Summary argument on homosexuality

There are six primary passages that deal with homosexuality:

otseng wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 7:33 am 1. Lev 18:22

[Lev 18:22 KJV] 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

2. Lev 20:13

[Lev 20:13 KJV] 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

3. Gen 19 – Sodom

[Gen 19:4-5 KJV] 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

4. Rom 1

[Rom 1:26-27 KJV] 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

5. 1 Cor 6

[1Co 6:9-10 KJV] 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

6. 1 Tim 1

[1Ti 1:9-10 KJV] 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

I’ve provided a deeper analysis of the passages:

* Leviticus
* Genesis and Sodom
* Romans
* 1 Corinthians
* 1 Timothy

I didn’t explicitly offer my interpretations of these passages except for the Leviticus passages. For these, I interpret male on male sex to specifically refer to anal sex.

I also believe the Leviticus passages are not specifically dealing with the modern view of homosexuality/gays.

I presented the modern definition of homosexuality and presented how it is not the same as how sexuality was viewed when the Bible was written. The modern view focuses on sexual attraction and orientation and is a modern invention and did not exist in the past.

The widespread concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation and sexual identity is a relatively recent development, with the word itself being coined in the 19th century.

So, the Bible is not addressing homosexuality per se, rather it is simply addressing male on male sex. This prohibition encompasses anyone of any sexual persuasion, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.

For example, we see the practice of male on male sex among heterosexuals in prisons today:

otseng wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 8:08 am

the vast majority of prison rapists do not view themselves as gay. Rather, most such rapists view themselves as heterosexuals and see the victim as substituting for a woman. From this perspective the crucial point is not that they are having sex with a man; instead it is that they are the aggressor, as opposed to the victim–the person doing the penetration, as opposed to the one being penetrated. Indeed, if they see anyone as gay, it is the victim (even where the victim’s sexual orientation is clearly heterosexual).

Heterosexual men in prison view their homosexual acts as being situational and may not consider themselves bisexual. These men often describe how they imagine being with a woman while taking part in sexual activity with a male inmate.

They take part in homosexual activity due to having no “heterosexual outlets”.

A dominant sexual partner in prison is called “daddy” while their submissive partner is called “kid” or “girl”. The dominant partner has their mate take on the feminine role in order to feel more masculine and powerful.

Jonathan Schwartz’s research in the documentary Turned Out: Sexual Assault Behind Bars found that “in male prison populations where entitlement to (anal and oral) penetration (or perhaps possessing a ‘wife’) is the ultimate symbol of domination – [it is] part of the symbolic economy of an all-male, hyper-masculinist environment.”

The Bible does not explicitly prohibit any other areas of sexual conduct, such as lesbian sexual practices, males and nipples, males french kissing, etc. This is not to say all other sexual practices can be considered morally acceptable, but it is just observing the Bible is silent on other practices.

Besides the scriptural prohibitions against male on male sex, there are five additional reasons it should be considered wrong:

otseng wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 7:16 am 1. It is against the original design.

The male and female sexual organs are designed to be used together. Male on male sex is contrary to the original design.

2. It is against the original purpose.

One purpose of hetereosexual sex is the continuation of the human race. Male on male sex would not result in continuation of people.

3. It is linked to display of domination and control.

This is historically how male on male sex primarily manifested. Male on male sex was primarily not because of sexual attraction, but because of display of power of the dominating male. We even see this in prisons today.

4. It is unsafe behavior.

otseng wrote: Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:34 am And a case can be made where male-on-male sex carries significant potential to cause harm.

Men who have sex with men are at a higher risk of infection with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted infections.

Gay men and other men who have sex with men may be at an increased risk of depression, bipolar disorder and anxiety.

And research has shown that gay men and other men who have sex with men experience intimate partner violence at a higher rate than do other men. … t-20047107

That men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection is well known

Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate.

Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus – which causes anal and genital warts – is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men. … ncerns.htm

There are many reasons why gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men may have higher rates of HIV and STDs. Some of them are:
* Prevalence of HIV among sexual partners of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men is 40 times that of sexual partners of heterosexual men;
* Receptive anal sex is 18 times more risky for HIV acquisition than receptive vaginal sex;
* Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men on average have a greater number of lifetime sexual partners.

5. Historically, male on male sex has been considered to be deviant behavior.

Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) beginning with the first edition, published in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

A common argument male on male sex should be considered acceptable is because we see animals doing this. I argue animals cannot be a source of our moral values:

otseng wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2024 8:08 am Animals also eat their young, behead their mates, kill other animals, engage in incest and rape, eat their own vomit and feces, smell each other’s holes, walk around naked, eat other animals alive, and kill the weak. With your argument, all of these things also appear naturally, so are these all morally acceptable and people should engage in them?
otseng wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2024 8:51 am

Diogenes wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2024 1:03 pm In several of the videos, the animal (chimp and elephant) elicit cooperation from a partner despite the partner not being as hungry or as eager for the ‘reward.’ These are examples of reciprocity (the partner will need help when he is hungry in the future).

Could be. But the fundamental question of ethics is Hume’s is-ought problem. Just because something is does not mean something ought. Just because we see reciprocity in nature doesn’t mean it’s a normative value.

otseng wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:08 am

Diogenes wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 3:03 pm What you are missing is that BOTH the advantaged monkey and the disadvantaged one AGREE about the moral code (unfairness) because when the disadvantaged one complains, the other (reluctantly) agrees and begins sharing his bounty.

As it says in the video, even anthropologists, economists, and philosophers have commented on that study and said, “fairness is a very complex issue, and that animals cannot have it.” Frans de Waal also admitted, “So we’re getting very close to the human sense of fairness.” I could grant that, but that doesn’t mean it is equivalent to human fairness.