• 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
roguenuke said:
I can see that.

And I also believe that despite the clear violation of Equal Protection that SSM bans and DOMA are, that it wasn't likely to make it in the SCOTUS even a decade ago, despite having more support behind it then than interracial marriage had when it was repealed. Even now, it is very likely that a decision by the SCOTUS to strike down SSM bans and/or DOMA on the basis of Equal Protection is not going to be unanimous (unfortunately) and there is even the slight possibility that it won't happen with the first case or two to reach the SCOTUS. I just think that it is more likely to be done by the SCOTUS than our Congress, and especially more likely than trying to change each state's laws/constitutions one at a time, even with support for SSM being over 50% and growing.
Click to expand...

While you say that there is more support for SSM than there was for banning anti-miscegenation laws, at the time of Loving v. Virginia there were only 16 states enforcing the laws. So, you're comparison is a little silly. Why would people be up in arms about laws that weren't being enforced anyway?
 
mac said:
While you say that there is more support for SSM than there was for banning anti-miscegenation laws, at the time of Loving v. Virginia there were only 16 states enforcing the laws. So, you're comparison is a little silly. Why would people be up in arms about laws that weren't being enforced anyway?
Click to expand...

Probably because 72% of the country wasnt for it.
 
mac said:
While you say that there is more support for SSM than there was for banning anti-miscegenation laws, at the time of Loving v. Virginia there were only 16 states enforcing the laws. So, you're comparison is a little silly. Why would people be up in arms about laws that weren't being enforced anyway?
Click to expand...

What part of those laws weren't they enforcing? Was it the part where they were allowing them to live together, where they were actually allowing them to have legal marriage even if the law said they couldn't, or were they recognizing legal marriages from other states when their laws said they couldn't? Obviously some were enforcing the laws, since a couple was arrested and forced to leave the state they were living in due to their marriage.

The difference now is that the couples don't have to worry about being arrested, so those against SSM figure that is some sort of compromise against not allowing them to have equal marriage rights. "Well, at least they aren't being arrested for living together as a married couple."

Plus, then, people didn't have access to TV and people telling them through commercials and billboard ads all the time how certain other people's relationships were going to affect their own relationships. They didn't care directly because they didn't see every case where a law might not have been being followed brought up (such as the "family" group that brought the case against the law in Wisconsin). But when asked directly if they were for interracial marriage or not, the majority of people said they weren't.

We are seeing the opposite happen now, where the majority (although small) of people when polled have been saying that they are for same sex marriage, yet support for anti-SSM bans are higher because those who don't care or don't consider it important to them vote less than those who are adamently against same sex marriage.
 
Homosexuals disgust me. Thank God for AIDS. At least there's one non PC disease that will help us rid the world of the disgusting and sickening perverts.
 
Yukon said:
Homosexuals disgust me. Thank God for AIDS. At least there's one non PC disease that will help us rid the world of the disgusting and sickening perverts.
Click to expand...

aids affects straight people too moron. It's too bad we don't have a cure for stupid.
 
StillBallin75 said:
aids affects straight people too moron. It's too bad we don't have a cure for stupid.
Click to expand...

I have a differing opinion and you resort to name-calling? Sad, but indeed, predictable.
 
Yukon said:
Homosexuals disgust me. Thank God for AIDS. At least there's one non PC disease that will help us rid the world of the disgusting and sickening perverts.
Click to expand...

If you're trying to piss people off and start a fight, it would probably help if you didn't make your trolling so obvious.
 
Yukon said:
I have a differing opinion and you resort to name-calling? Sad, but indeed, predictable.
Click to expand...

You're trolling, and you're a moronic troll. Try harder or gtfo.
 
SheWolf said:
You're trolling, and you're a moronic troll. Try again or gtfo.
Click to expand...

Your sad, pathetic, and pitiful attempt to inflame has failed. You, my child, are a politically correct clone - do, act, and speak as you're told to. No wonder your Patriot Act was renewed so easily.

I long for the 60's and 70's when people rebelled and refused to submit to the facist ZOG government in DC. Alas, freedom is gone.
 
Yukon said:
Your sad, pathetic, and pitiful attempt to inflame has failed. You, my child, are a politically correct clone - do, act, and speak as you're told to. No wonder your Patriot Act was renewed so easily.

I long for the 60's and 70's when people rebelled and refused to submit to the facist ZOG government in DC. Alas, freedom is gone.
Click to expand...


snoreeeeeeeeeeeeeee
 
Yukon said:
Your sad, pathetic, and pitiful attempt to inflame has failed. You, my child, are a politically correct clone - do, act, and speak as you're told to. No wonder your Patriot Act was renewed so easily.

I long for the 60's and 70's when people rebelled and refused to submit to the facist ZOG government in DC. Alas, freedom is gone.
Click to expand...

a lot of those rebellious people happened to be homos.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Infractions have been handed out, and more will be. Don't troll, and if some one does, just ignore it or better yet report it then ignore it.
 
Yukon said:
I have a differing opinion and you resort to name-calling? Sad, but indeed, predictable.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Your "differing opinion" is hate speech and has earned you an exit from DP.
 
Yukon,

That’s the wrong approach to take. It’s hateful. That’s not God’s way at all. Compassion and love.

Gays should be understood, not hated. Many of them have been misled into believing they’re normal. If you want to hate, hate the misinformation that many of them are being spoon-fed.
 
I'm smelling sweaty socks, aren't you? Any chance of checking IP addresses?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

This was not the case even 50 years ago. You are also trying to say the states interest in the majority is the same for a minority OF a minority. Less than 4% to 10% as compared to 50% of 90%. DO the math.

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't have to prove any absolute or causation as the "raw" numbers tell the story.

CaptainCourtesy said:
No, the facts demonstrate that it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think your argument is.

CaptainCourtesy said:
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...
Click to expand...

Most is not an entire group now is it? This does not change the fact that most applied to this thread is accurate. Do I need to list names?

Do we need to pull out a law dictionary to show the difference between "most" and "all?" We have a word for that as well. ;)

CaptainCourtesy said:
And everytime you say something so inaccurate, I will point it out. You don't like it? Oh, well.
Click to expand...

My statement was completely accurate.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Then please re-explain what your "background noise" comment was referring.
Click to expand...

Read my reply. I am not going to retype a post that you linked to. Just follow it back and don't jump to inaccurate conclusions.

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes you mite be wrong and yet you state it as fact?

CaptainCourtesy said:
Just as is yours.
Click to expand...

I was not interpreting God, I was stating what the Bible says, bluntly.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Firstly, I'm not Christian... I'm Jewish.
Click to expand...

I never said you were...

If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on.

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

In Leviticus 18:22, it is written: "And you shall not cohabit with a male as one cohabits with a woman; it is an abomination." I don't see any mention of prostitution?

And in Leviticus 20:13, it is written: "And if a man cohabits with a male as with a woman, both of them have done an abominable thing; they shall be put to death; their blood falls back upon them." Again no prostitution?

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK so you would rather misrepresent what I said to fit in better with your wrong reply, OK.

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

No I am not saying "faith" is logical.

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.

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

And you need to read what I said in context before jumping to conclusions. Hell ask for a clarification at least.
 
RamFel said:
Yukon,

That’s the wrong approach to take. It’s hateful. That’s not God’s way at all. Compassion and love.

Gays should be understood, not hated. Many of them have been misled into believing they’re normal. If you want to hate, hate the misinformation that many of them are being spoon-fed.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, this is not hate speech. It is just completely misinformed speech... which is what you do.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Fortunately, this is not hate speech. It is just completely misinformed speech... which is what you do.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not the one saying it's OK to be gay. Why don't you go after those "gay is OK" rumor spreaders?
 
RamFel said:
Hey, I'm not the one saying it's OK to be gay. Why don't you go after those "gay is OK" rumor spreaders?
Click to expand...

It is okay to be gay, it is not okay to hate.
 
Redress said:
Uh oh. I got a nice long list of people I hate. Guess I am a bad person.
Click to expand...

Hating is not bad. Bad is to use power to punish those who's views you do not agree with...
 
Wake said:
Is homosexuality sinful or unnatural? Why?

Do you think it sinless and natural? Why?

Can you prove your claim?
Click to expand...

I have to make the distinction between homosexuality and sodomy.

Scripture does not speak against homosexuality. Scripture speaks against sodomy. Homosexuality may or may not be benign, but it's at least not a very big deal.

Sodomy is classified as a 'sin against the body', much like gluttony. Sodomy carries an increased risk of contracting an STD, urinary tract infection and other problems.

I can dig up sources for these if you would like, but my basic point is that you aren't hurting God with this sin, you are hurting yourself, and it is the Christian opinion that you should generally avoid harming yourself.
 
Your Star said:
It is okay to be gay, it is not okay to hate.
Click to expand...

Well, you're half right. I don't hate gays, but I feel I need to set the record straight. It's a shame you guys get combative when someone states an opposing view.

Now God didn't create Adam and Eve, then think to himself 'hmmm, something's missing", then snap his fingers, "I know! Gays! I'll create gays!"

Then proclaim to the gays, "go forth and find other men, to couple with them", as if he were thinking "go forth, but don't multiply"!

Now, you know my view on why it's unnatural. The procreation argument. But let me put it another way. Let's look at it from another angle.

If homosexuality is natural, then no father should fear the possibility that their son will be gay. Yet fathers do!

When expectant couples talk about the baby that's coming, and talk about what they want (boy or girl), they don't say that they want a gay child. No, they want a normal healthy boy or girl. Are they guilty of hatred against gays?

And if, as you claim, being gay is natural and normal, then I should be able to tell some dude that I think he's gay without getting my lights punched out, right? I mean, it's natural, right?

So does that make the common person a hateful homophobe? No. They just don't really believe it's natural. They're just not really really believing!

I think you just want everybody to accept something that they can't. It goes against a deeply rooted belief that it's just wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom