So, what’s wrong with gay sex?
I hope the title caught your attention. For a long while I was holding out hope that homosexuality isn’t so clearly defined as a sin as it is being proclaimed. I’ve come to some interesting conclusion, and I think I’ve got a pretty good train of thought going. Please, stick with this, because I make the argument for why it’s wrong, then for why it’s not so wrong, and then why that second argument is not so right.
The argument for homosexuality being ‘wrong’ or as those Jesus lovers like to call it, “sinful” is short, but also extensive. It’s short in that there’s not much explaining to do, but extensive in that the listing of little explanations can run long.
1. God says no to homosexuality (Actually the bible just always calls it a sin).
2. Biology. Look at your body and figure it out.
3. It is a lie, Galations 1.
4. Adam was in need and thus provided Eve, a distinctly different creature by way of sex.
5. Homosexuality would end humanity from lack of pregnancy if practiced to the maxim, following Kant’s categorical imperative it is both immoral and irrational.
6. It is a flourishing sexual play ground of disease that would kill of pockets of the population; Again Kant would say irrational.
…the list goes on…
YOU CAN SKIP THIS.
This next section refutes 6-4. It’s kind of boring.
Why this is crap. Let’s start from the bible and work our way up. 6-> disease from sex is a circumstance of an action not related to the action directly but to ‘other-than’ factors. In other words, sex is possible to occur without killing everyone. Promiscuity while disease is so rampant as in our time is irrational, but that also applies to heterosexuals. 5-> there are other ways to impregnate than inserting a penis into a vagina. Also, assume only 3% of the population is gay (it is), then we just saved the world. It’s not being practiced to the maxim. Moreover If homosexuality is hereditary [big if people] then the population will at least decrease with time, perhaps hundreds of years to see significant change depending on the tendencies of the gene, it’s penetration and so on. 4-> It depends on the way Genesis is interpreted. If one interprets it to be absolutely literal, then there’s a chance of accepting that. However, most likely Genesis is a poetic allegorical metaphor. Have you ever read those stories like “how the zebra got it’s stripes” or something like that? That’s the way I like to look at Genesis 2-3. It’s the story of how women came about, and why people sin even though God doesn’t want them to, and how we got to earth, and why men work in the fields, and why women have labor pains. Convenient, huh? So yeah, Eve was made for Adam, in a poetic allegory that reflected the already existing heterosexual culture.
I have answers for 1 and 3 as well. If they are proved incorrect 2 is becomes an “oh well”, right?
3 is contingent of 1, so let’s chat about God always hating on homos. In the bible homosexuality is never mentioned, at all, in any other way than as awful. Among the worst sins ever! It’s always grouped with extreme sexuality and rape, and pagan worship, and all kinds of evil. Gay sex is up there with rapping to death, as far as the bible is concerned. The conclusion is clear, homosexuality is not at all acceptable. It’s bad, right? Well, in the culture I’m immersed in homosexuality is separate from hyper sexuality and raping to death, and even pagan worship. Let the record show that not all acts of gay sex are in devotion to a pagan God. You get what I’m saying? it’s just different. Even heterosexual sex along with hyper sexuality, and rape, and incest, and pagan worship is evil. What about homosexual monogynous relationship? The bible is silent. So maybe, homosexuality isn’t as easily thrown into the same category of evil anymore. We’re talking about something other than what the bible was talking about.
There are some questions that then come up. Such as, can one help being gay. For me, it’s hard to say. I don’t know everything, believe it or not. If you’ve chatted with me on here you’ve probably proven me wrong at least once, probably more. I know I don’t know everything, I’m wrong a lot, and on this one, I don’t know. I do know that for most people it’s a choice. And, everyone can chose what actions they make, but does that change their sexuality?
Another good question: does the bible’s silence make it okay? Answer, hell no. But perhaps we shouldn’t use the bible so flagrantly to say something’s wrong that’s not even in the book! Also, there is a word that’s used as Driscoll says “the junk drawer for sexual sin”. It’s a word that you just drop and it means sexual deviation, and it’s sinful. So, you can’t just redefine things and then they become okay. There is a right or wrong, we have to find it.
Biology sheds some light. As I explored the idea of a spiritual connection of sexuality, and the spiritual is connected to sexuality, I wondered if someone cannot be spiritually fulfilled within heterosex, but could through homosexuality would that not make it okay? It would make it okay, but I’m starting to think that logic is crap. sexually there’s nothing a man offers to a man that a woman doesn’t. Think about the body really quickly. Am I right? The only difference is the blowjob factor. I just don’t see a man not being fully spiritual because he can’t give blowjobs! that’s ridiculous right? and women the converse. All that’s left is an extra-sexual romantic relationship. I believe if a woman is attracted women emotionally, then they should find an effeminate man. That will take care of that. There isn’t a real blocking of the sexuality here right?
Better arguments? Deal. Jesus is my argument for why homosexuality is wrong. Jesus came and rocked a culture. He turned it upside down. He changed religious presuppositions. Since I presuppose sexuality to be a very weighty spiritual topic, I then believe that if a culture was wrong Jesus would have said something about it! Anything! but perhaps, the culture wasn’t too far off from the truth. That coupled with the biology argument is enough for me to say it’s a sin. But I’m not a homosexual. I’m not experiencing spiritual turmoil over my sexuality, and I just don’t know. But for now, yes, it’s a sin, and that’s what’s wrong with gay sex.
Carlyjo02's Blog 
Homosexuality is not what one DOES but who one IS. Once you can get your mind around this difference, you can begin to get just a glimmer why same sex attraction is often reported by so many suicidal teens to be not a life choice but a life sentence. And it falls back on people like you who twist what’s perfectly natural and healthy to make it such. Don’t be proud, CJ, of how you arrived at supporting religiously inspired bigotry; be ashamed.
How far to do you narrow down to determine what a person is compared to what they are?
I’m not clear on your question but I think you mean something along the lines of at what point does action reveal character. I look at it the other way around: your character is revealed by the intention that motivates your actions.
When adults express their love for another willing adult through sexual intimacy (and preferably commitment) then I think the sexual intimacy is an expression of that love. For me to condemn this kind of act here but not that kind of act there seems particularly arrogant of me to presume what is appropriate and what is not for others. Surely I deserve no say whatsoever when I elevate myself to pronounce on the sexual acts of two other responsible and loving people who are fine with their own expressions. What motivates the acts is the physical desire to express love. Do people really feel good about condemning it just because the kind of act falls outside their comfort zone? Well, my advice is get over it and settle your moral gaze on expressions of hatred and violence.
I understand your DO versus IS argument, but it doesn’t always work unless you keep it at a high level. High level being sexuality. The person might be straight or gay, but if you narrow down to what age group their attraction falls into. If the ages are the same, I can see and support your morally acceptable argument. When the age groups falls below that of age of consent, it is now morally wrong.
What I find interesting is you keep bringing the argument back to committed partners and an expression of love. Is there love being expressed if it is just two people hooking up at a bar? Is that considered healthy?
Like you, I think we benefit as a whole society when the expression of sexuality is an enhancement of a relationship which promotes the special union between committed partners for the welfare of the other rather than the gratification for the one. Under this notion of union-of-two-into-one I can then agree for all to support benefits and privilege through law and public policy that discriminates in its favour. I think this a general good in that it allows and promotes the creation of the family, whose stability then extends upwards into the formation of caring communities and eventually into national entities responsible to the general welfare of the Other.
I would very much prefer to promote benefits and rewards rather than punishments and admonishments. Sex for gratification is fine but it shouldn’t be rewarded any more than it should be punished. It’s simply a gratification like any other bodily desire that carries all kinds of risks and very real dangers if done irresponsibly. Sex as an expression of love, however, is a different experience altogether. It is a natural extension of intimacy that deepens emotional attachment and strengthens the bond of dedication and commitment to the other. I honestly do not understand how which sexual organ is used in this expression matters to the intention, and it is the intention that should be rewarded by society at large for its positive role to enhance the bonds of commitment we have to each other. From stable families come stablke relationships, and from stable relationships come stable attachments. Stable attachments yield highly beneficial results in every category of social behaviour. And this is what I think we need to support whenever we can and leave aside the trivial details about what sexual apparatus might be used and in what ways between which gender. And all of us should have the legal right to pursue this happiness.
Tildeb, I made that argument at one point in the post. I even argued with my brother for hours about it supporting the view that Homosexuality isn’t a life choice, but a life sentence, and I was not playing devil’s advocate. I’m pretty sure i was wrong. It just doesn’t jive, Tildeb. I know my post was a little erratic and all over the place, but I do think my point was made. Biology says it’s not natural, that’s pretty clear. And no, it’s not healthy for a man to have a penis up his sphincter. It can cause all kinds of prostate problems. I’m not as up on female health relating to lesbianism, and for that I do apologize. Perhaps if anything you could make the statement it’s not unhealthy. But homosexuality does not meet emotional, spiritual, psychological, or physical needs.
About bigotry. What if it was another moral issue that I arrived at and it supported religious inspired bigotry? Maybe I don’t like murder. Should I be ashamed? I don’t think so, because the bigots can be found outside religion as well. Murder is commonly seen as a bad thing. So what it’s not necessarily that you don’t like religious inspired bigotry, you just don’t like people to disagree with you. And your sentiment attached to the end, placed perfectly within your comment for a powerful effect (you’re a good writer): “be ashamed.”
Really Tildeb?
My point here, CJ, is that without the religious admonishment you attribute to god, you have nothing on which to hang your hat, so to speak. There is simply no evidence that expressing same sex attraction is in any way more damaging to one’s character or health or moral well-being than to be found in the heterosexual community. There is nothing inherently wrong about same sex attraction carried out between willing and responsible adults.
Said another way, just because a small percentage of the population is bald does not make it unnatural or unhealthy or affects one’s moral character in some negative way. If I am going to claim otherwise, then turning to a religious sanction against those who are bald still doesn’t improve the lack of good reasons backed by no evidence necessary to condemn it. Without anything BUT a religiously inspired condemnation, then you are undermining someone’s right to express what they are – through gay sex – and not what they can arbitrarily change. Denying the urge may suit you and your religious ilk, but the people deserve FULL immersion in expressing a healthy sex life if there is no reason OTHER than your religiously inspired condemnation to not do so.
Totally agree with you tildeb !
Hey, score one for the Visiting Team!
How do you know that homosexuality does not meet emotional, spiritual, psychological, or physical needs if you have never been in a homosexual relationship? It seems you are speaking out of turn in some ways.
I said I don’t know for that very reason. And I also considered what would be required to make homosexuality a need that heterosexuality could not satisfy. It doesn’t seem that the physical action offers anything different, nor is there something within a personality that heterosexuality cannot account for… so, what’s the need, and how is exclusive to homosexuality? I really am open to ideas.
Even though I am in agreement with the overall argument CJ, you need to be careful as to not diminish the feelings of those who are gay. If it is a real relationship, the people most likely love each other and sex is a natural out pouring of that emotion. Just because the Bible says it is wrong, does not mean there are not real emotions involved.
The flip argument can be made, as well: what is there in the physical act between heterosexuals that cannot be copied in the homosexual? And if you’re going to switch over to the reproductive function as missing, then you’re going to also have to condemn sex by the elderly and the sterile. Along those lines, let’s revisit what you wrote, that Biology says it’s (sex with the same gender) not natural, that’s pretty clear. Biology says no such thing, and imagine the difficulties your attitude creates for those who feel they are one gender on the surface and another gender emotionally? Those who have both genitalia? Those who feel no sexual urges at all? Your pronouncement of what biology says is a cover for what you believe is natural. Natural for one person is what’s natural for that person (understanding that there are necessary legal constraints against carrying out sexual urges whenever, wherever, whatever, and with whomever one pleases). My point here is that whatever those constraints are must prevail against all of us equally. Using the term ‘biology’ to argue that constraints should be applied only against some – whether by secular authority or the self to suit a religious authority – has no merit beyond what you believe. In this sense, by all means constrain yourself to respect some other authority but don;t try to impose that constraint on others who do not share your belief. And that’s why I pointed out there is no evidence that such constraint is warranted between consenting adults because there is no harm qualitatively different from those assumed by heterosexual acts. Your beliefs do not change this brute fact.
Smrisme, you are correct. I acknowledged that I have not had the experience, so it’s difficult to say. But looking at it logically there’s no reason that a physical or emotional experience can be achieved within a same sex relationship that cannot be experienced otherwise. I can understand having a preference. I prefer women, men don’t satisfy me in the same way emotionally or physically. So in that sense men might struggle with homosexuality and have a physical or emotional preference, but it doesn’t make it a good thing, or a natural state of being (though for that reason it is not a bad thing, or unnatural).
Okay Tildeb, I don’t want to “impose that constraint on others who do not share [my] belief”. I was documenting my process because I have spent a lot of time arguing, studying, and developing these ideas. I want to shed light on the struggles others are having similar to mine with the ‘right and wrongness’ of homosexuality. Biology does clearly say what is and isn’t natural. The penis and the vagina were made for each other. Did you not know that? There are always outliers in every natural phenomena, such as people born with both genitalia. Since humans are not brought up in a controlled environment there is no way to determine the root cause for sexual attraction that do not meet the norm. Such as a-sexual personalities, homosexual, and bisexual. Sexual gratification is an obvious motive, but when it becomes an emotional relationship between two consenting adults, it is difficult to determine “intention behind motive” that you were talking about earlier. I would not argue anything about sex for reproduction. I would argue it for fun, and for reproduction I would argue sex. So old people can get it on, too.
Does an inflamed prostate sound healthy?