Evidence for God from Science

For the people who believe its wrong for God to send gays to hell, you have no case! Because atheist believe their is no source to good or evil, and that its created in society, and that theres no real right or wrong. But christians believe there is, because good comes from God, evil comes from the opposite to him, because theres an opposite to everything.

So either you have to admit its ok for God to not listen to you and send gays to hell all he likes, or that there is no right or wrong and its not good or bad to punish gays.

But what I am questioning is, How is it wrong? How is being attracted to individuals of your same gender wrong?

As long as you are discussing heaven and hell... I would also like to know how religious authorities who abuse their power (i.e. by molesting children, etc.) could still going to heaven, yet homosexuals who harm no one will be sent to hell without a second thought.

Finally, when I learned about God, I was taught he was a forgiving being and made exceptions for the fact that no one on earth is perfect... (including people who blindly judge others) whatever happened to that? If that is not the case, I think we should all be a little worried about our supposed existence after death.

Cougar wrote:But what I am questioning is, How is it wrong? How is being attracted to individuals of your same gender wrong?

As long as you are discussing heaven and hell... I would also like to know how religious authorities who abuse their power (i.e. by molesting children, etc.) could still going to heaven, yet homosexuals who harm no one will be sent to hell without a second thought.

Finally, when I learned about God, I was taught he was a forgiving being and made exceptions for the fact that no one on earth is perfect... (including people who blindly judge others) whatever happened to that? If that is not the case, I think we should all be a little worried about our supposed existence after death.

Your only forgiven if you accept Jesus as your savior, if you do that, you must try to obide by his laws, but, it isnt easy converting from homosextuality to being straight, but if you pray and try all you can, its possible, its happened before.
But if you dont succeed, then im sure God will forgive you. If your sorry..

Cougar wrote:But what I am questioning is, How is it wrong? How is being attracted to individuals of your same gender wrong?

As long as you are discussing heaven and hell... I would also like to know how religious authorities who abuse their power (i.e. by molesting children, etc.) could still going to heaven, yet homosexuals who harm no one will be sent to hell without a second thought.

Forgot to reply to that. Its funny how you say 'religous authorties' who abuse their power, and not atheist. anwyay, they arent real christians, they could believe in God, but if they dont follow him on purpose they'll go to hell.

Also, its wrong because, your made for the opposite sex, not the same.
Tell me, if you were God, would you let people be gay? I wouldn't, if so, you mayaswell not make any women, and imagine if their was no law, and everybody turned gay, there would be no children.

Judah,

I am writing in response to the paper that you posted. I read it and I have a few criticisms, along with areas in which I agree with the author.

First, I will agree with him on the fact that gay people tend to be promiscuous. I don't think anyone can argue that... I have a few gay friends and I have to say from observation that appears to be true. So, in accordance with this fact, his numbers regarding detrimental effects of promiscuous activities are undeniable as well.

I also agree with him in his assessment of psychological problems being associated with homosexuality. I also have noticed an observable sense of either low self esteem or self-worth in homosexual individuals, which may appear outwardly as flamboyant and over-the-top behaviors. But, this does not mean there is a causal relationship between the two. I would say that perhaps, for the same reasons a person may be insecure could be the same reason he or she decides to be homosexual, if indeed it is a conscious choice. The idea of it being a choice is purely speculation on my part, though.

Lastly, being a biologist, I also obviously agree that homosexuality does not work biologically... this is for obvious reasons, of which I won't delve into. Reproductive structures are quite obviously adapted for procreation between male and female. But this does not, in my mind, make it morally wrong.

So, this is where I begin my criticism of his paper.

First and foremost, while his paper appears compelling, it does not address detrimental effects of homosexuality itself, but rather correlations associated with the practice. He presents no causal relationship between homosexuality and promiscuous sexual behavior. I would say that this part of his paper is a fairly accurate commentary on effects of promiscuous behavior. But, this does not mean that homosexuality causes promiscuous behaviors. I would say that one would discover similar results of disease, depression, etc. by polling promiscuous heterosexual college students.

Regarding shorter life span, I believe his evidence implies that promiscuous behavior and shorter life span are correlated... which means that may have nothing to do with being homosexual, but more to do with having a promiscuous personality.

*Now, in this paragraph, please bear with me and also keep in mind the basis of the argument I am trying to make and not the specific analogy itself.*

In his discussion of psychological problems, I did not see one citation where investigators took into effect the previous medical, social, family, or educational background of these homosexuals involved in the study. All these factors could have large confounding effects on the study itself and virtually prove it useless regarding information obtained. As I said before, if homosexuality has a correlation with depression, suicide, or drug-use, this could very likely be correlated with other factors in their life, and does not mean that homosexuality caused these particular problems. For instance, almost 95% of prostitutes were at one time in their lives molested, raped, or abused in some way. They also have a high rate of drug use, suicide and depression. However, you could not scientifically say, without taking all factors into consideration, that prostitution causes these behaviors. It would likely be more accurate to say that it was a combination of these factors that led to their current behavior, or lifestyle. So, to imply that homosexuality causes these ailments is not correct.

I don't care for his use of the Dutch as an example to the idea that psychological problems cannot be attributed to social rejection and the like. It was a poor example, and again, previous life history factors correlated with homosexuality could also be attributed to psychological factors later in life.

My final criticism of his paper is that he only briefly mentions issues with lesbians, and his cases are far less compelling. This leads me to believe that issues associated with homosexuality are addressed toward males. This means that there is less of a problem with homosexuality in principle, but rather [/i]male homosexuality.

In conclusions, I understand his results regarding detrimental effects of being homosexual and it is fairly easy to only see it that way if you don't think about it deeper. My overall point is that perhaps homosexuality itself is not to "blame" for these detrimental behaviors, but perhaps a multitude of environmental, psychological, and maybe biological influences lead to these problems, and also to a homosexual lifestyle.

Ignoring my post are we?

Thanks for your response, Cougar. I appreciate the comments that you have made.
I would have liked to have heard more from the writer on female homosexuality which he does gloss over more lightly.
I have mentioned the paper to others who have specifically wanted information on physical harm cause by homosexual practices, and the paper does address that area quite graphically. When it comes to the psycho-social aspects, those are more complicated and difficult to unravel.
I am thinking that I will keep it up my sleeve just for the "physical harm" information.
Thanks again for your comments.

Cougar wrote:Homosexuality, in priniciple, is self-destructive? In what way?

Social Disruption

Over the past 50 years, 5 studies have compared substantial numbers of homosexuals and heterosexuals — all generated results suggesting greater social disruption by gays. In the Kinsey survey, general prison inmates (excluding those incarcerated for sexual offenses) were over 4 times more apt to have extensive homosexual experience than his control group. (11) Saghir & Robins (12) compared 146 gays with 78 heterosexuals and reported less stability (more lovers, more job-changing) and more criminality among homosexuals. Bell & Weinberg (5) contrasted 979 gays with 477 heterosexuals and found more instability (psychiatric, marital) and more criminality among gays. Cameron & Ross (13) questionnaired 2,251 randomly-obtained respondents and reported that heterosexuals evidenced more social cohesion (numbers and kinds of intimate relationships), less self-destructive behavior (smoking, drug use, suicide attempts), and less endangerment of others (via driving habits, deliberate killing).

he largest comparison of gays and straights on a wide range of topics and based on a random sample involved 4,340 adults in 5 U.S. metropolitan areas. (6) Comparing those of both sexes who claimed to be bisexual or homosexual versus those of both sexes who claimed to be exclusively heterosexual:
Homosexuality was linked to lowered health

— homosexuals were about twice as apt to report having had a sexually transmitted disease (STD); and over twice as apt to have had at least 2 STDs;

— homosexuals were about 5 times more apt to have tried to deliberately infect another with an STD;

— homosexuals were about a third more apt to report a traffic ticket or traffic accident in the past 5 years;

— homosexuals were 3 times as likely to have attempted suicide, 4 times more apt to have attempted to kill someone, and about twice as likely to have been involved in a physical fight in the past year;

— homosexuals were about 5 times more apt to have engaged in torture-related sex (sadomasochism, bondage); and

— homosexuals were about 4 times more likely to report having been raped.

Homosexuality was associated with criminality

— homosexuals were about twice as likely to have been arrested for a non-sexual crime and about 8 times more apt to have been arrested for a sexual crime;

— homosexuals were about twice as apt to have been convicted of a sexual crime and about twice as likely to have been jailed for a crime;

— homosexuals were about three times more likely to admit to having made an obscene phone call; and

— homosexuals were about 50% more apt to claim that they had recently shoplifted, cheated on their income tax, or not been caught for a crime.

Homosexuality resulted in weaker human bonds

— only about half as many homosexuals had gotten married and, if married, were much less apt to have children;

— homosexuals averaged less than a year of sexual fidelity within either their longest homosexual or heterosexual relationship (heterosexuals averaged between 5 to 10 years of fidelity); and

— if married, homosexuals were about 3 times more likely to cheat on their spouse.

These results echo the largest comparative study of straight and gay couples, which reported that the average length of time together averaged about 3 years for gay and lesbian couples vs 10 years for married heterosexuals. (14) Additionally, "cheating" was inevitable: "all [gay] couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity." (15)

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet6.html

Nice post. Has information at least.

Judah,

I completely agree with you that the practices are physically harmful, and yes, the paper did highlight that quite graphically. My point of address, was that it just didn't show that homosexuality itself (as in, having an attraction to the same gender) was harmful at all. Practices associated with this lifestyle obviously are. This is why I still stand my ground when I say it is not "wrong" morally. I also appreciate your comments and consideration... it's nice to engage in civilized debate and criticism once in a while.

Speaking of what I would call the opposite of civilized debate:

I would like to know how anyone on this forum can feel that they stand authority to who is going to heaven or hell. I would like to hear your authoritative background in this area. Are you God? I do believe it is up to God to judge the living and the dead, according to Christian belief... am I wrong? Who are you to judge and decide?

There is a difference between disagreeing with a person's actions and condemning them for those actions. I think it is fine to disagree with the idea and practice of homosexuality for yourself, but condemning people on the principle of this behavior is wrong, in my book. As far as I know, no one is perfect and I do believe God intended it that way.

I have to agree that men and women were quite obviously made to procreate with each other and not intrasexually. This, however, does not address the moral issue. It only addresses the biological issue and I think that is pretty darn obvious and no cause for debate.

So, if I were God, meaning I created a world with all kinds of living things in it... I think that homosexuality would be the last thing I cared about. I would be more concerned with maniacs feeling they have the notion to tell other people how to live, when in fact I was the one who created them that way. I would be concerned with a dominant species raping the land, starting wars, and exploiting each other in my name. I would be concerned with people not understanding why they were put there and being ungrateful to the things that I provided them: diversity, spirituality, individuality, and an entire planet with which to experience and learn from those things.

Is homosexuality really that important in the greater scheme of things? Think about it.

Cougar wrote:I would like to know how anyone on this forum can feel that they stand authority to who is going to heaven or hell. I would like to hear your authoritative background in this area. Are you God? I do believe it is up to God to judge the living and the dead, according to Christian belief... am I wrong? Who are you to judge and decide?

Quick answer. Because we are simply regurgitating Christ's own teachings as recorded and handed down by the Apostles and early Christians. It is therefore not on our authority by which we speak, but rather on the authority of Christ and the Apostles after Him whom He gave the authority to teach.

Yet, I fail to see what heaven and hell have to do with discussions on homosexuality. This may be your own preconceived notions of what Christians believe (i.e., Christians believe homosexuals are sinners, sinners go to hell, therefore homosexuals go to hell). Some may actually believe this, yet this is not a mature understanding of Christianity. Rather Christianity is about God meeting and accepting sinners at any depth of their sin. Sadly many refuse to acknowledge their sins (and thereby need for forgiveness), and/or choose to reject God, in which case they insult God's great gift of forgiveness offered to them.

Kurieuo

Well Kurieuo, regarding the discussions about homosexuality, heaven and hell... I was merely responding to questions of other posters who claim to be Christian. Again, maybe some of the posters here should be enlightened to what it actually means to be a Christian. I grew up in a Christian church and I was never taught any of the things I am arguing against. I am quite certain, now, that they obviously do not have a mature understanding of Christianity, as you pointed out. I have much more respect for your viewpoint than any of the previous posts left by these people. So, this is not my preconceived notion of Christianity... it is a response to real people making these claims in the name of knowing their religion! It is people like this that give a bad vibe about Christianity, wouldn't you agree? (If you want an example read a few posts back... you will see what I mean)

This is off the subject, but this fact is specifically the reason I choose not to subscribe to any religion and Christianity in particular. The people who claim to practice it don't even understand it! I have my own understandings and beliefs... I can live without supposed Christians telling me I am wrong for whatever it is I believe. If I make one generalization, it is that most of my interactions with people like this are very judgmental... which I was taught to be one of the most hurtful and un-Christian acts. Excluding peole based upon lifestyle changes or even mistakes in their lives is no way to recruit people to your religion or to get people to attempt an understanding of it!!

What do you think?

Cougar wrote:Well Kurieuo, regarding the discussions about homosexuality, heaven and hell... I was merely responding to questions of other posters who claim to be Christian. Again, maybe some of the posters here should be enlightened to what it actually means to be a Christian. I grew up in a Christian church and I was never taught any of the things I am arguing against. I am quite certain, now, that they obviously do not have a mature understanding of Christianity, as you pointed out. I have much more respect for your viewpoint than any of the previous posts left by these people. So, this is not my preconceived notion of Christianity... it is a response to real people making these claims in the name of knowing their religion! It is people like this that give a bad vibe about Christianity, wouldn't you agree? (If you want an example read a few posts back... you will see what I mean)

I had to revise my post, as it occurred to me someone may have previously lead you to these misconceived notions, rather then them purely being your preconceived notions. After re-reading Jay_7's posts, I think he may have simply been misunderstood. For in one post he states, "So either you have to admit its ok for God to not listen to you and send gays to hell all he likes, or that there is no right or wrong and its not good or bad to punish gays." Perhaps he was focusing on gays only because that is the topic, but at the same time I'm sure he is aware that God would be justified in condemning everyone since we all stand condemned for all have sinned (an essential Christian message). Yet, though we sin (gay people included), we are forgiven although we can reject such forgiveness. Jay_7 clearly allows for gays to be forgiven or saved despite their sin, as he further writes: "Your only forgiven if you accept Jesus as your savior, if you do that, you must try to obide by his laws, but, it isnt easy converting from homosextuality to being straight, but if you pray and try all you can, its possible, its happened before. But if you dont succeed, then im sure God will forgive you. If your sorry.."

While I might frame things differently, it doesn't seem like Jay_7 was advocating all gays going to hell. At the same time if one really desires and accepts Christ's forgiveness, then it stands to reason they see something wrong with their self and would desire change. Paul in Romans 3:31 essentially points out the absurdity that one would desire forgiveness to be made right with God, to only then desire to keep on sinning against Him.

Now as for the question at hand I think it is irrelevant. If homosexuality is genetic, in that one has a predisposition towards it, within Christianity we are still called to live according to the spirit rather than our flesh (Romans 7:14-25 summarises this nicely). We are not like animals who tend to give into their every instinct or desire, but God (and even people within society) hold us morally accountable for our actions since we have a higher intellectual and moral capacities. So whether it is genetic, this rightly makes God only able to judge, but I doubt He will have compassion upon those who willfully reject Him and freely give in to their sinful desires.

Kurieuo

I'm gay, and I don't think it's down to my influences.

The latest scientific research (Scientific American Mind, volume 17, number 1, February/March 2006) does suggest that there is a "comtinuum" of sexual activity, with exclusive same-sex attraction (SSA) at one end, exclusive opposite-sex attraction (OSA) at the other end, and varying degrees of bisexuality in the middle. Personally, I feel that I am pretty close to exclusive SSA.

I want to make it very clear that this is an absolute truth for me. I know that some people find it possible to "switch" from SSA to OSA, and some, I'm sure, manage to convince others that they experience only OSA when the opposite is true - I did, until I was 16. However, the research shows that these people probably don't start at extremes of the "continuum," where social pressures one way or the other can lead to apparent SSA or OSA.

I'd also like to say that I have a healthy relationship with my father, possibly moreso than he had with his, as well as with my mother. My close friends include males and females, of varying sexualities (most OSA but a few both-sex attraction and a couple of SSA), and I was never sexually molested as a child.

So, for some people I think influences can determine your sexual attractions, but for many, it's no more a choice than your hair or eye colour - you can use dyes or contact lenses, but underneath, it's still the same.

I have a question for you. Regardless of wrong or right, do you think a predisposition towards a certain action necessarily justifies a person committing that action? I see that while a predisposition (genetic or environmental) may justify an animal's action, I'm not so sure it necessarily justifies a human being's action since we have the capacity to think about our actions, we have a moral capacity, and we appear to have the ability to transcend the natural world making it conform to our desires and needs.

Kurieuo