• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

Is homosexuality wrong and/or unnatural?

  • Total voters
    128
Yeah, pretty much every law we have is based on morals. The morality of a society sets the standards for which laws are developed. At one time, the morality was that blacks were not equal to whites. At another, the morality was that women were not equal to men. Society evolves and the morals and beliefs of that society create the laws that we have.
 
Blackdog said:
And if these are not based in morals, what is?
Click to expand...

I should have used a different phrase, morality should not be used to make laws, unless they are pointed out in the Constitution. Things like freedom, equality, etc, not things like, alcohol is immoral, weed is immoral, homosexuality is immoral. Things like that shouldn't influence laws. You can think something is immoral, but don't force that upon me by making a law that I have to follow.
 
Your Star said:
I should have used a different phrase, morality should not be used to make laws, unless they are pointed out in the Constitution. Things like freedom, equality, etc, not things like, alcohol is immoral, weed is immoral, homosexuality is immoral. Things like that shouldn't influence laws. You can think something is immoral, but don't force that upon me by making a law that I have to follow.
Click to expand...

YS... I would submit that all laws are based on societal norms, and most of these norms come from the morality of society. I really don't think it's possible to separate laws from morality. Now, there is certainly some mixing between morality and liberty. For example, murder. We consider murder, immoral; we also see it as a violation of liberty... therefore, it is illegal. Consider a society where murder was seen as a moral way to manage issues. Would it be legal or not? Probably legal.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Yeah, pretty much every law we have is based on morals. The morality of a society sets the standards for which laws are developed. At one time, the morality was that blacks were not equal to whites. At another, the morality was that women were not equal to men. Society evolves and the morals and beliefs of that society create the laws that we have.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty easy, in the case of sin, to set it apart from morals.

Sin isn't based on anything. Most sins have no objective reason why they're sins. It's simply claimed to be true by Biblican fiat.

When you actually look at it, sin is fairly baseless, where as secular morality has actual reasons for its existence.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
YS... I would submit that all laws are based on societal norms, and most of these norms come from the morality of society. I really don't think it's possible to separate laws from morality. Now, there is certainly some mixing between morality and liberty. For example, murder. We consider murder, immoral; we also see it as a violation of liberty... therefore, it is illegal. Consider a society where murder was seen as a moral way to manage issues. Would it be legal or not? Probably legal.
Click to expand...

I think the key for our laws though is what is enshrined in the Constitution. The general idea expressed is that every person is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness up to the point where those rights do not impede someone else's rights. Sometimes it is hard to determine where one person's rights end and another person's (or the good of society as a whole) begins, but that is what the specific Bill of Rights rights and the SCOTUS come in.

I understand that the rights we have in the Constitution are based on our morality but we have specifically restricted them with the Constitution to prevent transient (best word I can think of to describe what I am thinking of) morality from making laws that would wrongfully restrict someone else's rights because the majority of people want to do this.
 
MistressNomad said:
I think it's pretty easy, in the case of sin, to set it apart from morals.

Sin isn't based on anything. Most sins have no objective reason why they're sins. It's simply claimed to be true by Biblican fiat.

When you actually look at it, sin is fairly baseless, where as secular morality has actual reasons for its existence.
Click to expand...

Sin and morality are fairly identical. Both deal with right/wrong issues. You can say that one is from a religious bent and the other is from a secular bent, but I see little difference between the two.
 
roguenuke said:
I think the key for our laws though is what is enshrined in the Constitution. The general idea expressed is that every person is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness up to the point where those rights do not impede someone else's rights. Sometimes it is hard to determine where one person's rights end and another person's (or the good of society as a whole) begins, but that is what the specific Bill of Rights rights and the SCOTUS come in.

I understand that the rights we have in the Constitution are based on our morality but we have specifically restricted them with the Constitution to prevent transient (best word I can think of to describe what I am thinking of) morality from making laws that would wrongfully restrict someone else's rights because the majority of people want to do this.
Click to expand...

In bold. That's where it starts. If the majority of people want a law, based on morality, that alters the Constitution, changing the Consitution is what would occur. Though perhaps unlikely, this is not unfeasable. It all starts with the social norms and morality of a society. And as those norms and morals change, so do laws.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
In bold. That's where it starts. If the majority of people want a law, based on morality, that alters the Constitution, changing the Consitution is what would occur. Though perhaps unlikely, this is not unfeasable. It all starts with the social norms and morality of a society. And as those norms and morals change, so do laws.
Click to expand...

Only if enough people can get together to change the Constitution though. Which takes a lot more than just the majority of society to change. If laws fit with the Constitution then they only require a majority to enact, but when they don't, they require a Constitutional Amendment which takes 2/3 majority vote of both houses of Congress or 2/3 majority of a Constitutional Convention and 3/4 vote of the states (for either method). This is what I am talking about when referring to laws when they don't fit into the Constitution. This is also why we have a SCOTUS to decide if laws do currently fall in line with the Constitution or if they are unconstitutional, and if the majority really wants those laws they need to change the Constitution to get them enacted to enforce that particular morality.

The best example of this that comes to mind is the Constitutional Amendment for Prohibition and its subsequent repeal.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Only if enough people can get together to change the Constitution though. Which takes a lot more than just the majority of society to change. If laws fit with the Constitution then they only require a majority to enact, but when they don't, they require a Constitutional Amendment which takes 2/3 majority vote of both houses of Congress or 2/3 majority of a Constitutional Convention and 3/4 vote of the states (for either method). This is what I am talking about when referring to laws when they don't fit into the Constitution. This is also why we have a SCOTUS to decide if laws do currently fall in line with the Constitution or if they are unconstitutional, and if the majority really wants those laws they need to change the Constitution to get them enacted to enforce that particular morality.

The best example of this that comes to mind is the Constitutional Amendment for Prohibition and its subsequent repeal.
Click to expand...

That's true. I understand that it is unlikely, but it could happen.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's true. I understand that it is unlikely, but it could happen.
Click to expand...

Oh and if it happened I would no longer have my stance that SSM bans or DOMA are unconstitutional because it would be saying that this is seen as part of our morality that we want to stay (at least to the same point as Prohibition was). I would still think it was wrong and want the Amendment repealed, but I couldn't do much else except fight for its repeal.

I doubt this would happen though and I would fight hard against such a thing and would never vote for any politician who supported an Anti-SSM Amendment, no matter how much I agreed with them on everything else.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Sin and morality are fairly identical. Both deal with right/wrong issues. You can say that one is from a religious bent and the other is from a secular bent, but I see little difference between the two.
Click to expand...

They really aren't. If the concept of right/wrong is based on authority, and not on any measure of harm or help, it's baseless. It's simply true because someone in a funny hat says so.

Just because both sin and morality assert what is right and wrong doesn't mean their validity is equal.
 
MistressNomad said:
They really aren't. If the concept of right/wrong is based on authority, and not on any measure of harm or help, it's baseless. It's simply true because someone in a funny hat says so.

Just because both sin and morality assert what is right and wrong doesn't mean their validity is equal.
Click to expand...

Both are based on authority and harm/help.
 
roguenuke said:
Within the limits of the Constitution, which, due to the 14th Amendment, means that if there is any question of discrimination, the law needs to be reviewed as to why that discrimination exists and whether it is in fact protecting a legitimate state interest (at the proper level of scrutiny).
Click to expand...

I agree.

roguenuke said:
SSM bans do not protect any state interest, nor can it be said that they do not deserve the right to marriage due to them not being able to procreate unless it could be shown that all marriage laws of any state or the US government that is claiming this is their reason for marriage are actually applying that limitation (procreation) to opposite sex couples. And they are discriminating against a group.
Click to expand...

All marriage does not have to show procreation as it is not the only function of a family. I don't think the hedonistic gay life style is in the states interest, period. Of course I don't think this is really about the states interest at all.

It's about gays who want the same rights as married couples. I have no problem with that even if I find the lifestyle abhorrent.
 
Blackdog said:
I agree.



All marriage does not have to show procreation as it is not the only function of a family. I don't think the hedonistic gay life style is in the states interest, period. Of course I don't think this is really about the states interest at all.

