Difference between revisions of "Homosexuality"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Links: moved "sodomy" link from Gay Marriage page)
(→‎Links: leviticus)
Line 25: Line 25:
 
** [http://www.family.org/cforum/sherman/ No Moo Lies]: counterargument site by [[Wikipedia:Focus on the Family|Focus on the Family]]
 
** [http://www.family.org/cforum/sherman/ No Moo Lies]: counterargument site by [[Wikipedia:Focus on the Family|Focus on the Family]]
 
* [http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/05/sin-of-sodom.html Little-Known Bible Verses: The Sin of Sodom] was ''not'' homosexuality, but being "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2016:49&version=31 Ezekiel 16:49, NIV translation])
 
* [http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/05/sin-of-sodom.html Little-Known Bible Verses: The Sin of Sodom] was ''not'' homosexuality, but being "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2016:49&version=31 Ezekiel 16:49, NIV translation])
 +
* Apparently [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2018:22&version=31 Leviticus 18:22] condemns homosexuality: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (This of course says nothing regarding lesbianism.) All of [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2018;&version=31; Leviticus 18] seems to concern laws regarding sexual relationships.

Revision as of 15:56, 6 October 2006

Overview

Homosexuality is predominantly an issue where it relates to the right of an individual to have intimate or sexual relationships with another person of the same physical gender.

Reference

Related Articles

Nature vs. Nurture

Much argument about homosexuality centers around the theory (for which there is apparently strong evidence) that homosexuality is determined during the very early years of life, i.e. either prenatally or during the first few years of life. Defending homosexuality solely from this standpoint (as true as it may be), however, contradicts the stand that homosexuality is not a disease to be cured; things which are natural are often undesirable nonetheless.

(The above seems factual enough so far, but I'm going to take another step towards "opinion" territory next... so I'm going to put the rest of this under an "Opinion" header and sign it.)

Opinion

The argument that homosexuality is "unnatural", then, as untrue as it may be and as easy as it is to counter, is quite likely being raised solely to distract attention away from the true issue of whether homosexuality is actually harmful or wrong in some way.

It also seems to me that when the debate is shifted onto this ground, any defense tends to sound morally hollow; you wouldn't, say, defend a vicious dog's right to maim children just because that was its natural tendency.

While it's reasonable to argue that homosexuals shouldn't be persecuted for being the way they are, arguing from that standpoint says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of attempting to find (or fighting against) a "cure". Those who see nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality should be defending it on the basis of what is inherently harmful or beneficial about it, not on the basis that "we can't help it if we were born this way".

(Addendum 2006-08-13) Any argument that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural is also an appeal to nature, which is a form of logical fallacy.

--Woozle 13:04, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

Links