• 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
RamFel said:
Maybe your right. Maybe two guys (or two girls), having unnatural gay sex, gives them lots more respectability. Yeah, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

First, homosexuality is not unnatural. Second, respectability has nothing to do with who a person falls in love with, and everything to do with whether they are law-abiding or indulge in criminal behavior, whether they are kind and courteous to other people or are bigoted, judgmental and cruel, whether they are upstanding citizens that care deeply for their family and friends, giving back to their community, or whether they are hateful toward those who are not like them and treat those people who are different with rudeness and disrespect.

Please consider looking up the definition of respectability. You may find it enlightening.
 
Your Star said:
Why are we so damn special that normal words can't apply to us? :lamo
Click to expand...

The definition is too broad, and not specific enough. Since you can't use gay sex to make a baby, that means gay sex is unnatural.
 
RamFel said:
The definition is too broad, and not specific enough. Since you can't use gay sex to make a baby, that means gay sex is unnatural.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It really doesn't mean anything one way or the other.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Let's not. Humans are exceptional and capable of unnatural acts...like homosexual intercourse.
Click to expand...

Shall we REALLY ask you to define natural/unnatural? No... I don't think so.
 
i'm seriously at the end of my rope, honestly, who gives a **** if it's unnatural?

I'm more interested in people's take on why homosexuality is wrong.
 
StillBallin75 said:
i'm seriously at the end of my rope, honestly, who gives a **** if it's unnatural?

I'm more interested in people's take on why homosexuality is wrong.
Click to expand...


Sweet and Low is un natural comes in a pink package and should be banned!

It has made sugar less pure, less traditional!

Join me on this moral and just crusade my fellow citizens!
 
Last edited:
mac said:
I'm not in the least bit interested in whatever dictionary version you are using. Humans are capable of unnatural acts, like homosexual intercourse.
Click to expand...

Watch this. Humans are capable of unnatural acts. Homosexual intercourse is not one of them. You have presented no proof that you are correct. Nor have I. So, the only way to resove this is to define unnatural. Well, we already have the definition of natural... so... once AGAIN, you lose on this definition business.

Give this up, mac. You are never going to prove that homosexuality or homosexual intercourse, or whatever you want to call it is unnatural. The definitions don't support you, context doesn't support you, nothing supports you. You're a decent poster, but this line ALWAYS makes you look bad.
 
mac said:
Not everything that humans do is natural. Like homosexual sex, dictionary definitions of natural dont change that. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Not everything that humans do is natural. Homoesexual sex does not fall in the unnatural category, though. Dictionary definitions of natural define what is and isn't natural. Thanks for playing.

So, let's see how you have progressed. First, you don't accept the dictionary definition because it proves you wrong. Then you make up a definition because anything legitimate proves you wrong. Now you just disregard definitions entirely... because definitions prove you wrong. Sounds to me that you are so wedded to your view, you refuse to accept facts and legitimate information. Shame.
 
And I'm surprised these two recent polls about homosexuality haven't been messed with. Did you have anything to do with that CC ;)
 
mac said:
It doesnt matter. The appeal to nature doesn't work, end of story.
Click to expand...

We have already established that you do not know what the appeal to nature fallacy is. THIS is not it. The appeal to nature logical fallacy applies morality (good vs. bad) to something that occurs or doesn't occur in nature. Good/bad is not being discussed here. A DEFINITION IS.

So, not only are you failing in using faulty definitions to present your position, but you are erroneously using a logical fallacy to present your position. Good job.
 
theplaydrive said:
I can agree with that, but I would still like mac to tell me where I can find a reliable definition of natural since it isn't in dictionary. It's too bad he's ignoring my easy questions.
Click to expand...

He's not going to. To it would mean that he would have to admit that he is either wrong or that natural/unnatural has nothing to do with the issue. He is too wedded to the anti-gay position to do this.
 
RamFel said:
The definition is too broad, and not specific enough. Since you can't use gay sex to make a baby, that means gay sex is unnatural.
Click to expand...

You have been asked to define the term WITH LINKS FOR EVIDENCE. You refuse. You are another one that knows that he is wrong and has nothing, but refuses to admit that fact.
 
Your Star said:
And I'm surprised these two recent polls about homosexuality haven't been messed with. Did you have anything to do with that CC ;)
Click to expand...

I know who's been messing with them. Figured it out last time with a little "trap".
 
StillBallin75 said:
i'm seriously at the end of my rope, honestly, who gives a **** if it's unnatural?

I'm more interested in people's take on why homosexuality is wrong.
Click to expand...

This is what they are implying... because they falsely claim it's unnatural. THAT is an appeal to nature logical fallacy. See, with or without the definition, THEY LOSE. :lol:
 
RamFel said:
Yes. It does. It means gay sex is unnatural.
Click to expand...

OK, I will play: and if gay sex is unnatural, what does that mean? Why does it matter? What argument in favor of SSM does gay sex being unnatural undermine?
 
Redress said:
It's easy to prove it is natural: gay sex occurs in nature.
Click to expand...

mac said:
That doesn't prove that human homosexual sex is natural.
Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:
Human beings are a part of nature. Therefore, all human sex occurs in nature. It's natural according to the definition RamFel provided.
Click to expand...

mac said:
So? Animals having sex has no bearing on human homosexuality.
Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:
No one is talking about (other) animals. We're talking about humans. Re-read what I said. Human beings occur in nature. This means that HUMAN homosexual sex is natural according to the definition provided.
Click to expand...

Your Star said:
Humans have gay sex in nature :lol:

Too easy.
Click to expand...

mac said:
So, of course humans can only perform natural acts by your reasoning?
Click to expand...

Redress said:
Humans are animals.
Click to expand...

Your Star said:
Homosexual sex fits the definition of natural, while brain surgery doesn't. One happens without technological interference, and one doesn't.
Click to expand...

mac said:
Who cares? Do you deny that humans are capable of unnatural acts?
Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:
We have already established that you do not know what the appeal to nature fallacy is. THIS is not it. The appeal to nature logical fallacy applies morality (good vs. bad) to something that occurs or doesn't occur in nature. Good/bad is not being discussed here. A DEFINITION IS.

So, not only are you failing in using faulty definitions to present your position, but you are erroneously using a logical fallacy to present your position. Good job.
Click to expand...

What we have here are several people claiming that homosexual sex is natural, at least in part, because humans are natural, they're animals and they can perform it without technological assistance. Is that not what you gather from the above quotes?
 
Last edited:
RamFel said:
The definition is too broad, and not specific enough. Since you can't use gay sex to make a baby, that means gay sex is unnatural.
Click to expand...

Now you're just repeating yourself. Since you bring nothing new to the discussion, and what you bring is already discounted, I bid you good day.

I SAID GOOD DAY!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom