• 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
There's plenty of evidence about pleasure responses and why they exist, and there is plenty of evidence for evolutionarily valid "purpose".

Care to share "evidence" for pleasure and evolution roles for human sexual behaviors?

Have't figured out how to link with the iPad...try googling psychotherapy and pleasure response....and maybe Robert depaolo.

Did you look it up? I can link now...

Psychotherapy and the Pleasure Response - Online Psychology Articles
 
Really? Purpose requires intent which means that there has to be someone or something behind nature that designed sexual intercourse to have a purpose. Unless you are that designer or you have a link to the designer's website, then you have no idea what the purpose of anything is. Actually, you don't even know if there is a purpose, so every absolute statement you've made in this thread is nonsensical, without defense and pure conjecture.

That would be God, wouldn't it?
 
That would be God, wouldn't it?

Only if you believe in God.

And then the question comes up for what you believe God's intent for something might be.

I, personally, believe that there is a God. However, I do not believe that the Bible is completely God's word. I believe that the Bible is fallible and therefore I look for answers for what a higher power might actually believe to be right or wrong from my own reasoning and observations. From what I have seen, it is quite possible that God might have provided homosexuals to act as a buffer to help balance the rate of increase within a population. It is also possible that God might have intended for homosexuals to provide alternative parents to those children who might be orphans, especially if most of the heterosexuals are raising their own children.

I have no idea why any God who wasn't cruel and/or petty would give people attractions to those of the same sex and then tell them they should not act upon those attractions, even if there is no harm in them.
 
I'd be interested in your take on Leviticus...

I'm all ears. :)

I posted this earlier in this particular thread:

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?

There are so many errors in the interpretation of these passages. One has to understand the section of the Torah that they were taken, what the context was, and the translations of the actual words. These passages cannot stand by themselves and mean what they were supposed to mean.

Here are the passages:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

The section of the Torah that this was taken from refers to codes of holiness and purity. It describes ways that God wants the Hebrews to be different from the Pagans. The passages that surround these two include passages about bestiality and incest, other unclean/unholy acts that were performed by Pagans. Now, we must first look at the word "abomination". This is taken from the Hebrew word "to'ebah". The actual translation of this is NOT abomination, but ritually unclean, something that fits perfectly with the codes of that section of the Bible. So, we now have it not an abomination, but just something that is ritually unclean.

Next, since this passage is included in the codes of holiness section, it refers to acts that Pagans do, that God wants the Hebrews to separate from. One of these acts is engaging in anal sex with male prostitutes. Now, even if we look at the issue, globally, Hebrew translations refer to anal sex acts; no mention of homosexual orientation or homosexual relationships are mentioned. At all.

Now, moving on to the actual words. Since Hebrews believed that the Torah was spoken directly to Moses from God, one must wonder why the passage reads like this:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." If God was saying something against homosexuality in men, He would have just said this: ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind: it is abomination." Why the "as womankind" part? Think about it. A man should not lie with another man as if HE were a woman. Sexuality in the Torah is always presented as male dominant/female subservient. Hebrew scholars see this as meaning that if men have sexual relations, NEITHER shall be passive ("as womankind"). Also, since this was a norm of the time, this does not apply to today, anyway.

So, what can we conclude from the actual Hebrew interpretations and the context of what was being discussed? Firstly, the entire section refers to holiness codes, separating the Hebrews from the Pagans. Secondly, the word "abomination" is not accurate; ritually unclean IS accurate. This eliminates any punishment. Thirdly, only anal sex, probably in the context of male prostitutes is prohibited; homosexual orientation has no mention and has no such prohibitions. Fourthly, IF homosexual behavior does occur, neither man can be the passive (woman) in the relationship. Fifthly, this only applies to ancient Hebrews. Sixthly, lesbian relationships are not mentioned at all and, therefore have no prohibitions.

Now, there is MORE evidence that the prostitution theory holds water. Leviticus 18:3 says this: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." God is saying that the Hebrews are NOT to behave like the Pagans (Canaanites and Egyptians). In both cultures, ritual gay sex with male prostitutes was common.

So, in conclusion, MY religion interprets these Biblical passages very differently than yours. MY religion sees nothing wrong with homosexuality based on the context of the passages, the cultures of the times, and the actual translations of the words. Based on these passages, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the gay sexual orientation, nor SSM.
 
Actually infanticide is natural also. Lions, rabbits, cats and many more animals in the natural world kill thier young.

Then cannibalism must be natural, as well.
 
Cannibalism is very rare, a product of the environment and results in significant diseases in most species.
 
Then cannibalism must be natural, as well.

In some species, yes. So is rape. These are some of the reasons that make the whole "unnatural" argument irrelevant in my opinion, when it comes to gay rights.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad, your vote indicates you would punish/persecute Christians.

...
 
I remember a bit of some attempted action regarding the men of the town and some visiting angels....

Yes, the angels that were in the town to determine if there was 5 people (besides Lot and his family) in the town who deserved to be saved, because that was deal that Saul(?) made with God to try to save the town from destruction. God had said before the angels went to the town that He planned to destroy it because they turned away from Him.

And the men of the town came to rape the angels, but considering it was a belief in some earlier cultures/religions that having sexual relations with powerful beings (i.e. angels) would bestow at least some of that beings powers unto the person, it is very likely that they were hungry for the power that the saw in the angels, rather than there just for the sex. And, remember, God was already planning on destroying the city prior to the angels arrival anyway. I'm also certain that God would have been pissed if the men were trying to rape female angels as well (although this part confuses me anyway since I always believed that angels were sexless).
 
I remember a bit of some attempted action regarding the men of the town and some visiting angels....

Maybe angels need to make an earth run again. Seems like story of Sodom and Gomorrah in comparison to today's social behaviors make that story like a Disney book.
 
Yes, the angels that were in the town to determine if there was 5 people (besides Lot and his family) in the town who deserved to be saved, because that was deal that Saul(?) made with God to try to save the town from destruction. God had said before the angels went to the town that He planned to destroy it because they turned away from Him.

And the men of the town came to rape the angels, but considering it was a belief in some earlier cultures/religions that having sexual relations with powerful beings (i.e. angels) would bestow at least some of that beings powers unto the person, it is very likely that they were hungry for the power that the saw in the angels, rather than there just for the sex. And, remember, God was already planning on destroying the city prior to the angels arrival anyway. I'm also certain that God would have been pissed if the men were trying to rape female angels as well (although this part confuses me anyway since I always believed that angels were sexless).

So, it was basically a biblical version of prison sex? :shock:
 
Yes, the angels that were in the town to determine if there was 5 people (besides Lot and his family) in the town who deserved to be saved, because that was deal that Saul(?) made with God to try to save the town from destruction. God had said before the angels went to the town that He planned to destroy it because they turned away from Him.

And the men of the town came to rape the angels, but considering it was a belief in some earlier cultures/religions that having sexual relations with powerful beings (i.e. angels) would bestow at least some of that beings powers unto the person, it is very likely that they were hungry for the power that the saw in the angels, rather than there just for the sex. And, remember, God was already planning on destroying the city prior to the angels arrival anyway. I'm also certain that God would have been pissed if the men were trying to rape female angels as well (although this part confuses me anyway since I always believed that angels were sexless).

Just curious...but being that God is all knowing, all powerful, the alpha, the omega. Maybe since he (she) knew what was going to happen, he wouldn't have allowed the place to be built in the first place.

Just sayin....
 
So, it was basically a biblical version of prison sex? :shock:

Interesting comparison, but it could sort of work. The reasoning is different though.

While a prisoner may get some perceived power from raping other inmates, while not being actually homosexual, the townsmen most likely believed that they could get actual powers (maybe flying, superstrength, I have no idea what powers the angels had) from having sex with the angels and they could care less what the sex of the angels were, since that shouldn't affect whether the townsmen would still have attempted the rape.

It's at least better than believing that God decided to destroy a whole town because of an attempted rape on His male angels that proved (not really) that the townsmen were gay. This belief suggests that God would have spared the town had the attempted rape been tried against female angels.
 
Just curious...but being that God is all knowing, all powerful, the alpha, the omega. Maybe since he (she) knew what was going to happen, he wouldn't have allowed the place to be built in the first place.

Just sayin....

I have no idea. I don't really believe God works that way. I believe that God is more of a hands-off deity that has better things to do than destroy towns that don't worship him. Who knows? Maybe it was really aliens that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and it was just blamed on God. Or it could have just been nature. I don't believe the version in the Bible anyway, but I will still correct illogical viewpoints based on what I have read in the Bible of the events that occurred.
 
Interesting comparison, but it could sort of work. The reasoning is different though.

While a prisoner may get some perceived power from raping other inmates, while not being actually homosexual, the townsmen most likely believed that they could get actual powers (maybe flying, superstrength, I have no idea what powers the angels had) from having sex with the angels and they could care less what the sex of the angels were, since that shouldn't affect whether the townsmen would still have attempted the rape.

It's at least better than believing that God decided to destroy a whole town because of an attempted rape on His male angels that proved (not really) that the townsmen were gay. This belief suggests that God would have spared the town had the attempted rape been tried against female angels.

Huhhhh, RogueNuke...mind bouncing back to my post #1372...and maybe give me your opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom