• 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
Sin does not exist? None, at all?

Then why is polygamy and consensual incest between family deemd perverse? What if cousins are incestual? Would you try to stop them?

If you do not beliee in sin, how, then, can you believe in "wrong"? How does that add up, Cephus, if you equate humans to animals and animals do not regard the term "wrong"?

Nope, sin does not exist at all. Sin is a religious concept and religion is absurd. Society, however, makes laws and rules under which the people who make up the society agree to obey or suffer the penalty thereof. These rules and laws are subjective, they vary from culture to culture, from people to people and across time. What is legal today may be illegal tomorrow and vice versa. Stop acting like, in order to be valid, a law has to be universal and eternal. That's a ridiculous idea.

If society decides collectively that polygamy and incest are wrong, for the society, then they decide such. There was a time when it was illegal in the U.S. to marry someone outside of your race. That changed. Today, it's entirely legal and almost universally accepted. Laws change. Times change. Get used to it.
 
Let's see.

Do you believe the Bible is infallible?
Do you believe your interpretation of the Bible is infallible?
Do you believe your actions, which you base on your interpretation of the Bible, are infallible?

Be careful how you answer, because if you answer "no" to any of them, then your argument is reduced down to just your personal opinion. If you answer "yes" to all of them, then you demonstrate that you believe you are infallible.

Oh I believe in my belief, but I know it's not correct in the eyes of society and I cannot prove it in the slightest. That's what makes us human. We ALL believe things that we cannot scientifically prove. Is "X" right or wrong"? Is "this" acceptable or no? It's all merely passionate conjecture that cannot be proven.
 
Ha, measured by what, CriticalThought? "Normal" societal feelings?

That would be the point.

Also you should probably stop saying "scientifically proven" since nothing is ever proven in science. Science deals with probability not absolutes. The more people try to falsify a testable claim, the more likely it becomes that the testable claim is true. It is never "proven" to be true, the probability that it is true just reaches a threshold where it is unlikely to be false.

It would be nice if people like yourself actually knew what science is.
 
Consensus and numbers do not equate to absolute scientific fact. Numbers and might do not equate "right".

There are many societies that allow regulation of other's bodies. Socialistic and communistic regulations on Body Mass Index as one small example. My point is that feelings don't make "right". Societies frequently do affect the bodies of others.

That's really not important though.

Gay people don't hurt others by being gay.
 
1) Sin is subjective.
2) Define natural. Based on the definitions that I have seen, it certainly is.
 
Oh I believe in my belief, but I know it's not correct in the eyes of society and I cannot prove it in the slightest. That's what makes us human. We ALL believe things that we cannot scientifically prove. Is "X" right or wrong"? Is "this" acceptable or no? It's all merely passionate conjecture that cannot be proven.

Oh, so you believe you are infallible you just can't prove you are infallible?
 
I dunno, sometimes a really good pee can feel awfully satisfying....

Belches are pretty good too. Am I supposed to be doing something to/with my stomach that I don't know about?
 
Belches are pretty good too. Am I supposed to be doing something to/with my stomach that I don't know about?

lmao!

I can't burp! I mean, sometimes a little air bubble comes up, but I can't make a noise or project it or force a burp. I'm defective in that sense.
 
You said "The sexuality of other animals (especially mammals, primates and apes)." I understand what you meant, but insects count as animals as well and by the belief that through animals and especially mammals we can define what is natural. You didn't say we can only look at animals closer in relation to humans, but that's getting besides the point.

Insects are not mammals. I did not say only those that are closer. I said the closer the better. You pull out an insect which is absurd. Insects are very very very different than us. Let's see, off the cuff, I would say you could follow it this way apes, primates, mammals, warm blooded animals, vertebrates, other animals in usefulness as a comparison. Where do insects fall on this hierarchy?

Apes and other mammals are not on the same intelligence level as humanity.

Fine. Intelligence is your distinction then? Homosexuality is unnatural for humans because of our intelligence? Care to explain that further?

Sexual organs may be similar in physiology but different species cannot be equated.

YES, THEY CAN. And they can also be distinguished. You failed to do that. None of those animjals can procreate through same sex couplings. Therefore if homosexuality is unnatural to us then it must somehow be unnatural to them.

Mammals have very diverse sexual practices ranging from mating for life, to mating once and having a male leave the pregnant mother to fend for herself, to mating only during certain times of the year.

Great, you have noted some actual distinctions. Now work one of those into your definition of natural.

What is natural is best defined within a species in my opinion.

Okay. Some people are gay and all indications are that there have always been some people that were gay. Therefore, it is natural.


I'll say it again. My definition comes from biology.

LOL

The vagina is designed for the penis and for coitus. The semen is designed to harbor sperm and allow them to swim through the cervix, through the uterus, into the fallopian tube, and to fertilize an egg. Biologically, the vagina and penis are fitted for each other and other sexual acts are unnatural according to biology (like oral, anal, etc). I'll say this again though, not all unnatural things are wrong.

My penis fits in a mouth or anus just fine.

Procreation = natural??? Humans do lots of things that don't lead to procreation. Why don't you go around labeling those as unnatural? I would love to live a completely natural life, doing nothing but those things that lead to procreation. That would be pretty cool. But it is absurd to pretend that that is our nature.

Humans even engage in sex that does not lead to procreation.
 
I am missing the option ABNORMAL!

Reason: Longer as 5500 years Homosexuality was threaten as Abnormality, only in the last 30 years the Mafias of politically correct secular humanists have pushed Homosexuality as a normal behavior.

Conclusion: all societies which tolerate Homosexuality either have already disappeared or will be disappeared without any trace because tolerating of this mentally illness is a sign of decadence and lead to lower birth rates.
 
Last edited:
Sin does not exist? None, at all?

Then why is polygamy and consensual incest between family deemd perverse? What if cousins are incestual? --

Poor examples.

Polygamy and Polyadry are acceptable in some cultures and not in others. In native cultures it either is about some form of extended family that can help bring up children or that historically there may be more of one sex than another.

As a societal concept - having more than one sexual life-partner varies by culture. Currently in american society it is not, previously it was in some areas. There are other cultures where polygamy and polyandry are perfectly normal.

Incest is another societal construct, the concept of sin is applied to make it taboo only to prevent inbreeding of genetically linked members of a society. Some animals prevent this by forcing younger animals out to find new groups and so ensure continued variation in the gene pool. Humans, having a higher order of understanding apply emotional constructs to largely enforce prevention by making it taboo.

As for cousins - again this varies by culture for the reasons outlined above. Generally the taboo applied is the concept of "sin."
 
I am missing the option ABNORMAL!

Reason: Longer as 5500 years Homosexuality was threaten as Abnormality, only in the last 30 years the Mafias of politically correct secular humanists have pushed Homosexuality as a normal behavior.

Conclusion: all societies which tolerate Homosexuality either already have disappeared or will be disappeared because tolerating of this illness is a sign of decadence and of lower birth rates.

I would consider low human birth rates as a benefit. We have over populated the planet as it is imo.
 
I am missing the option ABNORMAL!

Reason: Longer as 5500 years Homosexuality was threaten as Abnormality, only in the last 30 years the Mafias of politically correct secular humanists have pushed Homosexuality as a normal behavior.

:rollseyes:

Homosexuality is not normal. But normal is simply a statistical term. Who cares? Interracial couplings are not normal.

Conclusion: all societies which tolerate Homosexuality either have already disappeared or will be disappeared without any trace because tolerating of this mentally illness is a sign of decadence and lead to lower birth rates.

And this would be a winning argument for nazis or herd animals. But since I do not believe the highest political value is birth rates, but rather the rights of the individual (just as our founders believed), it fails to be compelling.
 
The idea of gay sex/marriage creating a decrease in population growth is silly. The estimated percentage of gays is pretty low, and I'm sure those idiots having 19+ children will more than compensate for the difference.
 
For those who are arguing that homosexuality is unnatural, it doesn't really matter. Whether or not something is natural has nothing to do with whether or not it is good or bad. Driving a car, wearing polyester clothes, walking on the moon, etc. are all arguably "unnatural" and yet that does not make them bad things.

And even if you do try to argue that homosexuality is unnatural in order to spin it in a bad light, that is simply based on your personal definition of natural. Natural can mean many different things. If something occurs prevalently in nature, then that could be defined as "natural" and homosexuality certainly does occur in hundreds of different species in nature.

What you are trying to argue is that you can't conceive of how homosexuality serves a purpose. However, that is a poor definition of natural since it doesn't actually relate to nature, it relates to your ability to conceive of a purpose for homosexuality. As such, you arbitrarily argue that all sex must serve the purpose of procreation in order to be natural, but sex serves different purposes for different people. An infertile couple cannot procreate but they can still have sex for pleasure and bonding. Nobody would likely call that "unnatural", and so it isn't unnatural when homosexual couples have sex for pleasure and bonding.

So I really don't see the point in calling it "unnatural" but if you it makes you feel better to call it such, then have at it I guess.
 
The idea of gay sex/marriage creating a decrease in population growth is silly. The estimated percentage of gays is pretty low, and I'm sure those idiots having 19+ children will more than compensate for the difference.

Why does having a lot of Children make someone an idiot, in your eyes?
 
Repost.

For those who are arguing that homosexuality is unnatural, it doesn't really matter. Whether or not something is natural has nothing to do with whether or not it is good or bad. Driving a car, wearing polyester clothes, walking on the moon, etc. are all arguably "unnatural" and yet that does not make them bad things.

And even if you do try to argue that homosexuality is unnatural in order to spin it in a bad light, that is simply based on your personal definition of natural. Natural can mean many different things. If something occurs prevalently in nature, then that could be defined as "natural" and homosexuality certainly does occur in hundreds of different species in nature.

What you are trying to argue is that you can't conceive of how homosexuality serves a purpose. However, that is a poor definition of natural since it doesn't actually relate to nature, it relates to your ability to conceive of a purpose for homosexuality. As such, you arbitrarily argue that all sex must serve the purpose of procreation in order to be natural, but sex serves different purposes for different people. An infertile couple cannot procreate but they can still have sex for pleasure and bonding. Nobody would likely call that "unnatural", and so it isn't unnatural when homosexual couples have sex for pleasure and bonding.

So I really don't see the point in calling it "unnatural" but if you it makes you feel better to call it such, then have at it I guess.
 
Why does having a lot of Children make someone an idiot, in your eyes?

They can't support them. They feed them, educate them, clothe them...through the charity of others. The older of the 19 help raise the younger of the 19, and in this society there is no logical reason to have 19 children. If even one of those kids wants to go to college it'll cost about $65,000 for an in-state, public college. Let's say all 19 want to go, that's $1,235,000. So either 1.2 million in student loans, or hope and pray some of them get scholarships, or they pay for college on their own...while being held liable for helping raise the younger children that the parents don't have time or finances to raise on their own.
 
So I really don't see the point in calling it "unnatural" but if you it makes you feel better to call it such, then have at it I guess.

There is only one way they could define it as unnatural without labeling millions of things unnatural that they did not intend. God determines man's nature and reveals it in the bible. Without that they have nothing. But even that demands that we believe this God being is stupid and does not seem to know how to form definitions. Oh wait a minute, there is that old fallback. "God works in mysterious ways," which really means "nananananaa, I can't hear you, shutup, stop questioning God, the bible, the church and your preacher." They are afraid of cognitive dissonance and just try to pretend they don't see it.
 
They can't support them. They feed them, educate them, clothe them...through the charity of others. The older of the 19 help raise the younger of the 19, and in this society there is no logical reason to have 19 children. If even one of those kids wants to go to college it'll cost about $65,000 for an in-state, public college. Let's say all 19 want to go, that's $1,235,000. So either 1.2 million in student loans, or hope and pray some of them get scholarships, or they pay for college on their own...while being held liable for helping raise the younger children that the parents don't have time or finances to raise on their own.

I can't even remember the name of that family, but they seem to be doing just fine on their own.

Jim Bob served in the Arkansas House of Representatives from 1999 to 2002. The Duggars' income is derived from the commercial properties they own.[9][10] They live debt-free,[11][12] which Jim Bob has said is "the fruit of Jim Sammons' Financial Freedom Seminar" he attended years ago (Sammons' Seminar is endorsed by IBLP). Their 650 square meter (7,000 square foot) house was built by the family itself over the course of three years with minimal assistance from friends, primarily in the form of instruction. The home was completed on January 20, 2006. The painting, decorating, furnishings, appliances, and other finishing touches, such as a stocked pantry, were provided by Discovery Networks and corporate sponsors as part of the one-hour television special.[10] The work on and completion of the house were the focus of a one-hour television special entitled 16 Children and Moving In.

From the Duggar's wiki page.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I mistook your "nature" comment to mean animal life.
I don't think if humans do something it automatically makes it natural. Some humans have sex with children and others have sex with objects, I don't think those are natural. My definition of unnatural is more from a biological standpoint and not necessarily a social one. I do agree though that not all unnatural things are bad. Treating people with synthetic medicines is unnatural but it isn't bad.

I think someone else has pointed this out, but that would be another word. Evil, bad, harmful, unlawful, but not unnatural. Unnatural means not of nature.
 
I can't even remember the name of that family, but they seem to be doing just fine on their own.

There was an E! story on them. They get food through donations, they had work done to their home to provide sleeping space through donations, they take their kids on mission trips through donations. They aren't on government assistance (that I know of), but they aren't doing it on their own, either.
 
There was an E! story on them. They get food through donations, they had work done to their home to provide sleeping space through donations, they take their kids on mission trips through donations. They aren't on government assistance (that I know of), but they aren't doing it on their own, either.

That is, of course, in addition to the money they got from having a television show.
 
I would consider low human birth rates as a benefit. We have over populated the planet as it is imo.

I am discussing about the low birth rates in the Western World, the Third World is unimportant for me.
 
You set your belief aside, OhIsee.Then.

Do not assume your belief is scientifically correct. You are not absolute. We all speak our beliefs, and all of our beliefs are unproven in terms of "right and "wrong." Do not for once think your belief is absolute among others.

If you're not even free to think deeply on this subject, then you're just speaking someone else's talking points.

Originally Posted by digsbe:
I believe that it is a sin according to the Bible. I also believe it's unnatural.

To which I requested:
Set your belief aside. (If you can’t you’re not even free to think about this subject, you’re just quoting someone else.) Then, please give us considered answers. Thanks.

To which you corrected me as follows w/ some responses. I hope this helps:
“Do not assume your belief is scientifically correct.”
I’m not assuming I’m correct, I didn’t state and opinion in the post, and I don’t have a belief on this subject.
“You are not absolute.” Yup, that my opinion, I’m not absolute anything.
“We all speak our beliefs” Not true, most people hide their beliefs at least some of the time.“, and all of our beliefs are unproven in terms of "right and "wrong." That’s only if nothing is proven right or wrong.
“Do not for once think your belief is absolute among others.” That is one reason I have so few or none.
“If you're not even free to think deeply on this subject, then you're just speaking someone else's talking points.” That was my point to digsbe; to set his other-directed beliefs aside and consider this issue. It’s interesting what this does to people, their thought out opinion may differ from their beliefs.
 
Back
Top Bottom