• 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
And religious authority saw these sins as the morality of the day.

What makes you think that? The history of Christianity certainly doesn't suggest it. Compiling the Bible with and without certain books was a political action. Christianity was a political entity, beyond simply being a religion, for centuries.

While it may be true for some sins, it is certainly not for others, which are quite clearly for the sake of power. Some of them even have an ethical debt, if anything. Some of them are specifically designed to designate the common enemy - something every powerful institution does. Like I said, there is no ethos upon which sin is based.
 
Yet, you are basing this on nothing but your own experiences.

What am I supposed to base it on, your life experience?

Show me just 1 survey of homosexual men that the majority were not having sex with allot of partners far above the heterosexual statistic. I looked, can't find one. Found a couple that said the opposite.

The majority of what you've seen, I can agree with. Still, from a logical standpoint, it does not support an anti-SSM position. If it is your moral position on this, then it does.

Who is anti-SSM? Not me. Did you read my post???

So, you would support banning straight marriage based on the hedonistic activities of people there?

Where did you come up with that? Are you reading what I posted???? :shock:
 
What makes you think that? The history of Christianity certainly doesn't suggest it. Compiling the Bible with and without certain books was a political action. Christianity was a political entity, beyond simply being a religion, for centuries.

And this follows along with what I have been saying. If it is a political entity, all laws and edicts are enacted because of the morality of the day. Why was it a sin to be gay? Morals. Even the church, or at least some churches have changed their positions on what is or isn't a sin.

While it may be true for some sins, it is certainly not for others, which are quite clearly for the sake of power. Some of them even have an ethical debt, if anything. Some of them are specifically designed to designate the common enemy - something every powerful institution does. Like I said, there is no ethos upon which sin is based.

What sins do you think have no personal/social basis?
 
Legal marriage is what it is. It isn't an opinion, it can be shown to be true for how the law treats those in a legal marriage. It doesn't matter what either of our personal views on marriage are for us to see what legal marriage is currently from a strictly legal viewpoint.

Well so far the Federal and most states law says you are wrong. I know that is a fallacy, but it apples.

All laws must be consistant with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which judges people based on their similar situations for the law and how it is applied. So, if we look at how the law applies to opposite sex couples, then we have to see what exactly makes all same sex couples different from all opposite sex couples. The only answer to that is the sex of those involved in the relationship, since opposite sex couples who cannot have children with each other and/or do not want to produce/raise children with each are still allowed to get legally married. And homosexuals can still be legally married, as long as they are married to someone of a different sex, just like heterosexuals/asexuals/bisexuals who wish to be married to a person of the same sex (for whatever reason) are being denied entry into this legal contract as well.

Yes they are. So the law is not applied equally. Never has been and never will be to some people.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure men are happy to know you basically think they're dumb animals. Nice.

Gender stereotypes are fun.

Whats even better is whats that mean for the 70+% of the country that is Christian? Guess that means according to him that that they arent too Christian, in fact most of them would bang anything that moves. lol Talk about absurd.
 
And that is your opinion. It is fine but if this were the case under US law prostitution would be legal as well as drug use, they are not. So we most certainly can.

And I think prostitution should be legal, as well as drug use to an extent. But those are different issues.
 
What am I supposed to base it on, your life experience?

Just pointing out that it's anecdotal evidence.

Show me just 1 survey of homosexual men that the majority were not having sex with allot of partners far above the heterosexual statistic. I looked, can't find one. Found a couple that said the opposite.

Why should I? It's actually irrelevant to the issue. You made a link between lifestyle and something that should be state-sponsored. Since the lifestyle that you presented is not an absolute, I see no logic where it can apply.

Who is anti-SSM? Not me. Did you read my post???

Here's the statement in question: "I don't think the hedonistic gay life style is in the states interest, period". Now, how about this... tell me if you agree with this statement: "I don't think a hedonistic life style is in the states interest, period".

