Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

atrasicarius said:

If people don't support gay marriage, that's totally fine. I'm completely in favor of their right to not get one. Now why don't all you guys stay out of everyone else's business, just like we stay out of yours? Aren't you the ones always talking about freedom and stuff?

Click to expand...

Their right not to get one? I don't understand.

RamFel said:

Their right not to get one? I don't understand.

Click to expand...

No one is forcing you to get a SSM, but your forcing every LGBT person to not even have the option to get one.

RamFel said:

It's true that some straight couples don't, or can't procreate. But when two opposite sex partners mate with the intent to make a baby, the odds are in their favor because their copulation is natural. When two same sex partners do it, there is NO CHANCE of making a baby because their copulation is unnatural.

It's the fact that opposite sex partners have the right equipment that makes it "natural".

The truth is inescapable.

Click to expand...

You are confusing an act with an orientation. Just thought I would mention it before CC did.

By the way, I am a child of a gay person. ~1/3 of all lesbians have given birth, and about 1/4 of gay men have fathered children.

RamFel said:

You’re making the same mistake that CaptainCourtesy made. You’re trying to close this discussion down once and for all by using a dictionary. “Existing in, or formed by nature”. That’s apparently good enough for you. And you state with finality that “By that definition it is clear that homosexuality is natural”. Case closed. Begone ramfel.

When a straight couple has sex, generally speaking, a baby is eventually born. The female is designed to produce an egg, and the male is designed to fertilize it. They complement each other. That kind of sex is “natural”. This birthing ability means that the primary purpose of sex is to produce a child. You can use sex for other purposes (to bond, show love, have fun, and so on) but the first and most important responsibility is to make a child.

The definition “Existing in, or formed by nature” is too broad. You can’t take that definition and use it to prove that homosexuality is natural. There are other considerations.

It’s a fact that two gay men do not sexually complement each other. Each man can fertilize an egg, but neither man is producing that egg. All Heterosexual sex doesn’t always create babies, because straight couples don’t always want babies. But heterosexual couples “at least have the potential” to make babies, if they want to. They have nature on their side. Their sex, even if they don’t want babies, is natural because of this potential ability. Gay couples don’t have this potential.

The facts are clear. You simply can’t prove that gay sex is natural, dictionary, or no dictionary.

Click to expand...

So Condoms are unnatural?

Infertile people are unnatural?

Birth Control is unnatural?

CaptainCourtesy said:

The state speaks for the state. The reasons why the state sponsors marriage is: 1) To assist in the positive rearing of children; 2) To assist in creating a financially and interactively stable society and; 3) To promote the health of the population. All of these things are attained by both traditional marriage and SSM with no differences between them. This is why you are incorrect and why your numbers are irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Not again true. My numbers go to support "To promote the health of the population" if we go by my numbers and the resulting AIDS info, I am absolutly correct.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Nope. They are not.

Click to expand...

You did not look at the relatively high numbers with homosexual vs heterosexual did you? Then you just flat out say I am wrong?

CaptainCourtesy said:

When you just stick to your inaccuracies no matter what is said, there is really little else to say other that to repeat that you are wrong... which you are.

Click to expand...

And yet the logical numbers who have no wrong or right say I am stating my position accurately and you are not.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Problem is you have no facts on this issue. Name NAMES, BD. You asked, so I said to do it.

Click to expand...

Do I have to name BDboop? Criticalthought? Redress? I mean please man, be real.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I CONSTANTLY repost the information that I have posted in the past. I am asking for clarification. You don't want to give it... fine. This particular issue is done.

Click to expand...

I don't remember you ever posting it, I could be wrong. I have on the other hand seen you mention it MANY times. So I figure you are not willing to exchange the same courtesy, no problem.

CaptainCourtesy said:

So? It's what I observe.

Click to expand...

Yet what I observe is dismissed out of hand? We have a word for this.

CaptainCourtesy said:

You quoted comments from the OT.. which is the Torah. I demonstrated what it's ACCURATE interpretation is.

Click to expand...

You quoted what AN interpretation is as you yourself said "Probably" and then post nothing about any evidence for "prostitution," none.

CaptainCourtesy said:

It was originally written in ancient Hebrew, so THOSE words are what are accurate translations/interpretations. You interpretted it wrong. I have now corrected that.

Click to expand...

No I did not because homosexual sex was still outlawed and it said nothing about it being prostitution.

CaptainCourtesy said:

The NT is irrelevant to me, but YOU quoted passages from the OT ONLY in order to justify your position.

Click to expand...

As an example of an accurate translation AND it backing up the NT which it does.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I have now corrected those interoretations... so now you are moving the goal posts and making the NT your central argument.

Click to expand...

The NT was always part of my argument???? You took one part out of one post and then got it wrong and still could not prove homosexual sex is not a sin.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Tell us, BD... why would you quote Leviticus and then, when shown you are wrong, THEN switch to the NT? Seems like you couldn't prove your position the way you thought, so you had to switch gears.

Click to expand...

#1 I was not showen wrong.
#2 It was part of a larger discussion that you did not take part in.
#3 The translation I put forward is accurate and you have yet to show were it "probably" says they only meant "prostitution."

CaptainCourtesy said:

I will ask again. In this statement "If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on", are you referring to people in general?

Click to expand...

Well lets see since you seem to all of a sudden have forgotten English...

"If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on."

If: 1. in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that: Sing if you want to.

OK so we are setting that the condition is of someone calling themselves a Christian. They should know the holy book of said religion.

You are starting to sound like Bill Clinton on the stand.

CaptainCourtesy said:

NT. Has nothing to do wth my religious beliefs and nothing to do with what you originally quoted.

Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it as I pointed out in the statements in red you ignored. When you jump into the middle of a conversation it is amazing how much you miss.

CaptainCourtesy said:

This passage does not indicate the gender of one's wife.

Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding me. Please point out where in the Bible it EVER used the term "wife" for anything other than a female? :lamo

CaptainCourtesy said:

Again. The NT has nothing to do with my religion and nothing to do with the your original quotes that you made from Leviticus. How are you going to justify your position on homosexuality and religion, BD, now that I have take Leviticus away from you?

Click to expand...

You have not taken anything away from me. Anal sex is a sin. Anal sex is a large part of homosexuality. So please explain what you have taken away again? Or in context did you end up backing up my point? :mrgreen:

CaptainCourtesy said:

No, you have been shown that your interpretations of your original quotes were completely false.

Click to expand...

They are completely the same. You are trying to say because they said only anal sex, somehow this does not apply. Wow.

CaptainCourtesy said:

And again, the NT is not relevant to the beginings of this discussion. You quoted Leviticus. I showed the correct interpretations.

Click to expand...

So you still got nothing. I got it.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Already demonstrated.

Click to expand...

Ahh no.

CaptainCourtesy said:

NOT global and only individual and you cannot ignore that without being intellectually dishonest.

Click to expand...

Oh I get it. If your "observations" are not "global" it's OK. If mine are it's not.

No problem.

it's what I did.

CaptainCourtesy said:

So, as I have shown, religious tenets are NOT clear. MY religion accepts homosexuality based on accurate intepretations of Leviticus. Now, if you want to go along with what the NT says, that is YOUR religion, and certainly is you right to do so. It's your belief and there is no argument around that. But basing it on Leviticus? Can't do that.

Now, if you'd like, I can show you why the Christian church chose to interpret/translate Leviticus in the way that it did, and why, even with the information that I posted, Christianity has not and probably will not print the accurate translations.

Click to expand...

Leviticus does not change. I have shown this with your help. I don't need to do anything else.

Blackdog said:

Not again true. My numbers go to support "To promote the health of the population" if we go by my numbers and the resulting AIDS info, I am absolutly correct.

Click to expand...

Exactly how is allowing same sex couples to marry going to increase the number of people with AIDs?

CriticalThought said:

Exactly how is allowing same sex couples to marry going to increase the number of people with AIDs?

Click to expand...

married people **** more, duh!

oh wait...

Sorry, let me re-post it for you:
===================================================================
You’re making the same mistake that CaptainCourtesy made. You’re trying to close this discussion down once and for all by using a dictionary. “Existing in, or formed by nature”. That’s apparently good enough for you. And you state with finality that “By that definition it is clear that homosexuality is natural”. Case closed. Begone ramfel.

When a straight couple has sex, generally speaking, a baby is eventually born. The female is designed to produce an egg, and the male is designed to fertilize it. They complement each other. That kind of sex is “natural”. This birthing ability means that the primary purpose of sex is to produce a child. You can use sex for other purposes (to bond, show love, have fun, and so on) but the first and most important responsibility is to make a child.

The definition “Existing in, or formed by nature” is too broad. You can’t take that definition and use it to prove that homosexuality is natural. There are other considerations.

It’s a fact that two gay men do not sexually complement each other. Each man can fertilize an egg, but neither man is producing that egg. All Heterosexual sex doesn’t always create babies, because straight couples don’t always want babies. But heterosexual couples “at least have the potential” to make babies, if they want to. They have nature on their side. Their sex, even if they don’t want babies, is natural because of this potential ability. Gay couples don’t have this potential.

The facts are clear. You simply can’t prove that gay sex is natural, dictionary, or no dictionary.
=================================================================================

Oh, I see.

That's the reason gays are so anxious to prove that gay sex is natural. If proven (unlikely) then they can claim the right to SSM.

RamFel said:

Sorry, let me re-post it for you:
===================================================================
You’re making the same mistake that CaptainCourtesy made. You’re trying to close this discussion down once and for all by using a dictionary. “Existing in, or formed by nature”. That’s apparently good enough for you. And you state with finality that “By that definition it is clear that homosexuality is natural”. Case closed. Begone ramfel.

When a straight couple has sex, generally speaking, a baby is eventually born. The female is designed to produce an egg, and the male is designed to fertilize it. They complement each other. That kind of sex is “natural”. This birthing ability means that the primary purpose of sex is to produce a child. You can use sex for other purposes (to bond, show love, have fun, and so on) but the first and most important responsibility is to make a child.

The definition “Existing in, or formed by nature” is too broad. You can’t take that definition and use it to prove that homosexuality is natural. There are other considerations.

It’s a fact that two gay men do not sexually complement each other. Each man can fertilize an egg, but neither man is producing that egg. All Heterosexual sex doesn’t always create babies, because straight couples don’t always want babies. But heterosexual couples “at least have the potential” to make babies, if they want to. They have nature on their side. Their sex, even if they don’t want babies, is natural because of this potential ability. Gay couples don’t have this potential.

The facts are clear. You simply can’t prove that gay sex is natural, dictionary, or no dictionary.
=================================================================================

Click to expand...

Translation: I'm unwilling to accept that gay sex is natural, dictionary or no dictionary.

RamFel said:

Oh, I see.

That's the reason gays are so anxious to prove that gay sex is natural. If proven (unlikely) then they can claim the right to SSM.

Click to expand...

Actually, whether gay sex is natural or unnatural is irrelevant to the SSM argument (or at least it should be).

RamFel said:

Oh, I see.

That's the reason gays are so anxious to prove that gay sex is natural. If proven (unlikely) then they can claim the right to SSM.

Click to expand...

Again: Who are you to deny them that right? Why do you even care where another guy sticks his penis? It's not like it affects your marriage (assuming you're married). Do you think you or your wife are suddenly going to be possessed to go out and marry someone of the same sex if it becomes legal?

RamFel said:

Oh, I see.

That's the reason gays are so anxious to prove that gay sex is natural. If proven (unlikely) then they can claim the right to SSM.

Click to expand...

Whether gay sex is natural depends on the definition used. I cannot think of any definition of the word natural that mac did not come up with that would exclude gay sex. Gay sex is found in nature. That makes it natural by all the applicable dictionary definitions.

However, gay sex being natural has nothing to do with whether SSM should be legal. Legally there are no good arguments against SSM being married, and a prohibition on it is very likely unconstitutional, and in fact has been ruled to be so(ruling on hold waiting for appeal currently).

RamFel said:

Sorry, let me re-post it for you:
===================================================================
You’re making the same mistake that CaptainCourtesy made. You’re trying to close this discussion down once and for all by using a dictionary. “Existing in, or formed by nature”. That’s apparently good enough for you. And you state with finality that “By that definition it is clear that homosexuality is natural”. Case closed. Begone ramfel.

When a straight couple has sex, generally speaking, a baby is eventually born. The female is designed to produce an egg, and the male is designed to fertilize it. They complement each other. That kind of sex is “natural”. This birthing ability means that the primary purpose of sex is to produce a child. You can use sex for other purposes (to bond, show love, have fun, and so on) but the first and most important responsibility is to make a child.

The definition “Existing in, or formed by nature” is too broad. You can’t take that definition and use it to prove that homosexuality is natural. There are other considerations.

It’s a fact that two gay men do not sexually complement each other. Each man can fertilize an egg, but neither man is producing that egg. All Heterosexual sex doesn’t always create babies, because straight couples don’t always want babies. But heterosexual couples “at least have the potential” to make babies, if they want to. They have nature on their side. Their sex, even if they don’t want babies, is natural because of this potential ability. Gay couples don’t have this potential.

The facts are clear. You simply can’t prove that gay sex is natural, dictionary, or no dictionary.
=================================================================================

Click to expand...

I get it. You are a teleolgist. You believe that everything is designed to meet a certain purpose.

So do you also condemn people who masturbate? Given that the hand is not a reproductive organ and masturbation cannot result in procreation it must also be an "unnatural" act as well. About 90% of people masturbate so would you argue they all act in an unnatural fashion?

How about oral sex? Would it also be unnatural? The mouth is not a reproductive organ, so I imagine you view heterosexuals who engage in oral sex with the same stringent mind set you have towards gays since that act can't lead to procreation.

How about celibacy? Our sexual organs were meant to reproduce. Males are constantly making sperm and women have their monthly cycle, so it would seem that we should be having sex and it is unnatural not to do so. Is celibacy unnatural?

RamFel said:

Sorry, let me re-post it for you:
===================================================================
You’re making the same mistake that CaptainCourtesy made. You’re trying to close this discussion down once and for all by using a dictionary. “Existing in, or formed by nature”. That’s apparently good enough for you. And you state with finality that “By that definition it is clear that homosexuality is natural”. Case closed. Begone ramfel.

When a straight couple has sex, generally speaking, a baby is eventually born. The female is designed to produce an egg, and the male is designed to fertilize it. They complement each other. That kind of sex is “natural”. This birthing ability means that the primary purpose of sex is to produce a child. You can use sex for other purposes (to bond, show love, have fun, and so on) but the first and most important responsibility is to make a child.

The definition “Existing in, or formed by nature” is too broad. You can’t take that definition and use it to prove that homosexuality is natural. There are other considerations.

It’s a fact that two gay men do not sexually complement each other. Each man can fertilize an egg, but neither man is producing that egg. All Heterosexual sex doesn’t always create babies, because straight couples don’t always want babies. But heterosexual couples “at least have the potential” to make babies, if they want to. They have nature on their side. Their sex, even if they don’t want babies, is natural because of this potential ability. Gay couples don’t have this potential.

The facts are clear. You simply can’t prove that gay sex is natural, dictionary, or no dictionary.
=================================================================================

Click to expand...

1) the ability to have a child is not a requirement to be married

2) nature does not "design" anything.

3) most acts of heterosexual sex do not produce a child

4) gay people can, and with some frequency do, have children

5) many gays also want to adopt, and that number is growing

6) in addition to adoption, there are a number of ways gay people can have children.

It looks like your attempt to prove gay sex is natural has failed, and so now it's "who am I to deny them that right". Nice switcheroo!

I'll tell you why.

It will make the gay life seem valid and respectable. It's what you're after, isn't it? Validity and respectability, and acceptance?

That's why.

RamFel said:

It looks like your attempt to prove gay sex is natural has failed, and so now it's "who am I to deny them that right". Nice switcheroo!

I'll tell you why.

It will make the gay life seem valid and respectable. It's what you're after, isn't it? Validity and respectability, and acceptance?

That's why.

Click to expand...

LoLz....No, in point of fact, gay sex is natural, as has been proven in this thread.

Gays are after having the same rights as every one else, no more, no less. Nice spin though.

RamFel said:

It looks like your attempt to prove gay sex is natural has failed, and so now it's "who am I to deny them that right". Nice switcheroo!

I'll tell you why.

It will make the gay life seem valid and respectable. It's what you're after, isn't it? Validity and respectability, and acceptance?

That's why.

Click to expand...

Gays certainly want their loving relationships to be just as respected and accepted as others. It's about equality. What precisely is wrong with that?

I have addressed most of those points in previous posts.

Gays cannot procreate with the same sex. Same Sex! Got it?

CriticalThought said:

Exactly how is allowing same sex couples to marry going to increase the number of people with AIDs?

Click to expand...

I thought you were ignoring me? So you lied? You said you don't lie? I guess you do after all.

Now go back and read what we were talking about so you actually have a clue.

It has to do with the rate of AIDS in the gay community vs the heterosexual community. Fact AIDS is far more prevalent in the gay community. The lack of gay marraige being about family etc.

RamFel said:

I have addressed most of those points in previous posts.

Gays cannot procreate with the same sex. Same Sex! Got it?

Click to expand...

That's pretty obvious to anyone who knows a thing or two about homosexuality.

Of course the logical follow-up question is: so what?

RamFel said:

I have addressed most of those points in previous posts.

Gays cannot procreate with the same sex. Same Sex! Got it?

Click to expand...

Which is meaningless in every possible way. it does not make gay sex unnatural, it does not mean gay people cannot have kids, it does not mean gays should not be married.

Blackdog said:

I thought you were ignoring me? So you lied? You said you don't lie? I guess you do after all.

Now go back and read what we were talking about so you actually have a clue.

Click to expand...

Actually you are on my ignore list. I just saw your comment in CC's post and found it to be a rather weird comment. I figured I would give you another chance, but you clearly are not capable of civility.

Proven? Funny, how did that happen when I have proven the opposite?

So what? Uh, Duh!