• 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
Deny, deny, deny...blame, blame, blame those, them, they, that. You can't even show any reasonable sources to back up your opinions...and that includes basic definitions.

By the way...LUST is indeed a behavior not a cause.

1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.

2.
a. An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
b. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.

Why don't you start making some of your arguments credible by posting some sources that you derive your opinions from?

You might as well be throwing scripture at us. You kill any prospect of engaging in sensible debate by constantly shifting the argument by using a self-concocted rebuttal.

We all see your arguments but we don't have a clue as to where you get the information to make them...or to dispute others.

Every argument turns into another Mac Show. You bombard every topic with nothing by your personal beliefs...without injecting any viable information that might corroborate your views or position.

lust - definition of lust by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

And it's also the main underlying cause of what the bible warns against irt homosexuality and why. :shrug:

Has a lot to do with events in Sodom, as well.....

Stop being so defensive. :peace
 
And it's also the main underlying cause of what the bible warns against irt homosexuality and why. :shrug:

Has a lot to do with events in Sodom, as well.....

Stop being so defensive. :peace

"Warnings" are not related to "Cause". I'm not being defensive at all. I'm asking to you post replies that are congruent and relative to the arguments.

Not all people subscribe to Bible explanations, Mac. Can't we stay in the realm of our current experiences?

The Bible "WHYs"...are simple: God said it was bad! Sorry, Mac, that just doesn't cut it. Life's a lot more complicated and demands much technical information to reach any solutions that we modern humans can use as tools to help us understand.

Bibical days are 2000 years ago, Mac...we have come along way in understanding more about EVERYTHING that exists...without any information contained in the Bible.
 
"Warnings" are not related to "Cause". I'm not being defensive at all. I'm asking to you post replies that are congruent and relative to the arguments.

Not all people subscribe to Bible explanations, Mac. Can't we stay in the realm of our current experiences?

The Bible "WHYs"...are simple: God said it was bad! Sorry, Mac, that just doesn't cut it. Life's a lot more complicated and demands much technical information to reach any solutions that we modern humans can use as tools to help us understand.

Bibical days are 2000 years ago, Mac...we have come along way in understanding more about EVERYTHING that exists...without any information contained in the Bible.

well, if we're talking about sin......religion seems like a good place to start. i dont think thats unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
well, if we're talking about sin......religion seems like a good place to start. i dont think thats unreasonable.

Okay, Mac... To me...the word sin is interchangeable with the word "shortcoming" all the way up to "crime." It's a very abstract word. It is because the word SIN, like MORALS, have different meanings to different people.

Even the mega-millions of Christians can't mutually agree on the meanings of many of the most provocative scriptures.

We are doomed to dark age thinking and social consequences if we can't deal with empirical issues and explanations. We aren't supernatural beings. We can't interpret supernatural parables, metaphors, or allegories.

I don't know where else to go with this argument.
 
I asked you a question which you have failed to answer, and have instead responded with another question.

Homosexuality occurs in nature. There are several theories as to why it exists, but nobody knows for sure. But the fact that it exists in nature, clearly makes it natural even if its purpose isn't clear.

Again you have yet to provide a rationale for your logical leap of "doesn't involve procreation" --> therefore unnatural.

Tell you what I'll do. I'll answer your question. In return, you answer my question, no matter how much you disagree with it.

Have we got a deal?
 
So did I.

Let's do it again.

Have we got a deal. Yes or no.

Unless you're scared.

Sure, we have a deal.

Just so you know, repeating your point is not answering the question.

My question is, how does the fact that something doesn't involve procreation make it unnatural? Simple as that.
 
Last edited:
Sure, we have a deal.

Just so you know, repeating your point is not answering the question.

My question is, how does the fact that something doesn't involve procreation make it unnatural? Simple as that.

OK. Remember your promise.

You have to admit that of all the purposes for sex (besides intimacy, closeness, love, and the fact that it’s a lot of fun), that the primary reason…the most important reason…of all the other reasons…is to make babies. Is that not true?

And since gay sex can never procreate, and thus can never fulfill sex’s primary purpose (and thus, nature’s), it is therefore unnatural.

Now, how is it that a sex act that cannot result in birth, not unnatural?
 
OK. Remember your promise.

Okay, you finally gave a straight answer.

You have to admit that of all the purposes for sex (besides intimacy, closeness, love, and the fact that it’s a lot of fun), that the primary reason…the most important reason…of all the other reasons…is to make babies. Is that not true?

The natural purpose of HETEROSEXUAL sexual intercourse is for procreation. That much we can agree upon.

And since gay sex can never procreate, and thus can never fulfill sex’s primary purpose (and thus, nature’s), it is therefore unnatural.

Flawed logic. A behavior doesn't need to fulfill any "purpose" in order for it to be natural. But even if I were to concede your point, homosexual behavior could very well fulfill other purposes.

A quick google search reveals a few examples, and I'm sure there are other theories as well.

The Purpose of Homosexuality

Same-sex relationships may play important role in evolution | Science | guardian.co.uk

Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

Now, how is it that a sex act that cannot result in birth, not unnatural?

As answered above.
 
Last edited:
OK. Remember your promise.

You have to admit that of all the purposes for sex (besides intimacy, closeness, love, and the fact that it’s a lot of fun), that the primary reason…the most important reason…of all the other reasons…is to make babies. Is that not true?

And since gay sex can never procreate, and thus can never fulfill sex’s primary purpose (and thus, nature’s), it is therefore unnatural.

Now, how is it that a sex act that cannot result in birth, not unnatural?

RAMFEL... Heterosexuals frequently engage in oral sex to completion. They engage in anal sex to completion. Neither of those will produce a baby.

What hermaphrodites and pseudohermaphrodites in humans? The estimated population runs about 1% of the population? These folks are often referred to as "Intersex(ed)" Intersex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Preservation of the species is instinctual, but humans have sex exponentially more for bonding and pleasure than for reproduction. YOU KNOW THAT as well as any human on the planet.

Gays also have the ability to engage in sex for bonding, love, closeness...just as heterosexuals. Its not all about sport f******.

Gays are too frequently the victims of character assassination solely over the word "homosexual". The better description would be described as "homo-relational", meaning that the attraction to another person extends way beyond that of engaging in sex.

The lack of gays NOT producing is "statistically insignificant". They don't impact the course of human existence. They would NEVER pose a threat to the degree that human extinction would occur.

You're playing a mind game that is a dead-end.

Do you have any corroborating information or evidence to back up your concerns?
 
Okay, Mac... To me...the word sin is interchangeable with the word "shortcoming" all the way up to "crime." It's a very abstract word. It is because the word SIN, like MORALS, have different meanings to different people.

Even the mega-millions of Christians can't mutually agree on the meanings of many of the most provocative scriptures.

We are doomed to dark age thinking and social consequences if we can't deal with empirical issues and explanations. We aren't supernatural beings. We can't interpret supernatural parables, metaphors, or allegories.

I don't know where else to go with this argument.

Welp....you are the first person I have ever spoken to that uses the word sin in a non-religious manner or context.
 
RAMFEL... Heterosexuals frequently engage in oral sex to completion. They engage in anal sex to completion. Neither of those will produce a baby.

What hermaphrodites and pseudohermaphrodites in humans? The estimated population runs about 1% of the population? These folks are often referred to as "Intersex(ed)" Intersex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Preservation of the species is instinctual, but humans have sex exponentially more for bonding and pleasure than for reproduction. YOU KNOW THAT as well as any human on the planet.

Gays also have the ability to engage in sex for bonding, love, closeness...just as heterosexuals. Its not all about sport f******.

Gays are too frequently the victims of character assassination solely over the word "homosexual". The better description would be described as "homo-relational", meaning that the attraction to another person extends way beyond that of engaging in sex.

The lack of gays NOT producing is "statistically insignificant". They don't impact the course of human existence. They would NEVER pose a threat to the degree that human extinction would occur.

You're playing a mind game that is a dead-end.

Do you have any corroborating information or evidence to back up your concerns?

LOL RM sport ****ing hahahaha that was funny as hell.
 
And it's also the main underlying cause of what the bible warns against irt homosexuality and why. :shrug:

Has a lot to do with events in Sodom, as well.....

Stop being so defensive. :peace

If you'd like, I can explain to you how the story of Sodom and Gommorah had nothing to do with folks of a homosexual orientation, per se. I will easily dispell that myth like I did with the myth of Leviticus.
 
If you'd like, I can explain to you how the story of Sodom and Gommorah had nothing to do with folks of a homosexual orientation, per se. I will easily dispell that myth like I did with the myth of Leviticus.

I'd be interested in your take on Leviticus...
 
If you'd like, I can explain to you how the story of Sodom and Gommorah had nothing to do with folks of a homosexual orientation, per se. I will easily dispell that myth like I did with the myth of Leviticus.

I'm all ears. :)
 
Please do. I've yet to see even one that was logical and factual.

I said one could, Kal'Stang. I'm not a scientist.

However I'm not naive enough to think any sort of credible argument could not, in fact, be made. Are you?

Even if one were credible enough for many, would you consider it?
 
Back
Top Bottom