It's about gays who want the same rights as married couples. I have no problem with that even if I find the lifestyle abhorrent.
Click to expand...

In bold. You KNOW you're not going to get away with making that kind of absolutist statement without being confronted. Would you please explain what you mean by that term?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
In bold. You KNOW you're not going to get away with making that kind of absolutist statement without being confronted. Would you please explain what you mean by that term?
Click to expand...

The majority of gay "male" couples don't care about family, adoption or anything other than sex with a male partner. It is not about family at all and never was.

In the case of lesbians it appears they are more family oriented and commit to long term relationships at a far higher percentage than gay men.

So to me it is a double edged sword.

PS some of this is based on my living in Northern CA for 3 years. It was not pretty, lol.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
The majority of gay "male" couples don't care about family, adoption or anything other than sex with a male partner. It is not about family at all and never was.
Click to expand...

Tihs is your opinion.

In the case of lesbians it appears they are more family oriented and commit to long term relationships at a far higher percentage than gay men.
Click to expand...

This too is your opinion.

So to me it is a double edged sword.

PS some of this is based on my living in Northern CA for 3 years. It was not pretty, lol.
Click to expand...

So, this was YOUR experience. OK. Here's the thing, though. You are making an absolute statement based on your perceptions alone. There are SOME gays who are hedonistic. There are SOME straights who are hedonistic. Should we eliminate straight marriage because of them?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Both are based on authority and harm/help.
Click to expand...

No, they really aren't. Morality is obligated to rest on those fairly objective grounds of harm/help. If it doesn't, we have other names for baseless claims of morality.

Sin has no such requirement. There is no common thread linking the ethics of sin together. Some sins have no ethical basis at all. Some could be considered counter-ethical.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
CC's & my own for starters.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, I think it is morally wrong, to try and tell people by law what they should do with their own bodies, besides from physically harming themselves(things like cutting, suicide). Why should there be a law banning anal sex, masturbation, oral sex, sex outside of marriage?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Tihs is your opinion.
Click to expand...

I never said it was anything other than my opinion?

CaptainCourtesy said:
This too is your opinion.
Click to expand...

See above post.

CaptainCourtesy said:
So, this was YOUR experience. OK. Here's the thing, though. You are making an absolute statement based on your perceptions alone. There are SOME gays who are hedonistic. There are SOME straights who are hedonistic. Should we eliminate straight marriage because of them?
Click to expand...

You read my post and start jumping to really bad conclusions. You are making assumptions that have nothing to do with anything I stated.

Please point out where I said...

Should we eliminate straight marriage because of them?

It is a fact gay men are more promiscuous, and not by a little. I mean they are men.
 
Blackdog said:
All marriage does not have to show procreation as it is not the only function of a family. I don't think the hedonistic gay life style is in the states interest, period. Of course I don't think this is really about the states interest at all.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you call their lifestyle. The way that the marriage license is currently used is as a legal contract to establish legal kinship to two people who are not already considered legally to be "immediate family". It also provides certain property rights, decision rights, and various other rights/benefits to each person in the relationship due to the nature of the relationship itself. The main reason for this, currently, is to protect the couple, as a whole, and each individual within the relationship because we hold such a relationship to be important and these specific relationships have been shown to benefit society, well beyond whether the couple can have kids or are raising children at all.

It is the nature of the relationship itself, specifically its stability and the agreement of each person in a marriage to take responsibility for the other person, that benefits society. It doesn't matter what the sex of the two involved is because it is most likely that their relationships and whether those relationships fail or not are likely to be in line with the rest of society. Plus, we do not limit opposite sex couples from marriages based either on whether they want kids, can have kids, or are raising kids, nor on what their probability of staying together is.

Blackdog said:
It's about gays who want the same rights as married couples. I have no problem with that even if I find the lifestyle abhorrent.
Click to expand...

It's about same sex couples who want to make the same type of commitment or who have already made the same type of commitment as opposite sex couples who are married being given recognition for their commitment and not being discriminated against because they are the same sex rather than the opposite sex as each other.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom