• 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
It is both sinless and natural. People do not choose to be homosexual, they are born that way and it happens in nature. There are many things in the Bible which should not be followed when it comes to government. Religion shouldn't even be in government. I could get into a lot more depth but that would take too much time unless somebody actually wants to hear it.
 
LuckyDan said:
But that still means one of the bio parents is not in the kid's life.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant to what research shows.

I assume the divorce rate is 50%. That's what everybody always says. What is the break-up rate among SS couples? Any studies on that? I really don't know.
Click to expand...

Don't know. If I were to guess, I'd say that if SSM was made legal today, 10 years from now, we'd see the divorce rate between SS couples and opposite sex couples pretty much the same. People are people.
 
Blackdog said:
Animals are not human. Some animals can change sex as well. Has nothing to do with homosexuality or humans.
Click to expand...

Hate to brake it to you.. Humans are animals.. We are a part of nature just like every other species of animal.. We are just a different species.. So it does have something to do with us.. You can't seperate man from nature..

Homosexuality is natural.. 100% natural.. There is no arguement otherwise..
 
Im still waiting for someone to explain to me why it matters on this issue. With the fact we are in America and the fact that the answers are 100% subjective its meaningless. The only goal by the OP is a failed attempt to bash homosexuality, problem is, the objective smart people wont let him and see right through it lol
 
Centrist77 said:
Im still waiting for someone to explain to me why it matters on this issue. With the fact we are in America and the fact that the answers are 100% subjective its meaningless. The only goal by the OP is a failed attempt to bash homosexuality, problem is, the objective smart people wont let him and see right through it lol
Click to expand...

We all know how powerful the Gay Recruitment Coalition is. I mean they have every school, YMCA and street corner with recruiters waiting, watching, and hunting down young kids to convert in to gay. And even worse...there's rumor that homosexuality could well be contagious.

Centralist...don't you think that your being a little hard on heteros? Don't you think that most don't really like engaging in bashing?

I know it's gonna be difficult for many to fight off their inner gay, but somehow about 96 percent of the heterosexuals do. It's amazing feat, but heterosexual are a truly resilient, steadfast bunch. In fact, just your position on this matter might make you a anti-moral suspect.

As a straight white guy...I know how fearful I've had to live my life. It's been completely stressful constantly dodging all of the recruiters and inner urges.

A lot of people need to get a hobby rather than worry themselves about something that they are totally powerless over...including their own sexuality.
 
Removable Mind said:
We all know how powerful the Gay Recruitment Coalition is. I mean they have every school, YMCA and street corner with recruiters waiting, watching, and hunting down young kids to convert in to gay. And even worse...there's rumor that homosexuality could well be contagious.

Centralist...don't you think that your being a little hard on heteros? Don't you think that most don't really like engaging in bashing?

I know it's gonna be difficult for many to fight off their inner gay, but somehow about 96 percent of the heterosexuals do. It's amazing feat, but heterosexual are a truly resilient, steadfast bunch. In fact, just your position on this matter might make you a anti-moral suspect.

As a straight white guy...I know how fearful I've had to live my life. It's been completely stressful constantly dodging all of the recruiters and inner urges.

A lot of people need to get a hobby rather than worry themselves about something that they are totally powerless over...including their own sexuality.
Click to expand...

LMAO!!!!!

I love the sarcasm, its great, I agree I also have no clue how I have also stayed straight this long.

or should I say <in a stereotypical flamboyant gay voice>
I loooooooooooooove it!
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
But mac... again it's the wording you use. If you agree with the statement, you should be using the term "sexual orientation", yet you do not. You separate homosexuality and heterosexuality in unequal ways. If you believe that either situation mentioned is possible, you pretty much NEVER indicate it.
Click to expand...

Again, I said heterosexuality and homosexuality. Either one could be as natural as the other, one could be natural and the other not as well. I'm not misleading anything here.

Besides, you have enough people here saying that homosexuality has been shown to be genetically caused. Period.....I've not seen any follow up from you about unclear language. The last time you told me my language wasn't clear as to whether or not I was expressing an opinion...the post led off with "in my opinion".....you're nit-picking me because I'm not following the party line.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Again, I said heterosexuality and homosexuality. Either one could be as natural as the other, one could be natural and the other not as well. I'm not misleading anything here.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that something being 'natural', equates with something being morally acceptable? If the two concepts are unrelated, what does it matter whether something is 'natural' or not? Internet forums aren't 'natural', but they're a good thing, aren't they? If none of this is about arguing that 'natural' means more acceptable, why are we discussing it? I don't see any threads debating whether computing is 'natural', or whether IVF is 'natural', whether gardening is 'natural'. Why should we care that sexuality is 'natural'?
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
This has nothing to do with my point. In modern studies it is 2% to 4% of the population is homosexual, not 10% I think.
Click to expand...

What I've seen is 4-8%. Still, pretty low.
 
Andalublue said:
Do you believe that something being 'natural', equates with something being morally acceptable?
Click to expand...

Not entirely. It can and it doesn't have too. It can be a factor in either determination.

If the two concepts are unrelated, what does it matter whether something is 'natural' or not?
Click to expand...

Again, sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't. To me, in this case...it's a factor in my stance.

Internet forums aren't 'natural', but they're a good thing, aren't they? If none of this is about arguing that 'natural' means more acceptable, why are we discussing it? I don't see any threads debating whether computing is 'natural', or whether IVF is 'natural', whether gardening is 'natural'. Why should we care that sexuality is 'natural'?
Click to expand...

My only answer to that is because homosexuals are asking for a legal right...if homosexuality were indeed proven to not be a choice, or genetically driven, the American legal system would not be able to stand in the way of SSM.
 
I place my lot with the King James Bible, regardless of what the world thinks.
 
mac said:
if homosexuality were indeed proven to not be a choice, or genetically driven, the American legal system would not be able to stand in the way of SSM.
Click to expand...

This seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur to me. Why would something that might be a matter of choice not be as deserving of equal legal status as something genetic? Let's think of an analogy. How about women driving. They don't have to, it's not genetically determined that they must, but they choose to. There's nothing that makes them genetically identical to men, so why can't society decide, arbitrarily, to deny women the right to drive?

Perhaps there are better analogies, although the more I think about it, the more this one seems okay.

I just can't see the nature vs. nurture vs. choice issue making any difference at all to the arguments for or against SSM.
 
Wake said:
I place my lot with the King James Bible, regardless of what the world thinks.
Click to expand...

I don't see you stoning adulterers or advocating for slavery so I don't buy you throw your lot in with the King James Bible. You throw your lot in with your personal interpretation of said book.
 
mac said:
Agreed....I've said as much myself.
Click to expand...

Andalublue said:
This seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur to me. Why would something that might be a matter of choice not be as deserving of equal legal status as something genetic? Let's think of an analogy. How about women driving. They don't have to, it's not genetically determined that they must, but they choose to. There's nothing that makes them genetically identical to men, so why can't society decide, arbitrarily, to deny women the right to drive?

Perhaps there are better analogies, although the more I think about it, the more this one seems okay.

I just can't see the nature vs. nurture vs. choice issue making any difference at all to the arguments for or against SSM.
Click to expand...

Because we've set enough president in the us that you can not discriminTe against someone for the way they are born. That's not to say that you cant protect something that is a choice, like religion, but if it's genetic....it almost immediately removes the opposition and barricades to legal acceptance.
 
mac said:
but if it's genetic....it almost immediately removes the opposition and barricades to legal acceptance.
Click to expand...

Well, there was nothing very immediate about the removal of institutional racial discrimination. Also, this being the case, was this the reason for the decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour? If not, what was? If it was for that, why not for SSM too?
 
LuckyDan said:
I'm no bible scholar, but sex is not sinful within marriage. Gambling is stupid but sinful? if you're a baptist, yeah. Drinking to the point of drunkeness - way stupid (trust me I know this one well) and probably sinful biblically, but a couple after dinner? Probably safe.

Envy is sinful and not much fun. Questioning authority? Nnnnn no. Where is that in the bible?
Click to expand...

The fourth commandment. And technically the first. The bible also literally says that disobedient children should be stoned to death.

And envy is what keeps the economy going.
 
DemonMyst said:
Hate to brake it to you.. Humans are animals.. We are a part of nature just like every other species of animal.. We are just a different species.. So it does have something to do with us.. You can't seperate man from nature..

Homosexuality is natural.. 100% natural.. There is no arguement otherwise..
Click to expand...

Nothing to break to me. Please feel free to point out one animal that is human? None are but those of the human race, period. It is true we are animals, but we are much more than animals to be called human.

Homosexuality is natural, I never said otherwise if you had bothered to read what I posted. This does not make it a good/bad etc. Nature has had many failings and species died because of it. Nature and animals are not a litmus test for the human condition.

Please don't try and read more into what I am saying, or add things I did not say.
 
Paschendale said:
The fourth commandment. And technically the first. The bible also literally says that disobedient children should be stoned to death.

And envy is what keeps the economy going.
Click to expand...

The Bible indeed says that, so what? It was the law for the ancient Israelites not modern people.
 
Blackdog said:
The Bible indeed says that, so what? It was the law for the ancient Israelites not modern people.
Click to expand...

Kinda like how what Paul said was just for people living in Roman times?
 
Centrist77 said:
Im still waiting for someone to explain to me why it matters on this issue. With the fact we are in America and the fact that the answers are 100% subjective its meaningless. The only goal by the OP is a failed attempt to bash homosexuality, problem is, the objective smart people wont let him and see right through it lol
Click to expand...

still waiting :)
Im guessing Ill never get an answer:yawn:
 
mac said:
Because we've set enough president in the us that you can not discriminTe against someone for the way they are born. That's not to say that you cant protect something that is a choice, like religion, but if it's genetic....it almost immediately removes the opposition and barricades to legal acceptance.
Click to expand...

And a black guy being attracted to a white woman is a choice, by your logic of attraction. So then, why did they need the right to get married? Why did all the states have to change their laws? Would it have been okay or be okay today if it were a black community that decided that they didn't want interracial marriages in their area? That wouldn't have anything to do with white supremacy. If being attracted to a person based on their sex is a choice, then being attracted to people based on their race must also be a choice.
 
CriticalThought said:
Kinda like how what Paul said was just for people living in Roman times?
Click to expand...

What Paul said was under the new covenant, so yes it absolutely applies. Not the same thing at all.
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
still waiting :)
Im guessing Ill never get an answer:yawn:
Click to expand...

Because to some people it does. Not like people don't make threads to bash religion, politics etc.

Welcome to an internet web site for just such a thing. :doh
 
Blackdog said:
What Paul said was under the new covenant, so yes it absolutely applies. Not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...

And Jesus said there was a new covenant or Paul said there was a new covenant?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom