• 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
:) fair enough. no one who is demonstratively sane is arguing we should criminalize homosexuality :D
 
lol! alright, we'll see where folks stand on that. :)
 
digsbe said:
I believe that it is a sin according to the Bible. I also believe it's unnatural.
Click to expand...

It there a biblical sin list? I'll grant you the TC, if you want to call that the biblical sin list. That doesn't mention homosexuality. According to the bible sins are sins. Those of you into proof texting may even find a couple of passages that support that sins are sins. So where is homosexuality on the biblical sin list? What rank is it? If it is ranked how about showing us the ranking? We already know it isn't in the top ten.
 
cpwill said:
given that it is not their actions that are limited, but rather those of the county clerks, i would have to disagree. certainly i think you would heartily oppose any claims of the same "nose-bopping" with regards to other relationships that you do not wish to recognize as "marriage".
Click to expand...

This is not true. They are being denied access to the legal right to enter into a marriage contract with each other. A contract that includes rights, privileges, and benefits, some of which are only available through that legal contract and many others that they have to pay an unequal amount of money to set up without this contract.

And that denial is based on sex, not relationship of the people involved (incest) or number of people or number of contracts (polygamy). Sex/gender is at a middle-tier scrutiny level for equal protection, while both relationship of the people and number would be at the rational basis scrutiny level. Plus, there are reasonable defenses for the states to base not allowing both incest and polygamy based on either possible harm to at least one of the two involved or limitations in the contract itself or reasonable need to limit how many can be involved in the personal contract due to benefits offered.

If someone wishes to fight for either incest marriages or polygamy, they would need to do so on their own standing. I haven't seen a single person say that SSM should be legal just because interracial marriage was legalized. There are always other arguments with these and not a single shread of evidence that same sex marriages or relationships are harmful to either person involved or even society.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: if you wish.



given that it is not their actions that are limited, but rather those of the county clerks, i would have to disagree. certainly i think you would heartily oppose any claims of the same "nose-bopping" with regards to other relationships that you do not wish to recognize as "marriage".



this is absolutely incorrect due to the subjective nature of "just cause". for example, I say you have no just cause to vote against me having the ability to stock my house with rockets, launchers, and heavy-machines guns. you are limiting what I can do without just cause, only your interpretation of what is acceptable, and it doesn't hit your nose or anyone else's what I do in my own house.



no one is arguing we should criminalize homosexuality.
Click to expand...

No CP, if you don't allow them to marry it is them you are denying. If I don't allow stores to sell guns or guns to be made, or people to buy guns, I am denying them the right to bear arms. You play too many games. And as to the subjective nature of just cause, you act as if there can be no standard. These things can be held before court and ruled upon. There are reasonable standards, such as showing harm, that can be adhered to.

Oh, and your last sentences is a complete strawman. Perhaps when you break things down sentence by sentence you lose meaning. I've seen other do a better job of keeping the meaning before them. I've often blamed your divestions on the fact that you lose the intend in your breaking down. I still think this may be true, but this strawman seems more likely a deliberate devision.
 
Is it wrong? Yes by my view it is. I also see it as natural but it does go against the norm of society and to a degree nature. In nature animals procreate to continue the species, homosexuality makes this impossible and two males or females cannot breed. So it is as natural as any mutation that serves no real purpose, because it is still found in nature.
 
Blackdog said:
Is it wrong? Yes by my view it is. I also see it as natural but it does go against the norm of society and to a degree nature. In nature animals procreate to continue the species, homosexuality makes this impossible and two males or females cannot breed. So it is as natural as any mutation that serves no real purpose, because it is still found in nature.
Click to expand...

It would only be impossibleif everythig was homosexual, though I suspect we'd still find a way. 10% of the population is hardly ever going to lead to us unable to procreate.
 
I read an article the other day about a lizard species in which every member is female and reproduce without sexual intercourse. These lady lizards often performed simulated sex as on one another. So...yeah...not every species uses sex as a means of reproduction.
 
tessaesque said:
I read an article the other day about a lizard species in which every member is female and reproduce without sexual intercourse. These lady lizards often performed simulated sex as on one another. So...yeah...not every species uses sex as a means of reproduction.
Click to expand...

We're neither lizards, nor seahorses, nor mandrakes, Tessaesque.
 
Is homosexuality sinful?

Yes. The Bible is very clear regarding this matter.

Is this a value-judgment of homosexual persons?

No. The Bible is very clear regarding this matter.
All people--including gay-folks--are made in the image of God and are precious to Him.
 
Wake said:
We're neither lizards, nor seahorses, nor mandrakes, Tessaesque.
Click to expand...

No we are humans. The vast majority of humans have sex for pleasure. In fact, most have sex for pleasure far more often than they do to try to procreate.
 
roguenuke said:
No we are humans. The vast majority of humans have sex for pleasure. In fact, most have sex for pleasure far more often than they do to try to procreate.
Click to expand...

That's unnatural!
 
roguenuke said:
No we are humans. The vast majority of humans have sex for pleasure. In fact, most have sex for pleasure far more often than they do to try to procreate.
Click to expand...

I know I do. ;)
 
I can't really vote on this, Wake. From what I can tell it's not a sin, just against the rules, and whether it's right or wrong is really up to the society at large to decide.
 
The Baron said:
Is homosexuality sinful?

Yes. The Bible is very clear regarding this matter.

Is this a value-judgment of homosexual persons?

No. The Bible is very clear regarding this matter.
All people--including gay-folks--are made in the image of God and are precious to Him.
Click to expand...

I think you just said that God is gay. :2razz:
 
There are scientific studies that show that most likely homosexuality existed millions and million of years "before" the human species evolved.

But on a more modern note. Homosexuality is currently observed in animals. This said. People are animals. I know, I know... but we are.
 
Removable Mind said:
There are scientific studies that show that most likely homosexuality existed millions and million of years "before" the human species evolved.

But on a more modern note. Homosexuality is currently observed in animals. This said. People are animals. I know, I know... but we are.
Click to expand...

appeal to nature....logical fallacy.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I think you just said that God is gay. :2razz:
Click to expand...

As much as I hate to admit it I think CC nailed it. My appreciation for his post in no way means I agree with CC or the things that he does with his dog in private.
 
mac said:
appeal to nature....logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

But isn't it part of the OP as to whether the act is natural or not? How exactly do you prove something is natural or not without bringing nature into the discussion?

Don't get me wrong, I understand that natural is a subjective term, but it doesn't seem right to say that something is a logical fallacy when it is referencing the very definition of the word natural.

natural - definition of natural by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

If we were talking in a context of laws for/against homosexuality, sure I can see appeal to nature fallacy. In fact, this whole thread could be pretty much seen as an appeal to nature fallacy since it equates sin/right/wrong/morality arguments with something being natural/unnatural, but his specific argument is just identifying why homosexuality could be viewed as natural, not right/wrong/sinful/moral.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Wanna "splain that?
Click to expand...

Sure, because it happens in nature is not a valid explanation for why it happens in humans. We can only assume that certain behaviors are instances of homosexual activity based on observation, when in fact the behavior could be non sexual to that actor.

As far as logical fallacies go, this should help.
 
roguenuke said:
But isn't it part of the OP as to whether the act is natural or not? How exactly do you prove something is natural or not without bringing nature into the discussion?

Don't get me wrong, I understand that natural is a subjective term, but it doesn't seem right to say that something is a logical fallacy when it is referencing the very definition of the word natural.

natural - definition of natural by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

If we were talking in a context of laws for/against homosexuality, sure I can see appeal to nature fallacy. In fact, this whole thread could be pretty much seen as an appeal to nature fallacy since it equates sin/right/wrong/morality arguments with something being natural/unnatural, but his specific argument is just identifying why homosexuality could be viewed as natural, not right/wrong/sinful/moral.
Click to expand...

Whatever, an appeal to nature is an appeal to nature. If you want to discuss if its natural for humans, you have to explore human homosexuality....not bonobo or giraffe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom