion on the matter.

But I do like to argue . . .
 
Why do we need another thread like this? Dead. Horse. Whipped. Into. Puree.

Bottom line, is that it will be morally wrong to some, and the meaning of their entire existance to others. And neither the twain shall meet.

Morally wrong to you, but really do you think the secular world cares about your opinion, since we've introduced laws in Europe making discrimination against gays illegal, and even voicing this opinion in public or to a crowd of people could get you locked up, you'll have to do better than that. Yes we discriminate against religious bigotry. If 400 million people are going to hell, so be it.

No one secular or many religious even, are going to consider it without a reason other than God said so?

Since no one would answer my questions on the gay thread as it was off topic, I want good rational reasons why this is so and why it makes sense, not a resort to scripture without a contextual reason, and how or why this applies today.
 
Nope. Here's a more interesting thread for you to start : "Is feeling attraction to legally underage people morally wrong?"

Or perhaps "Is wanting to have sex with your mother morally wrong" (according to Frued we all used to :crazyeye: ).
 
Why do we need another thread like this? Dead. Horse. Whipped. Into. Puree.

Bottom line, is that it will be morally wrong to some, and the meaning of their entire existance to others. And neither the twain shall meet.

Good god, yes. Well said, The Unicorn.

Let's just swig down our dead horse puree and bar the subject for a month.
 
Morally wrong to you, but really do you think the secular world cares about your opinion, since we've introduced laws in Europe making discrimination against gays illegal, and even voicing this opinion in public or to a crowd of people could get you locked up, you'll have to do better than that. Yes we discriminate against religious bigotry. If 400 million people are going to hell, so be it.

No one is going to consider it without a reason other than God said so?

Since no one would answer my questions on the gay thread as it was off topic, I want good rational reasons why this is so and why it makes sense, not a resort to scripture without a contextual reason, how this applies today.

Moral reason isn't meant to be rational its meant to please god, the benifits are the same as say... not sleeping around with a bunch of people you avoid STD's.
 
Moral reason isn't meant to be rational its meant to please god, the benifits are the say as not sleeping around with a bunch of people you avoid STD's.

Kant would beg to differ on the "isn't meant to be rational" part.

Morality does not require religion as a prerequisite, as it is possible to create a moral theory through rationally.
 
Back
Top Bottom