Where did you come up with that? Are you reading what I posted???? :shock:

Here's the sequence:

It's like determining whether people should marry based on behavior at Club Med.

The last part about club med is funny if not applicable.

Key word "applicable". That's why I asked the question.
 
And I think prostitution should be legal, as well as drug use to an extent. But those are different issues.

Different issues that are still moral issues just like SSM.
 
Well so far the Federal and most states law says you are wrong. I know that is a fallacy, but it apples.



Yes they are. So the law is not applied equally. Never has been and never will be to some people.

Ummm... BD... you just attributed something to me that I never said. Was this in error?
 
Well so far the Federal and most states law says you are wrong. I know that is a fallacy, but it apples.

No, those laws don't say that I'm wrong about how the laws work but rather that they don't want to provide those same exact things that I listed to certain couples, in this case, based on the relative sexes of the two wanting the contract. What I described is how the law is, it just that the anti-SSM side is not defending the law using how exactly the law works/applies to all legally married couples. Most judges are overlooking this (most likely due to their own biases on SSM), but some have ruled in accordance with these laws and how they apply and how that pertains to the 14th.

Yes they are. So the law is not applies equally. Never has been and never will be to some people.

Which is why I fight so hard for SSM. The law should apply equally to the greatest extent possible, especially in cases where the only difference between the two groups are the relative sexes of the two (or races, or religions, or ages, etc.) without any proof of harm if the law is applied equally.
 
Last edited:
Just pointing out that it's anecdotal evidence.

So what? It is supported by surveys of gay men as well.

Why should I? It's actually irrelevant to the issue. You made a link between lifestyle and something that should be state-sponsored. Since the lifestyle that you presented is not an absolute, I see no logic where it can apply.

It is not irrelevant to what I said IN CONTEXT of my post. Because that lifestyle in 2% to 10% of a minority population is not in the sates interest.

So yes it does apply and it is a fact.

Here's the statement in question: "I don't think the hedonistic gay life style is in the states interest, period". Now, how about this... tell me if you agree with this statement: "I don't think a hedonistic life style is in the states interest, period".

It is not in either case. The difference is you are talking about maybe 10% of the 90% majority vs what? 75% of a 10% minority.

Do the math.

Here's the sequence:

Key word "applicable". That's why I asked the question.

It is not applicable as it was an exaggeration to a statement of indisputable fact in the case of gay men.
 
No, those laws don't say that I'm wrong about how the laws work but rather that they don't want to provide those same exact things that I listed to certain couples, in this case, based on the relative sexes of the two wanting the contract. What I described is how the law is, it just that the anti-SSM side is not defending the law using how exactly the law works/applies to all legally married couples. Most judges are overlooking this (most likely due to their own biases on SSM), but some have ruled in accordance with these laws and how they apply and how that pertains to the 14th.

So far the law still disagrees in practice and that says allot.

Which is why I fight so hard for SSM. The law should apply equally to the greatest extent possible, especially in cases where the only difference between the two groups are the relative sexes of the two (or races, or religions, or ages, etc.) without any proof of harm if the law is applied equally.

The only reason I support it is because civil unions aren't going to happen. I do think they deserve the same rights under the law. I still don't think it is a marriage and it never will be.
 
And this follows along with what I have been saying. If it is a political entity, all laws and edicts are enacted because of the morality of the day. Why was it a sin to be gay? Morals. Even the church, or at least some churches have changed their positions on what is or isn't a sin.

Why do they have to be? Do you think everything our government does is moral, or for the good of the people? And ours is a democracy - not a theocracy, or a dictatorship like the governments of the past.

What sins do you think have no personal/social basis?

Not acknowledging thine iniquity (Jere 3:13) - Power by establishing lack of value in the people

Afraid to confess Jesus to the people (Jn 12:42) - Spread of empire

Not becoming as a little child before god (Mt 18:3) - Power through establishing incompetence in the people

Wearing the clothing of the opposite sex (Deut 22:5) - Fear and bigotry, really. I suppose you could debate this one, but on what grounds other than fear and bigotry?

Turning to false counsil/fables (2 Tim 4:4) - You can only believe in OUR fairytales (power)!

Not submitting to the king (all over the place) - Blatant political power.

Debating (Ro 1:29) - Heh. Just for the lolz. Though I suspect this had to do with not allowing the people the impression of self-empowerment

Not fearing god (all over the place) Control through fear

Robbing god by not giving 10% of your income, and offerings (Mal 3:8) - Obvious greed of the Church, and by proxy the government

Being an effeminate man (Cor 6:9) - Bigotry

Not being perfect (all over the place) - Impossible goal to inspire shame in the people, look to authority for guidance

A teacher being called a rabbi (Mt23:8) - Distaining religious competition (the bad guys)

Not believing (Rec 21:8) - Fiating its own rightness into existance for no reason

Wives not submitting to their husbands (Eph 5:22) - Continuation of oppression (you can argue morals, but it's no more arguable than the morality of slavery - they did it because they could and they liked the power)

I could go on, there are hundreds more, but I'm getting bored...
 
So what? It is supported by surveys of gay men as well.

Like I said in my other post. Irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant to what I said IN CONTEXT of my post. Because that lifestyle in 2% to 10% of a minority population is not in the sates interest.

So yes it does apply and it is a fact.

Round and round. That lifestyle is not an absolute, so your point is not logical. The state certainly has an interest in supporting minorities. Therefore, it does not apply.

It is not in either case. The difference is you are talking about maybe 10% of the 90% majority vs what? 75% of a 10% minority.

Do the math.

Again... it's not an absolute. The state has an interest in promoting family and the stability of it's population. SSM certainly does that, and if we use your numbers, 25% of that group certainly is appropriate for it.

It is not applicable as it was an exaggeration to a statement of indisputable fact in the case of gay men.

It is not a fact. You are AGAIN talking in absolutes.
 
I was replying to Nuke? What I do now, lol?

I have NO idea how you did that. Weird, though.

Pretty cool that I'm disagreeing with you on one point and agreeing with you on another, in the same thread, isn't it? :2razz:
 
I do love the lengths that some people will go avoid admitting they find gays icky and so don't want them to marry. "It's not me, it's the bible." "It's not me, it's morality." "I have nothing against them, I just don't want them to be able to do stuff."
 
I have NO idea how you did that. Weird, though.

Pretty cool that I'm disagreeing with you on one point and agreeing with you on another, in the same thread, isn't it? :2razz:

It's only because you will not accept that gay men are far more promiscuous than straight men, so the states interest is not represented as I see it.. All your fault. Other than that we agree.
 
I do love the lengths that some people will go avoid admitting they find gays icky and so don't want them to marry. "It's not me, it's the bible." "It's not me, it's morality." "I have nothing against them, I just don't want them to be able to do stuff."

This. Honestly, I may respect them a little more if they'd just say they don't like gay people. I'd still think they were bigots, but I'd respect them more.
 
I do love the lengths that some people will go avoid admitting they find gays icky and so don't want them to marry. "It's not me, it's the bible." "It's not me, it's morality." "I have nothing against them, I just don't want them to be able to do stuff."

You left out "calling and pushing opinions as facts" but I agree 100%.
 
This. Honestly, I may respect them a little more if they'd just say they don't like gay people. I'd still think they were bigots, but I'd respect them more.

Man people don't read.

This has nothing to do with liking or disliking anyone. It has to do with the God you believe in saying it is wrong. How hard is that a concept to understand?
 
Man people don't read.

This has nothing to do with liking or disliking anyone. It has to do with the God you believe in saying it is wrong. How hard is that a concept to understand?

It's fairly easy to see some one saying "the buck stops over there, with god. It's not my fault I want to keep people from doing something perfectly reasonable in the secular world, god told me I had to".
 
Back
Top Bottom