Dictionary.com gives for the definition of "moral" the following::

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.

3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.

4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.

6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.


Some people here seem to think that this issue can be proven one way or another. It cannot. We will never be able to declare, as a society of people, whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. Morals are based on individual, personal perceptions of right and wrong. They come from one's own instincts and conscience. What is 'morally wrong' for one person might very well be completely morally just for another. Homosexuality is an issue that has long been debated and will continue to be debated simply for the fact that no one likes to be told that their morals are corrupt. Morals are a personal basis for living and I can't think of anyone who would openly want their morals to be questioned, judged, or deemed false.

Many people base their morals, their standard for living, on religion. This is simple fact. I am a Christian and many of my morals, ethics, and values have been developed as a result of my belief in a Christian God. This is why people quote the Bible or talk of religious implications. Because they base "right" and "wrong" on the teachings of their religion. It's almost similar to when you're a child and someone asks you to do something and you say "No, my mother told me it's wrong." As a child, you base right and wrong on the teachings of your parents, of society, of your chosen religion. As you get older and learn to think for yourself, you make changes where you see fit, you alter your morals based on broader teachings, or you keep them in tact because they're what you're comfortable with. But religion and morality will always go hand in hand because many people consider them linked.

Gerundio, I'm honestly not trying to pick on you, but since this is a debate and you do seem to have a lot of points contradictory to my own, I will be addressing those. Please do not view this as a personal attack on you.



That's an interesting opinion. I have to put forth the question then that if homosexuality is not a corruption of sexuality, why is there a distinction? If sexuality envelops all sexual relations, both heterosexual and homosexual, why do we as a people seperate the two? Why isn't it just sexuality? Where do you think the distinction came from? Arguably, people seperated the two because they felt one was 'wrong' and one was 'right.' What are your thoughts on that?



Surprisingly, I don't feel you're TOO far off base here. In accordance with my own personal beliefs, God did create every man, homosexual or otherwise. He did not create homosexuality. What He did was grant every man free will. However, in my opinion, He did not create us with free will so that we could choose homosexuality. He created us with free will so that we could choose to deny it.

I don't believe that people are born gay. I also don't believe that people are born straight. Sexuality is chosen. I am heterosexual, but I could partake in homosexual activity if I wanted to. Free will. I could choose to be completely non-sexual, never participating in another sexual act for the rest of my life. Sexuality is a way of living and we all choose how we live and should take accountability for those choices. If a gay man or woman doesn't feel like there's anything wrong with homosexuality, why do they feel the need to convince everyone that it isn't their fault for being that way? If one truly believes there is nothing wrong with what they do, they shouldn't feel the need then to justify or excuse it.



It seems you've created your own religion. You stated in other posts that you are Catholic. I'm not Catholic, but to my knowledge, the Catholic Church believes in the Christian God. Now, if you do not believe in sin, then it would obviously be impossible for you to believe that homosexuality is a sin. But if you do believe in sin based upon the belief in a Christian God, then you would assumably believe the scriptures of the Bible. Otherwise, from what source do you derive your belief in a Christian God? And it is clearly stated, without question, in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. So I'm completely baffled as to how you could believe in sin but not believe that homosexuality is a sin. Sin is what God has deemed to be wrong or against what He wants. Again, I refer to Dictionary.com::

Sin:: Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God

So if there is a such a thing as sin, then homosexuality IS sinful by Christian law.

From a personal standpoint, I'm torn on the issue. I honestly don't usually consider what other people should or should not do. I'm a religious person and so I do think that homosexuality is against God's plan. I mean, even if you wanted to strike religion from this debate entirely, just look at the human anatomy. Reproductively, our bodies were built for men to be sexual with women. That's a fairly basic yet inarguable point. Are homosexuals bad people? No, I absolutely do not think so. We all do things that are 'morally' wrong, so even if I decided that homosexuality was morally wrong, I wouldn't believe that homosexuals are bad or condemnable people. And being religious, I understand that I am not to sit in a place of judgment. So like I said, I don't often think of how other people should live their lives. And being religious, I know that sinners are forgiven through Christ's sacrifice. So personally, I'm inclined to say live and let live. Why should it bother me what other people do in the bedroom? No one is perfect, I won't stand in judgment about someone else.

I hope nothing I said here was offensive to anyone. I was just stating my own personal opinion on the subject.



Callie

I agree with many things you've said, with the major exception of the quoted paragraph, which seemed contradicting by the following premises:

God granted free will, but isn't free will the freedom to choose? Free to choose means freedom to choose to accept OR to deny , however you only presented us with one choice: to deny. Therefore, "free will" cannot be used to argue for/against homosexuality because one does not have true freedom to choose from all choices available.

The perceived meaning "free will" denotes no boundaries or limits, however, there are limits set on what we must choose or musn't choose to be in accord with God. So in essence, we're NOT given "free" anything, but our actions are rather bounded and limitted by God's standards/laws.

I'm sorry, I don't think I explained that point very clearly. Hmm... let me see... ok, what I meant was that God granted us free will so that we would choose Him, rather than just forcing us to do so. He could've simply made us perfect like Himself and made it so that His will was done always. But instead of forcing us to do His will, he granted us free will so that we could choose to do His will. So when I say that he granted us free will so that we could deny, I meant that He did that so we would choose to do what is right in His eyes. So when I said that gerundio wasn't too far off base, I meant that God made us capable of doing right and wrong in the hopes that we would choose what is right rather than what is wrong. It's hard to explain and it's all coming from a religious standpoint, of course. But I hope that cleared it up some.


Callie

There is a distinction only because people have wanted there to be. Somebody feels uncomfortable, and all of a sudden it's "immoral, perverse, and corrupt."



See, people don't choose to be heterosexual or homosexual. Maybe people are not born straight or gay, but whatever the factors that influence one's sexuality, they are most certainly external. In other words, you don't choose, it's more or less imposed upon you. It's not like you can wake up one day and say, "oh today I am going to be gay." I have several gay people in my family and none of them chose to be gay. Same goes for straight people, they don't choose to heterosexual. So then, if people don't choose their sexual preference then why is there a need to justify acting upon their instincts? If you are attracted to the same sex, then why should you be deprived of the opportunity to have sexual relations with someone you love?

And obviously you can have homosexual relations if you want to. But are you doing it for any other reason than perhaps pleasure? No. And that's why you are heterosexual and not homosexual. Same goes for a gay person who has sex with the opposite sex.



No, it seems like you are trying to pigeonhole me into a stereotype.

See unlike many people here, I don't feel the need to suscribe to EVERYTHING the Church says. Why? Because some things are not true. What proof is there that the Bible IS God's word? And what proof is there that what the Church decrees is the absolute truth? Do you know how many times the Church has changed it's stance on topics similar to homosexuality?

Take the Medieval Church's teachings on sex in marriage as an example of the Church's shiftiness.

In Medieval times, the Church said that sex was forbidden on these days and under these circumstances:

"When one's wife is menstruating, pregnant, or nursing
During Lent, Advent, Whitsun Week, or Easter week
On feast days, fast days, Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday
During daylight
If you are naked
If you are in church
Unless you are trying to produce a child"

http://www.dfwx.com/medieval_cult.htm

How many days did that leave a year for a married couple to have sex? Not too many, which is kind of ridiculous don't you think? Not only that, sex was ONLY for the purpose of reproduction.

Now the Church teaches that sex has two purposes: to create new life and to bring a husband and wife closer. I don't exactly think sex is limited to this, but that's besides the point. My point is that now the Church teaches something different from before. So which is one is right? Do you see what I mean?

I know the Gospels, and I believe the lessons they have to teach, but besides that, the Bible isn't of much importance to me. The Old Testament is nothing more than a recounting of history from a VERY VERY partial point of view. So honestly, I could care less about what the Bible says about homosexuality.

So if there is such a thing as sin, then homosexuality is NOT sinful just because the Bible and the Church says so. Thus, I can find no reasons for homosexuality to be considered immoral.



Yes. The fact that the human anatomy requires a man and a woman for sexual reproduction is inarguable. But why does sex only have to be for reproduction? Can two men or two women not love each other and live with each other and have sex whenever they want?

I still don't quite understand how anyone can call the whole situation "free will"...

Take for example a realistic situation between mortal parents and their children:

Parents put restrictions on what they want their children to do and not to do, and most of the time it is because they love their kids and do not want them to do wrong things. Parents would say what these restrictions are and therefore kids KNOW that they DO NOT have the free will to do whatever they want. Even if their children do wrong, their parents still help them and forgive them and they can still a big happy family...

However, this Heavenly Father chooses to give His children free will, then threatens that if His children to wrong, then the result is eternal damnation (and their is no forgiving after going to Hell). In this case, homosexuals choose to believe in His gift of free will and is punished for it? That isn't "free will".

In this situation, there are only two choices and neither of them are very favorable: to love God and loose the ability to love any other mortal (romantically) else or to love a mortal of the same sex (romantically) and suffer Hell.

Either way, the choices are HORRIBLE!

Of course I understand that there are times in life that you have to sacrifice your wants/needs for a "greater" good, but no one person should ever has to make that kind of decision if they are blessed with God's love. And if God truly loves His creation, then He shouldn't force them suffer such a heart breaking decision that will cost them being in His presence or true love.

i think it's just whatever the fuk people want to choose to do then they can. no one should have the fukin right to say it's wrong or not. okay... god created us all and sht and so we should all be treated equally, WE ALL R NORMAL HUMANBEINGS! if ppl say dis is a sin, das retarded, cuz it aint... it's jux LET DA PPL DO WUHEVA DA FUK DEY WANT, it aint concernin ur asz. would u like it if someone said it's a sin wen u choose 2 drink alcohol n they think u shouldnt... it's da same ****. whoeva said bout dat freakn temptation crap, then let them b tempted, does it concern U. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. SO STFU!

Im cathlic and its like a sin to say this.. But i actually dont care about gay people.. I think they are in some cases nicer and cooler to hang out with..

i believe you should love the evil-doer and hate the evil. You should hate that they are gay but love them anyway. If you are gay that is fine, i just do not want to see it. homosexuality is wrong by God's and nature's standards. funny how they follow the same principles.

I can honestly say that I still don't quite understand the whole free will thing either. I mean, if God allows us to choose one or the other (general statement), why should one be wrong? *Will ask my father later on... I'll post his answers*.

Some one extremely religious would tell you that choosing homosexuality would be work of the Devil or something... but I honestly don't know. Personally, from my view, homosexuality is wrong, unnatural and just... sick.... but that's just my opinion and everyone is entitled to it.

Someone here said something that I agree with. There is nothing we can do about homosexuality. That is *that* person's choice, just don't you *dare* do it in front of me,

edit// I just knew gerundio had to be hispanic....




Well said. I must humbly say that I have been proven wrong and I withdraw my comment.

it's morally wrong according to the moral majority. we do live in a democracy do we not?

No. If you are talking about the US, it is a representative democracy. Anyway, the fact that a bunch of gun-toting, NRA loving, redneck Bible Belt Christians like yourself think that is incorrect does not mean ****. You guys also think that the war was justified. You guys once thought slavery was correct. I could be listing things till tomorrow...

So at one point in time slavery was regarded as morally right by most people ... does that, then, make slavery right? Most Germans supported depriving Jews of rights in WWII (maybe not killing them, but Hitler definitley had support for stripping Jews of citizenship). Does that make it right?

If something is opposed by most people, that just makes it ... unpopular. Not morally wrong. What happened to standing up for what is right, EVEN WHEN YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE STANDING? Morality is not subject to democracy.

hey now. try to keep some respect in here. i'm as anti-bush as the next but childish name-calling makes us all look bad. debates are better fought with facts, not steriotypes.

They can't help it. It's genetic!

Who proved it? Where's the source? I'm sure there are many who have proved otherwise.

yea... you know... since 2 men can concieve a fetus.

1. Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.
(Author of "My Genes Made Me Do It")

2.Homosexual behaviors are fraught with serious mental health and physical consequences--all of which are well documented in scientific literature. One doesn't have to consider homosexuality to be sinful to understand that such behaviors places its participants at risk for mental/physical illnesses - Dr. A. Dean Byrd

3.In 1999, the Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported that, "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices." - Dr. A. Dean Byrd

4.In fact, even gay-activist researchers themselves, who have been desperately seeking a genetic element to homosexuality, have come up empty. Several of these researchers have openly admitted their failure. - Dr. A. Dean Byrd

5. Dr. Dean Hamer (who is a gay-activist) said, "There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. ... I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."

6. Researcher Dean Hamer, attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome. After this study he said, “ The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants."

7. Dr. LeVay (who is also a gay-activist) said, "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."

8. Homosexual philosopher Camille Paglia is quite blunt in her assessment of the "born gay" theory: "No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous ... homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait. ..."

9. The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature? “No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

10. Here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994: “Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."

11. Scientific terms are all too often mis-understood and used wrongly. The problem is the media takes a few short sentences from a study and makes a case out of something that never was the case in the first place. “There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows: 1. Heritable does not mean inherited. 2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited. Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment. Science has never, ever proved that homosexuality is an Inherited trait, instead a gay activist scientist only claimed that homosexuality may be a heritable gene. The media and homosexuals grab that and run with it saying that homosexuality has been proven as a inherited gene when that is completely untrue, even by scientific findings.

12. Dr. Hamer--himself a gay man--adds that science remains "just as clueless" as ever about the environmental influences on homosexuality. Dr. Hamer's statement is consistent with a position taken by most gay advocates, who flatly deny the existence of evidence that points to certain family and social influences on homosexuality.

13. Published in the Globe: “The gene still has not been found, and interest in--and enthusiasm for--the 'gay gene' research has waned among activists and scientists alike.”

14. When "gay gene" researcher Dr. Dean Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he replied: "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."

15. William Byne, a psychiatrist with a doctorate in biology, and Bruce Parsons (1993) carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality. They found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation.

16. “Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality." --R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., Journal of Neuropsychiatry, vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993.

17. "Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration"; it has merely "asserted away the considerable evidence" for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are "convincing only to those with a need to believe." --S. Goldberg (1994) When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

18. “There is a genetic component to homosexuality, but 'component' is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. 'Linkage' and 'association' do not mean 'causation.' There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic--and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public." --Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, p.8.

19. The national organization P-FLAG ("Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays") offers a booklet prepared with the assistance of Dr. Clinton Anderson of the American Psychological Association. Entitled, "Why Ask Why? Addressing the Research on Homosexuality and Biology," the pamphlet says: "To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date...sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors."