spidergoat said:
To be precise, I'm saying that science is systematized perception to which we apply logical conclusions. But those perceptions have to be meaningful in that they provide empirical data. Observing a caterpillar create a cocoon and eventually break free as a moth is empirical (but lengthy) observation. Seeing a butterfly and speculating that they are born of fairies because it came to you in a dream.... well, you get the idea.
This is actually relative to the OT since we make some very a priori assumptions regarding the existence of homosexual behavior. These assumptions may or may not be correct but there are some things that must be considered: 1) homosexual behavior exists, in humans as well as other animals; 2) the possibility of genetic origin cannot be entirely ruled out; 3) the possibility of nurture being the cause of homosexual behavior cannot be ruled out; 4) homosexual behavior has no apparent negative affect on society compared with heterosexuality; 5) human religions are vehemently opposed to the practice, particularly Christianity and Islam, where it is admonished in religious texts several times; 6) homosexuality among humans is an apparent part of humanity that has been around for at least as long as recorded history, as evidenced by #5.
From these observations about homosexuality, we can induce the following: the only viable reason to oppose homosexuality is religious doctrine, viewed by many (myself included) to be human superstition. But its the very fact that those, such as myself, have this view of religion and are tolerant of things that the religious texts aren't (i.e. homosexuality) that probably is the actual motivation of religion to oppose homosexuality.
Homosexuality does not threaten religion directly; therefore it is illogical to oppose it. That homosexuality might spread and conquer a population is preposterous, so this cannot be a valid reason. That homosexuality will tempt members into joining it is, likewise, illogical -since, clearly, if religious faith is genuine, how can the sexual practices of a small percentage of the population possibly influence it?
There are doubtless a few other arguments that might be presented, but the only one that really holds water is that homosexuality threatens religion indirectly by increasing the tolerance level of those who are not homosexual. The more people who accept that homosexuality is fine for those that wish to engage in it or even accept the possibility that homosexuality isn't a matter of choice (be it genetic or early childhood development - or a combination), the more problematic this becomes for religion -particularly Christianity. This is because the early authors of the bible allowed their bias against homosexuality (which may have had anthropologically valid origins) enter the text that modern Christians are clinging to.
Homosexuality, young Earth creationism, Noachian flood proponents, etc., etc., are all fighting to maintain superstitious belief in the literal truth of an outdated document, rather than allow the wisdom and beauty of that same work of literature to speak for itself. They believe that by conceding that the early authors of the various texts within the work were limited in their knowledge, that this will devalue the bible as a religious document. After all.... part of the mythos is that it is the "breathed word of God."