The purpose of the sex organs in animals is for procreation. In the higher life forms this always takes the form of male and female cooperating to produce offspring.
This is the natural function and correct use in the natural world fir achieving the designed output of the sexual act.
Homosexual acts deviate from this norm - they are a misuse of the sexual organs. It is a use outside of the natural and proper order…therefore it is a dis-order.
If you were talking about the “behind closed doors”, there would be a better defense of that position - if it doesn’t hurt anyone. But it is rarely something that is only done in private. Once people start brining their activities out in the open, they have a much greater potential to harm. At the very least, it leads impressionable people and children, to believe that deviant acts are “not so bad”. If that applies to sex, it also applies to other transgressions. This goes for heterosexual as well as homosexual acts.
The other argument is from simple biology. When you study biology, you learn about body systems. The reproductive system includes complementary parts and actions particular to the male and female. This argument doesn’t work for heterosexual acts without also adding in morality/theology but it is a strong argument as to why homosexual acts are not in keeping with the design of humans - whether you believe that design is divine or purely chance.
Coming strictly from their point-of-view, which is that the body is whatever you make of it and life is whatever you do with it, and not something fixed in the universe, rather unlikely it seems to me. Even if you did demonstrate successfully - and it’s been done numerous times - that the sexual organs have a particular use, and using them for sodomy is contrary to their intrinsic biological function, these people generally don’t believe the body exists for a particular ends - i.e, we can make anything move to whatever ends we like. So the natural argument comes off rather weak to them.
I don’t think it is possible without demonstrating that life has an intrinsic ends beyond the reproduction of the human species, or beyond individual or communal happiness. Certainly the Greeks and Romans engaged in it a lot, and they even had afterlives and deities to worship.
Probably the best thing you can do is to introduce them to the Gospel. And, as others have pointed out time and time again, begin by treating them with the Love Christ has for them. “They don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”
If I had this conversation, I think it might go like this:Them: If it doesn’t hurt anyone, why is it wrong?
Me: I think homosexual relations are wrong because I think it goes against the purpose of sex. What do you think?
Them: I think it’s not wrong as long as they don’t hurt anyone.
Me: Ok. It looks like we have two different ideas about what makes something right or wrong. I’ll give you the reasons for my belief if you give me the reasons for yours. Does that sound fair?
Me: Well, I think there is evidence that God made sex and gave us rules in the Bible about how to use it properly, and those rules exclude homosexual relations. What do you think?If you frame the conversation this way, I think a couple of benefits result. One is, it puts you in a position where you can defend Christian beliefs against specific objections. They might object that they don’t think homosexual relations go against the purpose of sex. If so, you can ask them what they think the purpose of sex is, and you can use evidence to show why you think the purpose of sex is for the union of male and female and the procreation of children.
Or they might object to your belief in God, or to your belief in the Bible, or your view that religion should be a part of public life. There are lots of resources for defending these beliefs. That’s one reason why I don’t think it’s wise to avoid using them. Instead, make it an issue of which is more reasonable: the biblical worldview or their worldview. Framing the discussion this way also lets God into the conversation at the center of what’s right and wrong, where I think He should be.
Plus, if you ask them to give you reasons for their position, I think they’ll just repeat that whatever doesn’t hurt anyone is okay. I think that’s what they’ll do because, at least in my experience, that position seems to be an assumption of theirs that they don’t have any evidence for. If they simply repeat that position, then you can point out that they haven’t give any reasons for it, which can be very persuasive in showing that their position is not reasonable.
Anyway, that’s how I would approach this discussion. Please let me know if it is helpful.
As I read in another thread, a vast majority of AIDS patients are homosexual men. AIDS treatments cause an increase in medical costs and insurance rates, not to mention other diseases and injuries/illnesses that consume healthcare resources. To that extent, anyway, it does hurt people - it means people can’t afford any healthcare or health insurance, it means resources aren’t available for others (not to say those using them don’t deserve to be treated) but I suspect there is nothing that doesn’t hurt anyone.
Speaking of which, I hear some homosexuals take some pride in getting AIDS. I guess it’s like getting a Purple Heart or something.
For all the talk of how Christians have a God that puts people into Hell, it’s very odd and sad homosexuals want to put themselves and us through the Hell of not controlling their sexual urges. I swear, the impulse to have an orgasm is practically a religion for some people.
And if any homosexual reads this and is offended - first, sorry this hurt your eyes. Second, I want to ask you: why is it so important for you to be able to orgasm? Why is that such an urgent need? Yes, it’s a need in the human species to reproduce. But you’re not doing that.
If it doesn’t do anyone much good, what makes it such a necessity?