• 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
Blackdog said:
I never said it was anything other than my opinion?



See above post.



You read my post and start jumping to really bad conclusions. You are making assumptions that are have nothing to do with anything I stated.

Please point out where I said...

Should we eliminate straight marriage because of them?

It is a fact gay men are more promiscuous, and not by a little. I mean they are men.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem, BD. You are stating that SSM is not in the state's interest because of the hedonistic gay lifestyle. That is an absolute statement.
 
Your Star said:
Here's the thing, I think it is morally wrong, to try and tell people by law what they should do with their own bodies, besides from physically harming themselves(things like cutting, suicide). Why should there be a law banning anal sex, masturbation, oral sex, sex outside of marriage?
Click to expand...

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.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Here's the problem, BD. You are stating that SSM is not in the state's interest because of the hedonistic gay lifestyle. That is an absolute statement.
Click to expand...

And I stand by that statement in the case of gay men. It is not a stereo type, it is true, they are men, lol.
 
MistressNomad said:
No, they really aren't. Morality is obligated to rest on those fairly objective grounds of harm/help. If it doesn't, we have other names for baseless claims of morality.
Click to expand...

Morality is not under any obligation to be objective. That's not what morality is. Morality is relative to the individual, or society. IT defines it.

Sin has no such requirement. There is no common thread linking the ethics of sin together. Some sins have no ethical basis at all. Some could be considered counter-ethical.
Click to expand...

Sure there is. Just like morality, sin is subjective. The ethics of sin are the same as the ethics of morality, based on the individual or society.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Morality is not under any obligation to be objective. That's not what morality is. Morality is relative to the individual, or society. IT defines it.



Sure there is. Just like morality, sin is subjective. The ethics of sin are the same as the ethics of morality, based on the individual or society.
Click to expand...

Erthics are agreed up on standards. Law ethics for example, in which lawyers go before the law board, are those standards lawyers agree to and not their own personal standards.
 
Blackdog said:
And I stand by that statement in the case of gay men. It is not a stereo type, it is true, they are men, lol.
Click to expand...

I know some *straight* men who would be kinda offended to be typecast as mindless animals, as well.

The gay men I know are more domestic than I am. Do you know any gay men or are you just convinced all they do is have meth parties and bareback sex?
 
roguenuke said:
It doesn't matter what you call their lifestyle. The way that the marriage license is currently used is as a legal contract to establish legal kinship to two people who are not already considered legally to be "immediate family". It also provides certain property rights, decision rights, and various other rights/benefits to each person in the relationship due to the nature of the relationship itself. The main reason for this, currently, is to protect the couple, as a whole, and each individual within the relationship because we hold such a relationship to be important and these specific relationships have been shown to benefit society, well beyond whether the couple can have kids or are raising children at all.

It is the nature of the relationship itself, specifically its stability and the agreement of each person in a marriage to take responsibility for the other person, that benefits society.
Click to expand...

It is much more than that. So I will disagree.

roguenuke said:
It doesn't matter what the sex of the two involved is because it is most likely that their relationships and whether those relationships fail or not are likely to be in line with the rest of society. Plus, we do not limit opposite sex couples from marriages based either on whether they want kids, can have kids, or are raising kids, nor on what their probability of staying together is.
Click to expand...

You just said the same thing again. Gay marriage is not the same and not about family. Nothing you say can ever convince me of that. If it was about the family, and I witnessed it being about the family I mite think that is a valid reason, it's not. Of course this has little to do with me supporting so.

roguenuke said:
It's about same sex couples who want to make the same type of commitment or who have already made the same type of commitment as opposite sex couples who are married being given recognition for their commitment and not being discriminated against because they are the same sex rather than the opposite sex as each other.
Click to expand...

Same as above.

Not interested.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Morality is not under any obligation to be objective. That's not what morality is. Morality is relative to the individual, or society. IT defines it.

Sure there is. Just like morality, sin is subjective. The ethics of sin are the same as the ethics of morality, based on the individual or society.
Click to expand...

Even personal morality is based on something. Even if it's simply the emotional reaction is causes in society. People tend to think about whether their morals are true - even if it's just for them. In the public sphere and in law, though, attempts (increasingly successful over time) at objective morality are the rule.

Sin requires no ethics at all. That's the point. It is simply fiated into existence and whether it has a basis or a train of thought connected to it is irrelevant.
 
Blackdog said:
And I stand by that statement in the case of gay men. It is not a stereo type, it is true, they are men, lol.
Click to expand...

By all means feel free to support that. However, even if true, there may be reasons, like a lack of marrital structure that would help stablize relationships. If we want this stability, shouldn't we promote it,. . with . . let's say something like marriage?

Just saying . . . :coffeepap
 
MistressNomad said:
I know some *straight* men who would be kinda offended to be typecast as mindless animals, as well.

The gay men I know are more domestic than I am. Do you know any gay men or are you just convinced all they do is have meth parties and bareback sex?
Click to expand...

Please point out where I said all homosexuals are meth addicted sex slaves??? Man please get a clue, lol.
 
Boo Radley said:
By all means feel free to support that. However, even if true, there may be reasons, like a lack of marrital structure that would help stablize relationships. If we want this stability, shouldn't we promote it,. . with . . let's say something like marriage?

Just saying . . . :coffeepap
Click to expand...

I agree. I support gay marriage. People are just making assumption based on knee jerk reactions. Thanks for not jumping on that boat. This does not however change my view about the majority of gay men or men in general, lol.

PS being that I am one as well.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Please point out where I said all homosexuals are meth addicted sex slaves??? Man please get a clue, lol.
Click to expand...

A clue of what? It wasn't intended to be a repeating of what you said. It was intended to absurdify your position, which I did successfully given your reaction, and yet I suppose you fail to see how this relates to what you said, since you didn't address any of the rest of my post.
 
Blackdog said:
It is much more than that. So I will disagree.
Click to expand...

Personal marriage is (hopefully) much more than that. Legal marriage isn't. Legal marriage is basically just as I described it.


Blackdog said:
You just said the same thing again. Gay marriage is not the same and not about family. Nothing you say can ever convince me of that. If it was about the family, and I witnessed it being about the family I mite think that is a valid reason, it's not. Of course this has little to do with me supporting so.

Same as above.

Not interested.
Click to expand...

Not every opposite sex marriage is about making/raising a family either. That is where I think hypocrisy lies in this whole debate. People should be either pushing to make marriage about procreation and/or raising a family, and limit opposite sex marriage to this, and open up marriage to those same sex couples who are raising children, in the same way it is done for opposite sex couples or it has to be equally open to both opposite and same sex couples, whether they are raising children or not, whether they can have children or not. Otherwise, SSM bans are unconstitutional as the Constitution is currently.
 
MistressNomad said:
A clue of what? It wasn't intended to be a repeating of what you said. It was intended to absurdify your position, which I did successfully given your reaction, and yet I suppose you fail to see how this relates to what you said, since you didn't address any of the rest of my post.
Click to expand...

Your position is what is absurd, not mine. Men in general will **** anything that moves in most cases, this is a fact. Take away the female reserve and what do you get? My friend you are making absurd statements that literally have nothing to do with my true statements, period.

The rest is not worth responding to. Nothing but knee jerk reactions that have little barring to me or my views.
 
Blackdog said:
And I stand by that statement in the case of gay men. It is not a stereo type, it is true, they are men, lol.
Click to expand...

It's an absolute statement and does not apply to everyone. It restricts those who are not "hedonistic" from marrying and having kids. It's like determining whether people should marry based on behavior at Club Med.
 
roguenuke said:
Personal marriage is (hopefully) much more than that. Legal marriage isn't. Legal marriage is basically just as I described it.
Click to expand...

In your secular opinion, not mine.


roguenuke said:
Not every opposite sex marriage is about making/raising a family either. That is where I think hypocrisy lies in this whole debate. People should be either pushing to make marriage about procreation and/or raising a family, and limit opposite sex marriage to this, and open up marriage to those same sex couples who are raising children, in the same way it is done for opposite sex couples or it has to be equally open to both opposite and same sex couples, whether they are raising children or not, whether they can have children or not. Otherwise, SSM bans are unconstitutional as the Constitution is currently.
Click to expand...

Other marriages don't have to be, they are already legal and in the states best interest as they are the majority.
 
Boo Radley said:
Erthics are agreed up on standards. Law ethics for example, in which lawyers go before the law board, are those standards lawyers agree to and not their own personal standards.
Click to expand...

And what are those standards based on?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
It's an absolute statement and does not apply to everyone. It restricts those who are not "hedonistic" from marrying and having kids. It's like determining whether people should marry based on behavior at Club Med.
Click to expand...

My statement was not absolute, if you read it I was talking about a majority yes, but not all gay men. The last part about club med is funny if not applicable.
 
MistressNomad said:
Even personal morality is based on something. Even if it's simply the emotional reaction is causes in society. People tend to think about whether their morals are true - even if it's just for them. In the public sphere and in law, though, attempts (increasingly successful over time) at objective morality are the rule.

Sin requires no ethics at all. That's the point. It is simply fiated into existence and whether it has a basis or a train of thought connected to it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Sin didn't just develop out of thin air. It came from SOMEWHERE.
 
Boo Radley said:
By all means feel free to support that. However, even if true, there may be reasons, like a lack of marrital structure that would help stablize relationships. If we want this stability, shouldn't we promote it,. . with . . let's say something like marriage?

Just saying . . . :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Yup... I've been saying this for a while.
 
I been saying it a few minutes.
 
Blackdog said:
My statement was not absolute, if you read it I was talking about a majority yes, but not all gay men.
Click to expand...

Yet, you are basing this on nothing but your own experiences. 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.

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

So, you would support banning straight marriage based on the hedonistic activities of people there?
 
Blackdog said:
In your secular opinion, not mine.
Click to expand...

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.


Blackdog said:
Other marriages don't have to be, they are already legal and in the states best interest as they are the majority.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Blackdog said:
Your position is what is absurd, not mine. Men in general will **** anything that moves in most cases, this is a fact. Take away the female reserve and what do you get? My friend you are making absurd statements that literally have nothing to do with my true statements, period.

The rest is not worth responding to. Nothing but knee jerk reactions that have little barring to me or my views.
Click to expand...

I'm sure men are happy to know you basically think they're dumb animals. Nice.

Gender stereotypes are fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom