No, homosexuality is not "wrong."
To say homosexuality is "wrong," to me, is just self-righteous. Most people who lay claim to knowing what is "right" and "wrong" do so because they have the "good book" of their choice (the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc.) telling them what that is. Because of the "knowledge" bestowed upon them by these "good books," they think that they must inform those around them that anything they're doing that doesn't comport with what those books say is "wrong." Well, you know... The Bible also implies incest to be okay (Abraham and Sarah) and the slaughtering and raping of entire groups of people (The Medianites) to be alright, too.. The Koran teaches that those who blow other people up will be given 72 virgins in heaven for their deed... So, needless to say, I'm not inclined to take any of these books too literally. So when people point to explicit phrases in them that declare homosexuality worthy of stoning and the like, pardon me if I decline to pick up rocks.
Show more...
I can't imagine ever feeling so confident that I was 100% absolutely right in my beliefs that I could declare what is obviously a fairly prevalent variation in human behavior "wrong." Alfred Kinsey's study of human sexuality in the 1940s and subsequent introduction of the "Kinsey Scale" in 1948 did away with (or, rather, should have) the concept of the majority of this country adhering to traditional "American Protestant values" and what is "natural" in terms of human sexuality.
More about Kinsey... The Kinsey Scale is scored from 0 to 6 with 0 being completely heterosexual, 1 being "predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual," 2 being "predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual," 3 being completely bisexual, 4 being "predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual," 5 being "predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual," and 6 being completely homosexual. His study showed that rather than people being exclusively either heterosexual or homosexual, most of the population falls in the middle of the scale. Further, individuals can switch categories in different phases of their lives (which, I suppose to some degree explains those chicks making out on "Girls Gone Wild"). For instance, Kinsey found that based on their survey answers, 11.6% of white males aged 20-35 were given a rating of 3 for this period of their lives. That's right, almost 12 percent of males in their early 20s are straight up bisexual. Whether they act on those impulsions or not probably depends on their circumstances. The study also found that nearly 46% of the male subjects had "reacted" sexually to persons of both sexes in the course of their adult lives, and 37% had at least one homosexual experience. My point? Sexuality is fluid, and sexual orientation is much more varied than the narrow constraints of "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality" allow. So, this whole notion of homosexuality being "unnatural" is ridiculous. (And as an aside, he found that 22% of adult males had sexual responses to sadomasochism, so how's that for flipping what's "natural" on its head?)
So now that the religion-inspired reasoning and claims of it being "unnatural" are dismissed, on what ground could we declare homosexuality to be wrong? I find none.
More about Kinsey... The Kinsey Scale is scored from 0 to 6 with 0 being completely heterosexual, 1 being "predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual," 2 being "predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual," 3 being completely bisexual, 4 being "predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual," 5 being "predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual," and 6 being completely homosexual. His study showed that rather than people being exclusively either heterosexual or homosexual, most of the population falls in the middle of the scale. Further, individuals can switch categories in different phases of their lives (which, I suppose to some degree explains those chicks making out on "Girls Gone Wild"). For instance, Kinsey found that based on their survey answers, 11.6% of white males aged 20-35 were given a rating of 3 for this period of their lives. That's right, almost 12 percent of males in their early 20s are straight up bisexual. Whether they act on those impulsions or not probably depends on their circumstances. The study also found that nearly 46% of the male subjects had "reacted" sexually to persons of both sexes in the course of their adult lives, and 37% had at least one homosexual experience. My point? Sexuality is fluid, and sexual orientation is much more varied than the narrow constraints of "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality" allow. So, this whole notion of homosexuality being "unnatural" is ridiculous. (And as an aside, he found that 22% of adult males had sexual responses to sadomasochism, so how's that for flipping what's "natural" on its head?)
So now that the religion-inspired reasoning and claims of it being "unnatural" are dismissed, on what ground could we declare homosexuality to be wrong? I find none.
Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.
#2 Who Are We To Judge?
When invited into a discussion about this particular topic, I always find myself greeted with more questions than answers. Faced with someone who knows his or her viewpoint on the subject is always interesting because they have no qualms about immediately pulling out biblical references. In response to that, I have a few references of my own.
- Who are we to judge whether homosexuality is wrong? Are any among us sinless? The Bible says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Is that you? It's certainly not me. There are none of us to whom that applies. In reference to homosexuality, I fear that many take it upon themselves to judge and condemn what they are afraid of and what they do not understand. Without having actually lived the life, none of us can understand the inner workings of the mind and heart of the gay community. The point is simply that we are not capable or qualified to judge the moral standings of anyone, as no human being is without sin.
- "Love one another." The Bible commands us to love one another. Are we not refuting that commandment by judging and condemning our fellow man? God hates the sin, not the sinner. We should do the same. We are directed to love our neighbors as ourselves, and yet we are throwing around condemnation based on someone's mistakes. Every one of us is a sinner, and yet, we are choosing to condemn a person based on their sinful nature, when it could just as easily be our sinful nature being called into question. In that case, this forum could be titled, "Is Lying Wrong?" or "If I Don't Honor My Father and Mother, is that wrong?". We should focus on loving and understanding one another instead of picking apart each others flaws. We know we all have them.
- Old Testament Law. I have heard hundreds of times that the Bible speaks out against homosexuality directly. Let me make this clear. I have done the research, I have read the passages, and I'm not convinced. I do believe the Bible speaks out against sexual impurity, but there are a multitude of things that fall under that category, so why has this one been selected and highlighted by the Christian community? The Old Testament does say that a man who lies with a man as he lies with a woman is detestable and should be punished by death. Again, this is Old Testament law. This particular passage of scripture goes on to detail a man offering his virgin daughter up to these men for their pleasure, imploring them to have their way with her instead of his men. Talk about your sexual immorality! The point is this: if we are still accountable for obeying the laws of the Old Testament, then everyone who has eaten a ham sandwich or a pork chop lately is in a world of trouble. We are no longer responsible for obeying and upholding those laws. The New Testament speaks out against sexual immorality in general, and while we are still accountable for those directives, we are accountable for all of them, not just one. This includes sex before marriage and promiscuity. Let's focus on the real issues here. Let's focus on the rapists and the child molesters, not the homosexual community.
My other issues with this particular topic are not Biblical, they are social and medical. There are those in the medical community who say that homosexuality is genetic. There are also those who will say that because they have not found substantial evidence of a "gay gene", it does not exist. How incredibly hopeless for the medical community! That mean that there is no cure for cancer, because they have yet to find it. We should all wash our hands of research and just give up completely. Just because it hasn't been substantially proven yet doesn't mean it isn't out there. And to those naysayers, what if it is? What if it's proven that homosexuality is genetic? Those who have been saying it is wrong for all of these years have been condemning something that is out of a person's realm of control. Why not say, "It's wrong to have brown eyes. It's wrong to have brown hair. It's wrong to have attached earlobes." It sounds ridiculous, no? Perhaps I'm oversimplifying. However, if we are discussing right and wrong, then I know for sure to the core of my being that to judge someone for something that is completely out of their hands is wrong.
Furthermore, there are those children out there whose sexuality has been chosen for them by their parents and their doctors. There are infants who are born with both sets of reproductive organs. From the standpoint of the doctors and the parents, a choice has to be made. Male or female? The choice is made, the surgery is performed, and all is forgotten. Is it? Changing the outside doesn't change the inside. Assigning a gender to a child doesn't mean that it's the right choice. There are ramifications of that choice later in that person's life that they cannot control and more than likely do not understand. Is that wrong? How can it be wrong when it cannot be controlled? That person's choice was made for them without their consent. Can we be so blind as to say that it's our job and our right to judge that person? Is that person's morality in question because of a medical misstep?
Should a person's "rightness or wrongness" be determined by something that they cannot change and cannot help? That is the real question here. Can we judge a person based on something we cannot understand? Do we have the right to decide a person's salvation based on something they cannot control? If your answer is yes, then I vehemently disagree. Not our job, not our place, not our right.
Submitted by Lauri Lenox.
#3 Good People Are Still Good People
I think homosexuality is wrong. But I also think it is difficult to openly think homosexuality is wrong...because our PC society has made it increasingly difficult to disagree intelligently.
I'm either an ignorant, holy rolling fundamentalist who thinks homosexuals should be euthanized or I'm a tree-hugging liberal that thinks everything is OK as long as it doesn't negatively affect me...There is a balance between right and wrong where the answer to most difficult decisions can be found. But this place – of balance – can only be achieved through peaceful discussion and mutual respect.
And let’s face it - the majority of loud and obnoxious detractors are protestant Christians...mostly weirdoes – but protestant Christians, nonetheless.
That being said, moral guidelines and standards are not meant to be dividing lines upon which we ostracize, criticize and discriminate. Homosexuality (along with a myriad of other human behaviors) can be “wrong” without engendering hatred and judgment. And good people are still good people – even with flaws (present company included).
Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.
#4 Hard To Come To A Clear Conclusion
I do not believe that that homosexuality is wrong. However, I also do not believe that is right as well. I find that it's hard to come to a clear conclusion because I don't fully understand homosexual attraction, though, I will give it a try. If we take a look at the human species - with disregard to any religious preference, the anatomical structure of mankind shows that it makes sense that a natural partnership would consist of a male and a female. When it comes to procreation, it makes sense that men and women were meant to come together. Though, when it comes to the intimacy and the connection of relationships, that's when it becomes interesting when validating same-sex attraction. One way of looking at the evolution of attraction is focusing on marriage. Over the past few decades it seems that the passion for same-sex marriage has significantly increased, while at the same time we have witnessed a decline in the importance of marriage among traditional relationships. I'll end my thoughts by saying that given my personal beliefs I maintain a certain opposition to homosexuality, though, since I do not fully understand homosexuality I am hesitant to completely disregard it.
Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"
#5 People Use Rationalizations To Explain Their Actions
One of the greatest moral questions our society faces is the issue of “gender-preferences” with relation to sexuality. As we have progressed in intelligence as a society so many moral lines have been crossed and broken as people use rationalizations to explain their decisions. “...this is what makes me happy...” “...I was made this way...” The excuses are numerous. I would like to approach this debate from a non-Christian perspective. (Even though biblically, homosexuality is clearly wrong) I would like to look at this from the standpoint of good-old-common-sense. All of nature proclaims that our purpose is to re-create or reproduce. Whatever your beliefs are about how we came into existence you cannot deny the inherent dangers involved in homosexuality. For the male, the damage caused is obvious. However, numerous studies have shown that a women that has given birth, breast-fed and so forth has a greatly reduced chance of numerous types of cancer and other health issues. As you look at creation; plants, animals, etc, you see an intelligent design that both provides and requires the ability to reproduce. Homosexuality is contradictory to that reality. No matter what your “spiritual” beliefs, something or someone, greater than us, has designed this entire planet, including our bodies, with a purpose for reproduction. That cannot be denied and because of that, homosexuality must be wrong.
Submitted by Paul Buchanan.
#6 If Something Is Natural, How Can It Be Wrong?
My first thought refers back to what I’ve learned in at least 3 psychology of sexuality courses thus far, any time in history, in any culture, there are consistently between 3 and 5% of the population that are "homosexual". In more liberal cities, in more sexually liberal societies throughout history, this can be as high as 11-13%. But as for the “real numbers”, we can refer to the most credible source in the health and social literature at this time, the 1992 findings from NHSLS (National Health and Social Life Survey). Laumann, Gannon, Michael, and Michaels (1994, as cited in Rust, 2000) reported that 4.3 percent of women and 9.1 percent of men have engaged in one or more specific sexual activities with a member of the same gender since puberty. They also reported that 4.1 percent of women and 4.9 percent of men reported same-gender sexual behavior since age eighteen. These findings are consistent with the Center for Health Affairs Survey as well (conducted in 1993). So it is my firm belief on this issue that… if something is natural, how can it be wrong??? And if homosexuality is "unnatural", then why would you see these numbers consistently throughout time and cultures? It must be natural. Thus the creator made some people this way, thus it cannot be wrong. Modern science and research on brain chemistry, neural circuitry, and hormones would lead us to accept this as well.
Show more...
Byne and Stein (1997, as cited in Cohler & Galatzer-Levy 2000) define three major types of biological models of same-gender orientation. They state that “formative experience models assume biology shapes the organizing and interpretation of life experiences, including sexual desire. Direct effects models hold that factors like genetic predisposition or prenatal hormones produce brain circuit’s determinative of sexual orientation. And indirect models suggest that biological factors like temperament, not directly related to sexuality, indirectly shape sexual orientation." Here it is important to point out that direct effect models involving behavioral genetics, hormonal influences, and regional brain studies have gained exceptional recognition and backing in recent years. The search for a biological origin for same-gender sexual orientation finds encouragement in several groups of observations as noted by Byne and Parsons (1993):
Submitted by Summer Cartwright.
- Experimental animals whose prenatal hormone levels are altered often adopt mating positions which are presumed to be gender-atypical. Assuming that rodent and human behavior are analogous, human sexual orientation might be accounted for by hormonal changes in the uterine environment.
- Gender nonconformity often emerges in early childhood, suggesting that gender orientation may be inborn. (See 1999-2009 Harvard, NYU, etc studies on this)
- The resistance of sexual orientation to change through psychotherapy and behavior therapy could mean that sexual orientation is “hard wired” (cited in Cohler & Galatzer-Levy 2000).
