• 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
As long as people are claiming it is....I'll argue it. :shrug:

There is no reasonable reason that homosexuality exists in humans. It's a fetish. That doesn't mean, in and of itself, anything though. We do plenty of unnatural things that are completely accepted.


CaptainCourtesy said:
So, does this mean that you will no longer be presenting the the natural/unnatural argument?
Click to expand...
 
mac said:
As long as people are claiming it is....I'll argue it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Which side do YOU think is the side that brings this up most often. It ain't MY side... it's YOURS.

There is no reasonable reason that homosexuality exists in humans. It's a fetish. That doesn't mean, in and of itself, anything though. We do plenty of unnatural things that are completely accepted.
Click to expand...

There you go again. Define unnatural.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Which side do YOU think is the side that brings this up most often. It ain't MY side... it's YOURS.
Click to expand...

It's my side...not me.


There you go again. Define unnatural.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence to suggest we developed homosexuality to serve any real purpose.
 
mac said:
Love? Define that.
Click to expand...

You can't, that's the point.

If you allow heterosexual marriage on the basis of love, why can't you allow homosexual marriage?

Nobody can define it, and nobody can tell another person whether they are in love or not.
 
TheGreatSandeno said:
You can't, that's the point.

If you allow heterosexual marriage on the basis of love, why can't you allow homosexual marriage?

Nobody can define it, and nobody can tell another person whether they are in love or not.
Click to expand...

And no-one has to care.
 
mac said:
There is no evidence to suggest we developed homosexuality to serve any real purpose.
Click to expand...

There's no evidence that heterosexuality serves a real purpose either. People could easily be born bisexual (not likely that we are born asexual, since most humans have some sex drive and without a sex drive at all, it would be hard to keep the species going).

What purpose is served by heterosexual sex that isn't for the sole purpose of reproduction? Why are other parts of the body sexual arousal points, including the prostate when going through the anus? Why do people who are born infertile feel any sexual arousal? Why do women still want sex after menopause?

Many of the answers that go with these questions could go for why sex other than intercourse, could serve a purpose or multiple purposes.

And homosexuality alone could serve the purpose of buffering population growth and/or providing a suitable parental substitute in the absence of biological parents. Either of these things would help a species. Slowing the rate of population growth would be helpful to ensure resources are not depleted at a rate that would kill off the entire species to the point of extinction before the resources can replenish themselves. There are other things in place, but homosexuality could reasonably be one of those buffers. (Nature would not take into account human efforts to control or limit homosexuality through use of authority. Neither would nature take into account human ability to artificially procreate, without sex.)

These are all just speculation, but so is your own belief that homosexuality serves no purpose in nature. I am showing you that it could. Plus, it is pure speculation to believe that humans were only "meant" to have sex for procreation. I don't believe that we would have the sex drives we have if this were true, especially since most individual women can only get pregnant for about a week out of each month, yet few women just want to have sex around ovulation time.
 
roguenuke said:
There's no evidence that heterosexuality serves a real purpose either.
Click to expand...

Dude, really?




Homosexuality doesn't exist in great enough numbers in our species to do anything at all....much less anything beneficial.
 
mac said:
Dude, really?

Homosexuality doesn't exist in great enough numbers in our species to do anything at all....much less anything beneficial.
Click to expand...

And I pointed out that you are talking about heterosexuality vs homosexuality, not sex that involves a penis and a vagina vs all other types of sex. There is a difference between sexual orientation and types of sex.

Everyone could be born bisexual, and just fall into one or the other category because of the way they are raised (I don't believe this, but it is possible and would fit into some of the arguments you have made concerning homosexuality). A person could, at birth, have the ability to be sexually attracted to either sex/gender.

And I provided you with two possibilities for why we could have homosexuality. Just because you choose to ignore them, does not make them any less valid. If you wish to discuss why they wouldn't apply, that would be better.
 
roguenuke said:
And I pointed out that you are talking about heterosexuality vs homosexuality, not sex that involves a penis and a vagina vs all other types of sex. There is a difference between sexual orientation and types of sex.

Everyone could be born bisexual, and just fall into one or the other category because of the way they are raised (I don't believe this, but it is possible and would fit into some of the arguments you have made concerning homosexuality). A person could, at birth, have the ability to be sexually attracted to either sex/gender.

And I provided you with two possibilities for why we could have homosexuality. Just because you choose to ignore them, does not make them any less valid. If you wish to discuss why they wouldn't apply, that would be better.
Click to expand...

:roll:


Again, homosexuality doesn't occur in great enough numbers to have any effect on the human species. No purpose.
 
mac said:
I don't think it's natural either, but to be honest...whether it is or isn't is not a deciding factor on whether or not we'll make it legal. Basically, the nature of homosexuality is a moot point. So when someone says "it's natural....bonobo's do it"....it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

woohoo! voice of sanity from mac in a homosexuality thread! we should throw a party! :mrgreen:
 
mac said:
:roll:


Again, homosexuality doesn't occur in great enough numbers to have any effect on the human species. No purpose.
Click to expand...

So if it has no effect, why do you care? What gives you the right to tell any other person, besides whatever children you may have, how to live their life?
 
Removable Mind said:
SB...that's the problem with all threads related to "homosexuality" or even abortion. Nobody has come forward with "any" viable reasons, which state what negative impacts or damages that homosexuality imposes on society as a whole.

The reason that they can't is simple. When all of the religious arguments are scraped away from any debate...the threads go completely flat.

And the real stickler is: They won't even say that their arguments are based on facts or opinions. There are rarely ever any postings that includes sources when claims or rebuttals are made.

ALL WE GET IS...their personal opinions, which are based on their personal belief systems, which is rarely, if ever, related to any scientific studies OR just everyday observable behaviors that are undeniable to society.

When we get opinions posted over and over, without any origin of facts used to voice opinions...it makes arguments...unarguable.

Many arguments like "Natural or Unnatural" derails important questions such as "How is homosexuality wrong? Even the word "unnatural" doesn't define "right or wrong". It simply means "Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom or deviating from a behavioral or social norm."

"Natural law theory" is a label that has been applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality.

So don't expect any concrete arguments in any forum related to this topic by those who can only voice personal opinions.

THANKS for once again asking your question above. It has been asked over and over...without any results.
Click to expand...

RM - I agree with some of what you've said. What I'm trying to get at is why, in terms of logic, why the issue of natural vs. unnatural is even relevant to gay rights and legislation. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter.
 
mac said:
There is no evidence to suggest we developed homosexuality to serve any real purpose.
Click to expand...
"Purpose" has nothing to do with the definition of natural. There is absolutely zero evidence that anything on Earth has purpose. The idea of "purpose" is a purely philosophical or religious one and it is not involved in any accepted definition of natural.

I also find it funny that you dodged CC's question yet again. Just define natural mac and while you're at it, tell us why dictionaries are unreliable sources for definitions.
 
theplaydrive said:
There is absolutely zero evidence that anything on Earth has purpose. The idea of "purpose" is a purely philosophical or religious one and it is not involved in any accepted definition of natural.
Click to expand...

What about ecologic function... without which a species goes extinct, moves or evolves.
 
ecofarm said:
What about ecologic function... without which a species goes extinct, moves or evolves.
Click to expand...
That does not suggest purpose, that merely suggests evolution and function. Purpose requires intent and intent is not apparent in nature.
 
ecofarm said:
What about ecologic function... without which a species goes extinct, moves or evolves.
Click to expand...

"Purpose" implies a goal. In order for an ecological function to represent a purpose, one who have to believe that there was some sort of intended goal that the function was supposed to achieve.

So the question becomes whose purpose?
 
StillBallin75 said:
Some people say the same about this little organ called the appendix.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The appendix had a purpose....and still does, we can just live without it. Tonsils too. Try again, homey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom