View Poll Results: Is homosexuality wrong and/or unnatural?

Voters
277. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's wrong and unnatural

    22 7.94%
  • It's not wrong, just unnatural

    16 5.78%
  • It's neither wrong nor unnatural

    107 38.63%
  • Don't know/care

    16 5.78%
  • Punish/restrict Christians for being against it

    12 4.33%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 131 of 162 FirstFirst ... 3181121129130131132133141 ... LastLast
Results 1,301 to 1,310 of 1617

Thread: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

  1. #1301
    Sage
    RamFel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,090

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Okay, you finally gave a straight answer.



    The natural purpose of HETEROSEXUAL sexual intercourse is for procreation. That much we can agree upon.



    Flawed logic. A behavior doesn't need to fulfill any "purpose" in order for it to be natural. But even if I were to concede your point, homosexual behavior could very well fulfill other purposes.

    A quick google search reveals a few examples, and I'm sure there are other theories as well.

    The Purpose of Homosexuality

    Same-sex relationships may play important role in evolution | Science | guardian.co.uk

    Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist



    As answered above.
    Flawed logic? You’re making me laugh. I think the only reason you’re saying that a behavior doesn’t need to fulfill a purpose to be natural is because you actually have no reliable answers. You don’t really know anything. Let me show you what I mean. Let’s take a look at some of the articles:

    From “The Purpose of Homosexuality”:

    In this article, the author, Toby Johnson doesn’t seem to be sure about anything. Here’s what I mean.

    Homosexuality <u>seems to be</u> simply an inherent aspect of human nature.

    Homosexuality is, at least, <u>a possible reproductive strategy</u> for controlling population.

    Here’s another one:

    That is, homosexual uncles and lesbian aunts <u>may have given offspring</u> in the tribe a richer experience and better education. Gay people <u>may exist</u> primarily to be teachers and guides.

    All those “seems to be”…and “possible’s”…and “may have’s” and so on tells me that Toby Johnson doesn’t seem to be too sure about anything. Has he got any positive conclusions? Anything he’s sure about?

    Now “Same-sex relationships may play important role in evolution”:

    "Same-sex behaviors – courtship, mounting or parenting – are traits that <u>may have</u> been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations," Bailey said. "But our review of studies <u>also suggests</u> that these same-sex behaviors <u>might act</u> as selective forces in and of themselves."

    These are smart researchers, I’m sure, but don’t you want to be sure you have all the facts, and not guesses? There may be more examples in this article, but I want to move on to the third article “Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality”.

    I like this quote: “A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex.

    That confirms to me that gay sex is unnatural, and that if gays wanted children, they had to mate with a partner of the opposite sex because, why? Because the purpose of sex is procreation. I see nothing in these articles that makes your point.

    The funniest thing you said was this “The natural purpose of HETEROSEXUAL sexual intercourse is for procreation”.

    I’m trying to stifle a laugh. You’re really too hilarious. That’s what happens when you don’t know what you’re talking about. Someone makes a good point, and instead of answering intelligently, you react, and this is what you get.

    Sex really doesn’t have separate heterosexual and homosexual purposes. It only has one purpose. That’s why women and men have different genitalia. They’re made for each other. And the purpose for matching men and women together is so that they can make a child, if they want to. The very fact that they CAN make children, and gay men CANNOT make children (through homosexual sex) means that gay sex is UNNATURAL.

  2. #1302
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by RamFel View Post
    Sex really doesn’t have separate heterosexual and homosexual purposes. It only has one purpose. That’s why women and men have different genitalia. They’re made for each other. And the purpose for matching men and women together is so that they can make a child, if they want to. The very fact that they CAN make children, and gay men CANNOT make children (through homosexual sex) means that gay sex is UNNATURAL.
    Really? Purpose requires intent which means that there has to be someone or something behind nature that designed sexual intercourse to have a purpose. Unless you are that designer or you have a link to the designer's website, then you have no idea what the purpose of anything is. Actually, you don't even know if there is a purpose, so every absolute statement you've made in this thread is nonsensical, without defense and pure conjecture.

  3. #1303
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Really? Purpose requires intent which means that there has to be someone or something behind nature that designed sexual intercourse to have a purpose. Unless you are that designer or you have a link to the designer's website, then you have no idea what the purpose of anything is. Actually, you don't even know if there is a purpose, so every absolute statement you've made in this thread is nonsensical, without defense and pure conjecture.
    Not only that, but it also assumes that the person making such assumptions knows exactly what that they know that said "designer" only wanted sex to be about procreation and that any sex that is done outside the sole purpose of procreation is also unnatural, no matter who is engaged in the sex, two males, two females, a male and a female, just one person, or > 2 people.

    That would indicate the vast majority of people are involved in unnatural sex (except for those very few people who honestly only have sex when they are trying to procreate, I have a great aunt who really does believe sex is solely for procreation but she also has never been married).

    And it completely disregards the fact that personal relationships at the marriage level are generally not about the sex. Sex is involved in the vast majority of those, but it probably wouldn't be considered the foundation of the relationship.

    Despite some beliefs, intimacy is not just about sex. For some couples, it doesn't involve sex at all.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #1304
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    I said one could, Kal'Stang. I'm not a scientist.

    However I'm not naive enough to think any sort of credible argument could not, in fact, be made. Are you?

    Even if one were credible enough for many, would you consider it?
    If it were credible enough to me then yes I would consider it. I don't care about the many as in this country when talking about rights we consider individual rights to be more important than majority's percieved rights.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  5. #1305
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by RamFel View Post
    Flawed logic? You’re making me laugh. I think the only reason you’re saying that a behavior doesn’t need to fulfill a purpose to be natural is because you actually have no reliable answers. You don’t really know anything. Let me show you what I mean. Let’s take a look at some of the articles:
    RamFel, what is the purpose of being left handed vs right handed?
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #1306
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by RamFel View Post
    Flawed logic? You’re making me laugh. I think the only reason you’re saying that a behavior doesn’t need to fulfill a purpose to be natural is because you actually have no reliable answers. You don’t really know anything. Let me show you what I mean. Let’s take a look at some of the articles:

    From “The Purpose of Homosexuality”:

    In this article, the author, Toby Johnson doesn’t seem to be sure about anything. Here’s what I mean.

    Homosexuality <u>seems to be</u> simply an inherent aspect of human nature.

    Homosexuality is, at least, <u>a possible reproductive strategy</u> for controlling population.

    Here’s another one:

    That is, homosexual uncles and lesbian aunts <u>may have given offspring</u> in the tribe a richer experience and better education. Gay people <u>may exist</u> primarily to be teachers and guides.

    All those “seems to be”…and “possible’s”…and “may have’s” and so on tells me that Toby Johnson doesn’t seem to be too sure about anything. Has he got any positive conclusions? Anything he’s sure about?

    Now “Same-sex relationships may play important role in evolution”:

    "Same-sex behaviors – courtship, mounting or parenting – are traits that <u>may have</u> been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations," Bailey said. "But our review of studies <u>also suggests</u> that these same-sex behaviors <u>might act</u> as selective forces in and of themselves."

    These are smart researchers, I’m sure, but don’t you want to be sure you have all the facts, and not guesses? There may be more examples in this article, but I want to move on to the third article “Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality”.

    I like this quote: “A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex.

    That confirms to me that gay sex is unnatural, and that if gays wanted children, they had to mate with a partner of the opposite sex because, why? Because the purpose of sex is procreation. I see nothing in these articles that makes your point.

    The funniest thing you said was this “The natural purpose of HETEROSEXUAL sexual intercourse is for procreation”.

    I’m trying to stifle a laugh. You’re really too hilarious. That’s what happens when you don’t know what you’re talking about. Someone makes a good point, and instead of answering intelligently, you react, and this is what you get.

    Sex really doesn’t have separate heterosexual and homosexual purposes. It only has one purpose. That’s why women and men have different genitalia. They’re made for each other. And the purpose for matching men and women together is so that they can make a child, if they want to. The very fact that they CAN make children, and gay men CANNOT make children (through homosexual sex) means that gay sex is UNNATURAL.
    1) We don't know for sure what the purposes of homosexuality are, but all of the above are possible theories. I never said they were facts. They are potential explanations for why it exists. We don't know for sure what the purposes of homosexuality are, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The research just hasn't progressed to the point where we have facts instead of theories.

    2) Where, in the definition of nature, does it say that something must have a purpose in order to be natural? And since you don't personally know "what nature intends" or "who the designer is," how can you be so sure that homosexuality serves no purpose? And how can you be so sure that the ONLY purpose of sex is procreation?

    3) You've not provided a logically sound explanation for why sexual behavior is unnatural just because it doesn't involve procreation. Sorry. All of the assertions you've made above are even more conjectural than the articles I presented.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 06-06-11 at 05:48 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  7. #1307
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    1) We don't know for sure what the purposes of homosexuality are, but all of the above are possible theories. I never said they were facts. They are potential explanations for why it exists. We don't know for sure what the purposes of homosexuality are, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The research just hasn't progressed to the point where we have facts instead of theories.

    2) Where, in the definition of nature, does it say that something must have a purpose in order to be natural? And since you don't personally know "what nature intends" or "who the designer is," how can you be so sure that homosexuality serves no purpose? And how can you be so sure that the ONLY purpose of sex is procreation?

    3) You've not provided a logically sound explanation for why sexual behavior is unnatural just because it doesn't involve procreation. Sorry. All of the assertions you've made above are even more conjectural than the articles I presented.
    Pleasure responses evolved to encourage us to conduct certain behaviors that are beneficial to the species, while pain and fear responses are meant to avert us from behaviors and circumstances that may harm us. The pleasure responses are hijacked in a number of ways, not just homosexuality. Why is this difficult for people to see? Homosexuality exists because we created it, not because it evolved to serve a purpose.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  8. #1308
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Pleasure responses evolved to encourage us to conduct certain behaviors that are beneficial to the species, while pain and fear responses are meant to avert us from behaviors and circumstances that may harm us. The pleasure responses are hijacked in a number of ways, not just homosexuality. Why is this difficult for people to see? Homosexuality exists because we created it, not because it evolved to serve a purpose.
    Prove that we created it. Not to mention prove that "pleasure responses are hijacked".
    Last edited by Kal'Stang; 06-06-11 at 06:16 PM.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  9. #1309
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Pleasure responses evolved to encourage us to conduct certain behaviors that are beneficial to the species, while pain and fear responses are meant to avert us from behaviors and circumstances that may harm us. The pleasure responses are hijacked in a number of ways, not just homosexuality. Why is this difficult for people to see? Homosexuality exists because we created it, not because it evolved to serve a purpose.
    I don't think that's true. If it occurs elsewhere in the animal kingdom naturally, then how can you rule out that possibility in humans?
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  10. #1310
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    RamFel, what is the purpose of being left handed vs right handed?
    Manual procreation
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •