Okay I can accept that, but can you accept that society is given the right to look down upon it/not support it as moral? Maybe not claim it as immoral, but definitely going to tell you they don't approve?

Society doesn't look down and disapprove of everything that shortens lifespans (it even encourages some things) and i dont think you do either.

gmcarroll33 -

First, it's very tenuous to condemn homosexuality on the basis of a social stigma. Stigmas fade, bigotry falls out of favor...and then where's your argument?

Second, if the moral status of a behavior derives from its affect on quality of life, doesn't gay sex seem almost saintly compared to chronic lack of sleep, poor diet, or failure to exercise?

I have a question.

If we go by daveT and anal lowers the chances of prostate cancer. Are you in favor of society approving and encouraging it since it would increase lifespans?

All I was getting at is that some practices are condemned without the blink of an eye, and somewhat universally accepted by many religions and people with no religious beliefs or a God to yield there moral code. Yet when it comes to homosexuality it becomes a much more tender subject, even though things can be supported as to why it's an unhealthy practice, among other things you list. I don't claim to be all knowing on the subject or have any links on the facts I can direct anybody too at the moment. I just always found it interesting based on religions+society+psychology and thought the lol stupid narrow minded Christians argument might deserve another viewpoint. Sorry to offend or come across as ignorant because I can't give you a medical website with any info on it at the moment
Like I previously stated, sorta pwns my argument. I'd have to hear the medical facts for each type of cancer risk vs reward for the practice, but what if I spin it this way and can tell you a penis in the rectum 4x a night on a weekly basis will decrease your risk of prostate cancer by 10% but increase colon cancer by 20% what would you make of it? Hypothetical as I have no actual #s and %s to back this up

It doesn't just pawn it it kind of flips it if its true.

I'll ask again. Would you encourage anal sex if it increases lifespans?

I dont have a moral problem with people risking their life's with sexual behavior.

stu, have you ever heard of lubrication or does your wife have an incredibly chafed vagina?

I am a Catholic Christian, I don't know what you mean by "true" - if you mean "perfectly factual" then, no, I don't, neither does my Church. That's a pretty long discussiona nd I won't have time before Wednesday and I have all my reference books packed.

Briefly, many cultures through time have all kinds of sexual taboos, the Hebrews did and you find some in the OT. I also know that in the NT time, the issue was not being a homosexual, it was about male slave prostitution. Buit that's moot.

Now, let's read what I said, and keep in mind, my Church agrees with me:
And it isn't, how can the way you are born be immoral? Do you think dwarfism is immoral? How about being born with very dark skin? Perhaps in your mind being allergic to tomatoes is?

It is the behaviors people engage in that can lead them far from God, as I understand it. In any case, if you think people of the same gender should not have sex with one another, I suggest you refrain from doing that.

Well, strictly I'm talking about a claim made by "supporters" of homosexuality in general, rather than myself. But that's basically my position as well.

It's not, however, a strict/formal position. I think there can be rational reasons for believing that homosexuality is wrong. I just think those reasons must necessarily be based on worldview assumptions that are controversial at best. There are plenty of sets of worldview assumptions from which the conclusion that homosexuality is immoral cannot be derived based on the available evidence.

Don't knock it 'till you've tried it, buddy.

Anal sex is associated with some potential health risks, perhaps some potential health benefits as well. Colon cancer isn't one of those risks. You may be thinking of anal cancer. Anal sex increases the risk of anal cancer in the same way and at about the same apparent rate that vaginal sex increases the risk of cervical cancer. In either case this is due to the high frequency of "bad" HPV strains.

It isn't an "accepted medical fact" that anal sex causes health problems by itself (though certainly violent, forced anal sex, especially in children, can cause all kinds of problems - but so can violent, forced vaginal sex). Anal sex, when done correctly, shows no sign of being unsafe.

Anal sex has no known impact on lifespan. Alcoholism does. But most of the people here probably don't consider drinking to be immoral in the first place. Regardless, since you are obviously ill-informed about the risks of anal cancer in the first place, trying to reach conclusions based on those risks is presumptuous of you. Particularly if you're trying to restrict the actions of others on the basis of those conclusions. Anal sex among gay men likely has a greater benefit than cost with regard to longevity (men who have frequent sex live roughly ten years longer than men who have infrequent sex, and that alone is a more significant impact than any single disease risk I can think of offhand).

With regard to the societal questions, you don't seem to have any idea how much research exists on this topic, or of the nature of the research.

