• 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
He was attack my comment not knowing I do support gay marriage. Don't even try.

Who was this directed at since no one else is here?

So regardless if you think it is a sin or unnatural, gay marriage should be allowed

He's a new poster, and probably just replying to the OP. Chill out.
 
He was attack my comment not knowing I do support gay marriage. Don't even try.

Who was this directed at since no one else is here?

So regardless if you think it is a sin or unnatural, gay marriage should be allowed

So? It's his first post. What's with the thin skin?
 
ZOMG, 5000 posts!
 
Don't have to "live them all" as that is what forgiveness is for. You try not to do it again. You see being gay is not a sin, but acting on it is. If you continue to act on it, how can you be forgiven? You are obviously not sorry you did it etc. This is the main problem for gays and Christianity. Of course as I said this would be no worse than a fornicator or adulterer.

You are trying to twist this. The point is that it is people who chose what is canon and what is not. It was people who transcribed down what they thought god had said to people. It was people who translated those writings(and created strange things like Mary being a virgin to meet a translation error in a prophesy). It was people who edited out things they did not like. It was people who decided what was allegory and what was literal.

Bible scholars cannot agree on what all is and should be literal, what is allegory, what is still enforceable and what no longer is. And yet you know the answer so well you don't hesitate to attack other people's faith and tell them they are wrong. I as a general rule do not attack people's faith, as I think you know. I am making an exception this time because you went right on the attack, going after the beliefs of other christians.
 
Well when you have three ahem ladies at your neck all night, you get touchy. Besides I already deleted it.
 
It wasn't directed at anybody, I was just stating a fact.
 
It wasn't directed at anybody, I was just stating a fact.

You are correct, and pardon the high energy tonight, it has been a heated discussion. The 14th amendment is one of the centers of the SSM debate, both in relation to DOMA and the case on Prop 8.

Edit: welcome to the board. If you have any questions or concerns do not hesitate to PM me or another mod for help. We are always happy to help out new posters.
 
Last edited:
You are correct, and pardon the high energy tonight, it has been a heated discussion. The 14th amendment is one of the centers of the SSM debate, both in relation to DOMA and the case on Prop 8.

Edit: welcome to the board. If you have any questions or concerns do not hesitate to PM me or another mod for help. We are always happy to help out new posters.


No worries, I'm rather glad I found some people who actually agree with me.
 
You are trying to twist this. The point is that it is people who chose what is canon and what is not. It was people who transcribed down what they thought god had said to people. It was people who translated those writings(and created strange things like Mary being a virgin to meet a translation error in a prophesy). It was people who edited out things they did not like. It was people who decided what was allegory and what was literal.

You do realize most if not all of that has now been corrected. We also have direct study guides that explain the original language and uses for certain words.

You are also trying to overturn a basic (accurate translation) on homosexuality in both testaments. Sorry will not fly.

Bible scholars cannot agree on what all is and should be literal, what is allegory, what is still enforceable and what no longer is.
Not true at all. The basic Commandments of Jesus and the apostles etc in the NT are intact as law.

And yet you know the answer so well you don't hesitate to attack other people's faith and tell them they are wrong.

I did not attack anyones faith, I told them what the Bible says. Nothing more nothing less.

If correcting someone on scripture is an "attack" label me guilty. :roll:


I as a general rule do not attack people's faith, as I think you know. I am making an exception this time because you went right on the attack, going after the beliefs of other christians.

Red that is all bull****. You have attacked my faith earlier in this thread, so your statement is not true. In fact you attacked it like what 3 pages back or more? :lol:

Fact: OT very clear on basic commandments including men with men etc.
Fact: Jesus very clear on who could be married.
Fact: Paul Very clear on men with men etc.

You can twist all you want, but the truth is the truth.
 
You do realize most if not all of that has now been corrected. We also have direct study guides that explain the original language and uses for certain words.

You are also trying to overturn a basic (accurate translation) on homosexuality in both testaments. Sorry will not fly.

Not true at all. The basic Commandments of Jesus and the apostles etc in the NT are intact as law.



I did not attack anyones faith, I told them what the Bible says. Nothing more nothing less.

If correcting someone on scripture is an "attack" label me guilty. :roll:




Red that is all bull****. You have attacked my faith earlier in this thread, so your statement is not true. In fact you attacked it like what 3 pages back or more? :lol:

Fact: OT very clear on basic commandments including men with men etc.
Fact: Jesus very clear on who could be married.
Fact: Paul Very clear on men with men etc.

You can twist all you want, but the truth is the truth.

I would just like to point out, that it doesn't matter what Jesus or God says when it comes to social issues like gay marriage. No religion should be allowed to dictate the laws of our country.
 
Fact: OT very clear on basic commandments including men with men etc.
Fact: Jesus very clear on who could be married.
Fact: Paul Very clear on men with men etc.

You can twist all you want, but the truth is the truth.

So I'm good right ;)
 
Fact: OT very clear on basic commandments including men with men etc.
Fact: Jesus very clear on who could be married.
Fact: Paul Very clear on men with men etc.

You can twist all you want, but the truth is the truth.

Let's see. The OT is out since we have the whole New Covenant thing. Jesus was talking about divorce when he talked about marriage, not about who could and could not get married. Paul was talking pretty much about his own time in strongly worded letters that he had no voice in putting in the Bible.

But I guess if you take it out of context...
 
You do realize most if not all of that has now been corrected. We also have direct study guides that explain the original language and uses for certain words.

You are also trying to overturn a basic (accurate translation) on homosexuality in both testaments. Sorry will not fly.

And you take one small part, argue with it and ignore the entirety of what was said. Why did you make it a point to focus on one sentence and ignore the rest? I know the answer, will you admit it?

Not true at all. The basic Commandments of Jesus and the apostles etc in the NT are intact as law.

And again with evasions. What about the entire rest of the bible, including those parts expurgated out?

I did not attack anyones faith, I told them what the Bible says. Nothing more nothing less.


If correcting someone on scripture is an "attack" label me guilty. :roll:

You quite clearly attacked YS's faith. You can call it what you want.

Red that is all bull****. You have attacked my faith earlier in this thread, so your statement is not true. In fact you attacked it like what 3 pages back or more? :lol:

Fact: OT very clear on basic commandments including men with men etc.
Fact: Jesus very clear on who could be married.
Fact: Paul Very clear on men with men etc.

You can twist all you want, but the truth is the truth.

You mean after you attacked other people's beliefs? That would be the point, yes.
 
I would just like to point out, that it doesn't matter what Jesus or God says when it comes to social issues like gay marriage. No religion should be allowed to dictate the laws of our country.

Well, apparently BD agrees on that point, it's just that he's so busy believing that all gays and lesbians who act on their feelings are going to hell, that we can't move past that point.
 
Let's see. The OT is out since we have the whole New Covenant thing. Jesus was talking about divorce when he talked about marriage, not about who could and could not get married. Paul was talking pretty much about his own time in strongly worded letters that he had no voice in putting in the Bible.

But I guess if you take it out of context...

Jesus made a statement about more than just divorce. You know this but don't want to admit it. The NT and OT both condemn homosexuality, end of story. Twist it however you like but you know the truth in your hart.
 
And you take one small part, argue with it and ignore the entirety of what was said. Why did you make it a point to focus on one sentence and ignore the rest? I know the answer, will you admit it?

What are you talking about? I mentioned fornication and adultery before. Do I have to rewrite everything I said every time now?

It is also what we are talking about.

And again with evasions. What about the entire rest of the bible, including those parts expurgated out?

You do realise the Bible is not one book? It is 66 books and a few more the Catholics added later. It is the sum total of it'a parts. Take it as it is or leave it. Either way it is the word of God.

As it sits now nothing is missing at all. If God had wanted it in there, it would be.

You quite clearly attacked YS's faith. You can call it what you want.

Please show an example. Last time I looked quoting scripture to someone who is a self professed Christian is not attacking ones faith. She tried to accuse me of talking for her, I showed I was not and that it was according to the Bible.

So you can take that to the bank.

You mean after you attacked other people's beliefs? That would be the point, yes.

Oh no you didn't...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/99998-homosexuality-sinful-and-unnatural-53.html#post1059522379

Before I said anything.
 
Last edited:
Please show an example. Last time I looked quoting scripture to someone who is a self professed Christian is not attacking ones faith. She tried to accuse me of talking for her, I showed I was not and that it was according to the Bible.

You said my beliefs were wrong because of what you believed, and said I was ignoring scripture(instead of just having a different interpretation of them) and said taht I know I was wrong. How is that not speaking for me?
 
What are you talking about? I mentioned fornication and adultery before. Do I have to rewrite everything I said every time now?

It is also what we are talking about.

And now you take it even further afield. Let me refresh your memory with what I sad:

Redress said:
You are trying to twist this. The point is that it is people who chose what is canon and what is not. It was people who transcribed down what they thought god had said to people. It was people who translated those writings(and created strange things like Mary being a virgin to meet a translation error in a prophesy). It was people who edited out things they did not like. It was people who decided what was allegory and what was literal.

Notice how a grand total of 1 sentence is about translation, and that is the only thing you addressed.


You do realise the Bible is not one book? It is 66 books and a few more the Catholics added later. It is the sum total of it'a parts. Take it as it is or leave it. Either way it is the word of God.

As it sits now nothing is missing at all. If God had wanted it in there, it would be.

So god decided that the Deuterocanonical books should not be included? Or should they? You are aware that there are versions of the bible with up to 81 books. Where did the rest go from yours? Who decides if this book or that belongs(Hint: it ain't god)?


Please show an example. Last time I looked quoting scripture to someone who is a self professed Christian is not attacking ones faith. She tried to accuse me of talking for her, I showed I was not and that it was according to the Bible.

So you can take that to the bank.



Oh no you didn't...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/99998-homosexuality-sinful-and-unnatural-53.html#post1059522379

Before I said anything.

Telling some one explaining their beliefs they are wrong is attacking their faith.
 
It's only because you will not accept that gay men are far more promiscuous than straight men, so the states interest is not represented as I see it.. All your fault. Other than that we agree.

No... it's because that you will not accept that promiscuity is irrelevant to the state's interest because it is not an absolute. Other than that, we agree.

Of course that is not what I was talking about.
 
You still have not presented one logical argument against SSM. You still continue to blame your position on god, instead of accepting responsibility for your position.

See, I disagree with this. I can accept someone saying, "I disagree with homosexuality and SSM because of the tenets of my religion." Nothing wrong with this. I also have no problem with someone voting against SSM for this reason. It's their belief system. My problem always is when they use this belief as a starting off point to PROVE why homosexuality is wrong and/or why SSM should not be legal. These are more global issues and require logic. Faith and logic are two very different animals. As long as you keep them completely separate, there is no issue with using faith to believe in anything. Doesn't mean that faith can be used to demonstrate the logic of something being universal.
 
Because you all continue to bash Christians. Whats good for the goose and all that. A bigot is a bigot no matter how progressive or conservative.

Then limit your "tit-for-tat" silliness to those who are actually bashing Christians.
 
And yet. it still is not. So either you are assuming it is background noise, or you are sadly mistaken. Looking at the Federal laws and the fact a majority of states have amended their constitutions, I would say you need to maybe turn up the volume?

No, she is absolutely correct. I have been debating this issue at DP, consistenly, for 5 YEARS. From a logical perspective, I have never seen an anti- position that I could not counter and demolish. NEVER. There is none. There are only two reasons that folks are against SSM, either for religious reasons or out of ignorance. Neither have any logic behind them. I respect the former only because if someone believes something is wrong because of their religion, that is their right and belief system. The latter I have no respect for.
 
If God exists, would it not be logical to obey his commands? Well he exist for many and it is completely logical whether you want to believe or not.

Depends on how one interprets his commands. I happen to be one of the most religious posters at DP. Yet I interpret God very differently than others.
 
Back
Top Bottom