• 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
My point was animal behavior is not a good example for human behavior.
said blackdog

Speaking of which... there is doggy style, lotus, the cat, deer, elephant, turtle, monkey to name a few crosses of animal and human behavior named after the animal... Just saying.
 
Only because there were no video cameras back then :prof

True... but he does knew everything. If it were a stipulation, I can't think of any reason the one being that knows all that will be and all that was why that perfect being, God, would not have had the foresight to have put those rules in place. Being perfect and all, and the bible is perfect, so clearly as long as there is a video camera someplace around and/or there's some girl on girl, it's got to be a non sining event.
 
True... but he does knew everything. If it were a stipulation, I can't think of any reason the one being that knows all that will be and all that was why that perfect being, God, would not have had the foresight to have put those rules in place. Being perfect and all, and the bible is perfect, so clearly as long as there is a video camera someplace around and/or there's some girl on girl, it's got to be a non sining event.

God didn't write the Bible, humans did :prof
 
Now you're just making stuff up... The bible is the word of God, it says so!

Alot of books make that claim. The fact is humans wrote the Bible. I'm a Christian, I believe it is divinely inspired, but I don't think it's perfect, because well it was wrote by humans, and we screw up everything.
 
The good lord said, a man may not lay with another man.

He did not say a woman may not lay with another woman... and a man... and record it for our watching pleasure.

Yes he did, it's called "adultery" or "fornication."
 
said blackdog

Speaking of which... there is doggy style, lotus, the cat, deer, elephant, turtle, monkey to name a few crosses of animal and human behavior named after the animal... Just saying.

Well just keep sayin, lol.
 
Alot of books make that claim. The fact is humans wrote the Bible. I'm a Christian, I believe it is divinely inspired, but I don't think it's perfect, because well it was wrote by humans, and we screw up everything.

So how do you know what is or is not correct? Or do you just do what you want and only accept what seems OK with you no matter what it says?
 
So how do you know what is or is not correct? Or do you just do what you want and only accept what seems OK with you no matter what it says?

Faith :)

....
 
Again...it goes back to precedent. If proven to be genetic...given civil rights laws, there'd be no legal opposition to ssm.

Civil rights laws are what was used to determine that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional, yet according to what you are saying, all attractions could be choices, so then the choice to be attracted to people who are not of a certain race was given equal access to civil rights.

Unless you are saying that it was based on the race of those involved, which would mean that you would have to use the same reasoning with same sex marriage, and base civil rights on the sex of those involved. Sex, like race, is not a choice.
 
Faith :)

....

So in other words if I have faith that stealing is OK even though the Bible says no, it's OK because I have faith! I get it now.
 
Then explain how "a man shall not lie with a man" can be twisted? The laws are very clear.

OT out New Covenant in. You seem to forget that quite easily.

Exactly. He defined what it was and what it is supposed to be.

He defined what it was in that era, not what it is today. He was also speaking about divorce, he was not asked to define marriage for all time.

So now you speak for God?

Yes. Every man is the arbiter of right and wrong. If you read the Bible you should know Jesus put God's law in the heart and mind of all his followers.

The statements in the Bible say different.

You mean how you interpret the Bible.
 
Civil rights laws are what was used to determine that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional, yet according to what you are saying, all attractions could be choices, so then the choice to be attracted to people who are not of a certain race was given equal access to civil rights.

Race is not sexual choice. Until someone proves it is something you are born with, it's not the same thing. Homosexuality so far seems to be a combination of internal and external factors. Race is completely out of one's control. So no, not the same.

Unless you are saying that it was based on the race of those involved, which would mean that you would have to use the same reasoning with same sex marriage, and base civil rights on the sex of those involved. Sex, like race, is not a choice.

It has not been proved that sex is not a choice. I don't believe in some cases it is a choice, but in others I do think it is absolutely a choice.
 
Civil rights laws are what was used to determine that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional, yet according to what you are saying, all attractions could be choices, so then the choice to be attracted to people who are not of a certain race was given equal access to civil rights.

Unless you are saying that it was based on the race of those involved, which would mean that you would have to use the same reasoning with same sex marriage, and base civil rights on the sex of those involved. Sex, like race, is not a choice.

Well, first...what I am saying is that if it were deemed genetic (beyond control) than the American legal system would not be able to stand in the way of it. Second, comparing it to interracial marriage is not the same thing as same gender marriage. Primarily for the reason that the only interracial marriage that was ever banned was between whites and blacks in America...not between those of any race, everywhere. Apples and oranges.
 
Last edited:
Is homosexuality sinful or unnatural? Why?

Do you think it sinless and natural? Why?

Can you prove your claim?

You'd better believe it! The only reason some don't believe it is because they've sold out. They used to believe, but because of their political leanings, their newfound "enlightenment". Is it unnatural? You don't need to be a genius to figure that one out!
 
OT out New Covenant in. You seem to forget that quite easily.

I have not forgotten anything but you certainly have no kind of comprehension. It was in reference to translation.

He defined what it was in that era, not what it is today. He was also speaking about divorce, he was not asked to define marriage for all time.

The Bible says Gods law is eternal. So no.

And he did define marriage for all time, his law is eternal.

You want to change it in favor of man's law which is not.

Yes. Every man is the arbiter of right and wrong. If you read the Bible you should know Jesus put God's law in the heart and mind of all his followers.

Absolutely and they wrote is down for us as well since Jesus is not around to teach anymore.

You mean how you interpret the Bible.

In this case the preponderance of the evidence says the interpretation is correct.
 
Well, first...what I am saying is that if it were deemed genetic (beyond control) than the American legal system would not be able to stand in the way of it. Second, comparing it to interracial marriage is not the same thing as same gender marriage. Primarily for the reason that the only interracial marriage that was ever banned was between whites and blacks in America...not between those of any race, everywhere. Apples and oranges.

First, both types of attractions would be a choice or not. They are both types of attractions.

Second, you are wrong. There were states that banned marriages between whites and other races besides just blacks and there were even some that limited marriage to within each race only.

The Race Against Race | The New Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

It all depended on what state anti-miscegenation law we are talking about.
 
So in other words if I have faith that stealing is OK even though the Bible says no, it's OK because I have faith! I get it now.

You obviously do not understand what I am saying.
 
It is not irrelevant when it has everything to do with the family and the states interest in it. Promiscuity is NOT something that brings a family together.

I agree. So, let's look at the divorce rate amongst heterosexuals. Since we know that, along with money, infidelity is the leading cause of divorce, we should disallow heterosexual marriage... since this kind of promiscuity does not support the state's interest in family.

No matter how you cut it, BD, this is another failure of an argument. You cannot prove absolute, you cannot prove causation, and what you state occurs with gays occurs with straights... in MUCH larger raw numbers.

You would like it to be irrelevant but the facts say different.

No, the facts demonstrate that it's irrelevant.

Why? Most are guilty, I am not above calling an ass an ass.

Most? Oh... I get it. It is OK for you to judge an entire group based on the behaviors of a few. There's a word for that...

If you don't like it, oh well.

And everytime you say something so inaccurate, I will point it out. You don't like it? Oh, well.

This has nothing to do with my comments about background noise as a response to her about it.

You mite want to read it again.

Then please re-explain what your "background noise" comment was referring.

How do you know you are one of the "Most religious" here? I mean did you do a survey? That is an awfully bold statement considering you have no idea what anyones level of religion, faith or belief is.

From reading what people write and how they write, and knowing my own level of religiousness. I might be wrong, but it's what I observe.

Your interpretation of God is irrelevant to anyone else's.

Just as is yours.

This however does not mean basic tenet's of the Bible that are very clear cannot be stated or made correct. If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on.

Firstly, I'm not Christian... I'm Jewish. Secondly, in my religion we will reassess religious laws and alter them based on societal changes. Also, the Leviticus passage that most people focus on has, in Judaism, been interpretted to refer to prostitution within the context of homosexuality, NOT homosexuality itself. Now, THAT is my religious tenet and how the Bible has been interpretted by thos of MY religion. What YOUR religion says about it is irrelevant to me, but don't say "clear bible tenets" to me, because YOUR clear tenets are incorrect in my religion... and we use the same bible.

If you are going to quote me, at least do it in context...

The remainder of what you said was irrelevant to your comment... all it was, was YOUR perception and belief which has zero to do with logic.

Faith can be logical. If for example I have witnessed things that have proving God's existence to me, it is no longer faith, but fact. This is very logical for me and many others. - Blackdog

So again faith can be logical. This is not saying faith IS logic as they are polar opposites. This does not mean that one cannot be grounded in the other as I said and showed an example.

Logic must stand up to objective testing to be anything other than relative. If you are saying that faith is logical to YOU based on your experiences, I can agree with you. If you are saying that faith, as a general description, is logical, I do not.

No one is doing this.

OK.

My statement was nothing of the sort. We were talking about logical reason for faith. Not proof of anything BY faith.

Again in context makes a world of difference.

You need to present it better than. Your opening statement was the problem. I understand what you are saying NOW, but remember, this is relative to the individual.
 
Race is not sexual choice. Until someone proves it is something you are born with, it's not the same thing. Homosexuality so far seems to be a combination of internal and external factors. Race is completely out of one's control. So no, not the same.

Which race of person to be attracted to is as much a sexual choice as which sex to be attracted to. A person's sex/gender is as much out of a person's control as a person's race is.

I never said race was a choice, I said that the attraction to a certain race or the tendency to be attracted to members of a certain race would be as much of choice as being attracted to members of a certain sex/gender or the tendency of being attracted to members of a certain sex/gender.

It has not been proved that sex is not a choice. I don't believe in some cases it is a choice, but in others I do think it is absolutely a choice.

Sex/gender is not a choice (unless you are talking about transgendered people and their changing their physical sexual parts to match with the sex/gender they feel they should be). Most homosexuals do not suffer from GID. They should not be forced to change their legal sex/gender to get legally married to someone they love/are attracted to, just as no one should be required to change/pretend to be a different race just to get legally married to someone they love/are attracted to.
 
So in other words if I have faith that stealing is OK even though the Bible says no, it's OK because I have faith! I get it now.

And you call yourself a christian. :p
 
First, both types of attractions would be a choice or not. They are both types of attractions.

Second, you are wrong. There were states that banned marriages between whites and other races besides just blacks and there were even some that limited marriage to within each race only.

The Race Against Race | The New Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

It all depended on what state anti-miscegenation law we are talking about.

In reality though, all that was enforced was white/black marriages. Also, being attracted to someone of the same gender is not the same thing as being attracted to someone of a different race. Primarily because "race" doesn't legitimately exist. We are genetically human...there is no sub-species.
 
In reality though, all that was enforced was white/black marriages. Also, being attracted to someone of the same gender is not the same thing as being attracted to someone of a different race. Primarily because "race" doesn't legitimately exist. We are genetically human...there is no sub-species.

LeBron James and Dwight Howard are next-generation human beings though.
 
Back
Top Bottom