You need a good concordance. There are no passages explicitly forbidding the practice. There are interpretations of 3-5 passages (only two of which are from the NT and not part of the Old Covenant) that appear to forbid the practice, and similar numbers of passages forbid such a wide range of practices that attempting to hold this as the basis for a major moral position is absurd. The Bible says much, much more against gambling and even being rich than it does about homosexuality, and in more fire-and-brimstone terms. Furthermore, take Corinithians and Timothy into context - there's nothing in the Gospels or in Jesus' actual teachings that says one thing against homosexuality. You're talking about political letters written by Paul to very specific groups, these are the only places in which homosexuality is condemned in the whole NT and even then only in laundry lists including sins like lying and effeminacy (and only in vague terms - a word used only twice that means, as far as we can tell, "lying with a man as with a woman," which is hardly the same as "anal sex" and may have meant something completely unrelated).

Any responses?

Until they set fire to their place, leave the gas on and suffocate their children, that kind of stuff.

so stu, why are you opposed to homosexual sex if its two women?

I dont see why if someone thinks fornication, masturbation, and contraception are immoral they also have to think homosexuality is. Being gay doesn't require any of those things except fornication, but thats a self fulfilling thing with gay marriage not being allowed.

Now if your saying any sex without the potential for creating life is immoral. I guess thats an argument. But where does that leave a straight couple that is unable medically to have children? Are they sinners?

Yes. All sex that cannot lead to a child is immoral in this view.

I didn't ask for immediate agreement that someone who thinks those three things are immoral would have to think that homosexual acts (not homosexuality itself) are also immoral--just that, all things being equal, it would be more reasonable to think so.

You've got the basic idea. Fornication, masturbation, and contraception are all immoral because they separate (in one way or another) the sexual act from its procreative purpose.

In response to your objection, there is surely a distinction between the sense in which a homosexual act cannot result in pregnancy and the sense in which a heterosexual act involving at least one infertile person cannot result in pregnancy. If nothing else, many people (more often men) diagnosed with infertility do "beat the odds" and have children. More importantly, a heterosexual married couple, whether they know they are infertile or not, can want to conceive through their sexual acts in a sense that a homosexual couple simply cannot.

edit: To clarify my last point, consider this question. Do you acknowledge that there is a distinction between the sense in which a blind person cannot see and the sense in which a rock cannot see?

For whom are you speaking? If you are speaking for my view (that of the Catholic Church), you are incorrect.

If they KNOW they cannot conceive this is not true.

Not my problem that Catholic views on some specific acts are inconsistent with others.

Do you think there is a distinction between the sense in which a blind person cannot see and the sense in which a rock cannot see?

I dont see why it would be reasonable if homosexuals could get married and therefor not fornicate, masturbate or use contraception

If the ability to beat the odds counts, contraception would have to be moral dew to its failure rates.

Ok get rid of the married couple that desires to have kids but can't. And instead go with an elderly couple who had a ton of kids and don't want any and cant have any. They are having sex for the joys of sex with no desire for procreation. Are they sinning?

I don't know what you are trying to say.

You're serious?

I hope it's clear that I haven't given a thorough presentation of the Church's teaching on sex, but only responded briefly to your objection. Let me expand a little more to answer you.

The Church does not teach that procreation is the only purpose of the sexual act, but that it is its central purpose--and this is obvious to anyone not willfully blind. The sexual act is the reproductive act. Nevertheless, obviously sex is pleasurable in a way that helps it serve as an expression of love between the married couple. Furthermore, human beings suffer under the condition of concupiscence, a persistent tendency to desire pleasure in a manner inconsistent with reason. The sexual act within marriage provides a legitimate way for the "pain of concupiscence" to be relieved.

The Church therefore has traditionally taught that there are three ends of the married state, and of the sexual act within marriage: (1) the bearing and raising of children, (2) the union of the spouses, and (3) to be a remedy for the pain of concupiscence. It is helpful to note that the teaching concerns the married state as a whole more than just the isolated sexual act. So, a couple that gets married is entering into a state of life that is, as a whole, ordered primarily towards the bearing and raising of children, with the other ends mentioned here playing a subordinate and serving role. If a couple is infertile, they can still legitimately live in this state of life and perform the sexual act, which is, regardless of their medical difficulties, still intrinsically ordered towards reproduction--even after menopause, a hysterectomy, etc.

It is precisely because the sexual act is intrinsically ordered towards reproduction that the Church teaches that even an infertile couple can still engage in it. This is why I asked before if you would acknowledge the distinction between the sense in which a blind person cannot see and the sense in which a rock cannot see. This corresponds to the distinction between the sense in which infertile heterosexuals "cannot have children" and the sense in which a homosexual couple "cannot have children."

This is also why Church law forbids the sexually impotent from marrying and will annul a marriage that is not consummated because of impotence discovered after the marriage ceremony.

You don't understand the question, or you deny that there is a distinction?