Is Being Homosexual No More Morally Significant than Being Left Handed?
Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason answers the question, “Is being homosexual no more morally significant than being left handed?”
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
————— CONNECT —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time – (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: https://www.str.org/broadcast.
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
Left handed people were killed in the dark ages by the church. So I would say it is pretty simular
Being left-handed was VERY controversial for thousands of years in the eastern Mediterranean regions and other places. We have some remnants of it – i.e. the left hand of fellowship. Jesus said those who did not feed the least among us would end up on his left hand while those who were good could come to his right hand. Preferring the left hand was a big deal. Today not so much. National Geographic explains the biology of homosexuality
1. anything that causes more harm than being left handed is more morally significant
2. homosexuality does not cause more harm than being left handed.
3. being homosexual is not more morally significant than being left handed
When I'm given an article I read it several times. The first time, i always skim it to get a general idea. I told you that I've skimmed one article and gave you some thoughts about it: (1) correlation is not causation and (2) the badness of homosexually is contigent. I'm not interested in prop8 voters themselves and how they comport themselves.
I don't know what you expect of people when you give them an article. In no way, have I "dismissed" anything at any point. Take care.
" I'm interested about the facts of the matter: is there something wrong with homosexual behavior?"
No, you are not. I provided some facts for you. You're already dismissing them, without even giving them fair consideration.
As I said, I've been in these discussions and it's always the same. I've done the best I can do.
I wrote, that "I skimmed" through the article, I don't see why you are offended. I will read it when I have more time to be analytical.
I didn't read the prop8 article as I said,I'm not interested in bad behaviors people do in order to achieve some end. I'm interested about the facts of the matter: is there something wrong with homosexual behavior?
That's fine. Have a nice day.
See what I mean? Complete dismissal. There's no way anyone could read, much less give consideration to anything said there in such a short few minutes.
Not a word on the churches/Prop. 8 things either.
I'm sorry, but I just don't have time for this sort of game. I've been in these conversations so many times and it's always the same – I present facts, and they are simply ignored.
Perhaps someone else will take it up with you.
I'm not interested in bad behaviors people do in order to achieve some end. I'm interested about the facts of the matter: is there something wrong with homosexual behavior?
You gave me a source which only targets male homosexuality, and at best shows correlation not causation. And an interesting fact about this reasoning is that the "badness" of homosexuality is contingents. In other words, its not necessarily bad; at least that's what the article shows.
Did you just write you "don't go for the victim mentality" and at the very next sentence complained about "being branded a bigot or worse"?
What ever the facts of the matter may be, let's still have sensitivity to what we say, independently of being homosexual or not?
I skimmed through the article, it's very interesting, but recall I asked for the cause of the physical, emotional, and social damage. The article at best shows correlation not causation, and it says nothing about lesbians.
Here are sources for my factual statements regarding the church attacks and harassment of Prop. 8 voters/donors by homosexual activists:
Church attack –
catholic[dot]org / national / national_story[dot]php?id=30504
Prop. 8 –
washingtontimes[dot]com / news / 2009 / mar / 23 / pestered-prop-8-donors-file-suit/?page=all
heritage[dot]org / research / reports / 2009 / 10 / the-price-of-prop-8
Here's a list. I bet you'll dismiss it, even though info is sourced & some is from places like the CDC.
catholiceducation[dot]org / articles / homosexuality/ho0075[dot]html
I don't go for the victim mentality. Homosexuals are quickly becoming THE most protected class of people in the U.S.
One cannot express the slightest disagreement with homosexuality without immediately being branded a bigot or worse. (Like churches desecrated & personal info released on Prop. 8 voters.)
So, people using their bodies in ways in which they do not properly function causes physical, emotional, and social damage?
Could you elaborate on that? Feel free to send me a message.
Why not think, that homosexuals suffer through physical, emotional and social damage due to sexual discrimination and other factors?
What do you mean, the cause? The cause is people using their bodies in ways in which they do not properly function.
May I ask you what do you think is the CAUSE of the physical, emotional and social damage that comes from the homosexual lifestyle?
"If heterosexuality is moral then whatever is not that thing is immoral"
(1) That's simply false, and your entire argument, I think, rests on this mistake. The negation of moral, is NOT moral; which is not identical to immoral as you suggest. In other words "not moral ≠ immoral."
(2) Your justification for goodness of heterosexuality is based on "biological truths and logic." I've shown, clearly I think, that logic portion is simply mistaken. What do you mean by biological truths?
If heterosexuality is moral then whatever is not that thing is "immoral". In Logic "A" is "A" and can not be non "A". The 3 philosophical categories for behavior are 1) those behaviors which are to be promoted, 2) those behaviors which are to be permitted and 3) those behaviors which are to be prohibited. Only heterosexual monogamy is to be promoted based on biological truths and logic.
Tell that to nature. And then ask yourself what the building blocks of societies are. I'm confused as to why it's morally okay to damage those building blocks and not allow protection against that damage through legislation, but teaching fortitude and patience and denying your own personal wants and needs for the greater good isn't.
If God doesn't judge America He's going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. (It wasn't that people were homosexuals, it was the public condoning of it).
That's fine if you aren't homosexual, no one is making you be, but don't impose your personal sexuality on others through legislation.
Greg should have pointed out the physical, emotional and social damage that comes from this lifestyle.
Videos sucks