• 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
No... I think he definitely meant educate.

Let's see how right handed people and left handed people stack up:

Left handed people have been proven to be better at sports and generally physical activities. We also tend to have higher IQs. We're more economically successful and tend to pursue visual careers to a higher degree of success.

So then why is it that there is such a low percentage of us left handed people on this planet? After all, it logically follows from your statement that less useful "deviations" would have been weeded out in favor of those who are better suited for survival. It stands clear that a left handed person is in social, physical and genetic ways MORE capable than right handed people. So why are we not the norm? When we are, as far as nature is concerned, more able?

I'll wait.

Left handed or right handed is based upon tendencies developed over growth. To my knowledge, (and I haven't really studied this) It is not impacted in any way by a persons genetics. Unless of course there is some deformity on the opposing side. It is a deviation that has it's uses and continues in the natural breeding cycle. However, as you have stated that left handed people seem more capable in a number of areas. Why are blue or green eyes not more common? the tend to have better night vision and acuity. But darker eyes seem to prevail. Some traits are stronger and more durable than others.

While a left handed person may seem more capable, that is compared to a background of right handed people. Why it played out is a number of possibilities.
 
Last edited:
You seem to have missed the part of "in the natural world" yes humans are clever and have found ways around it. It still does not diminish the fact that 2 humans of opposite gender were involved.

Procreation and sexual orientation are two different things. Homosexuals can procreate and often do. This is just ONE of the many things that your post presented as ignorant. Now, you already seem like someone who has decided to NOT listen to actual information and facts, but if I have the time, I will be happy to educate you by demonstrating how most, if not all of what you said in your original post is completely invalid.
 
Left handed or right handed is based upon tendencies developed over growth. To my knowledge, (and I haven't really studied this) It is not impacted in any way by a persons genetics. Unless of course there is some deformity on the opposing side.

Actually, there is plenty of evidence that handedness is biologically formed.
 
There is something sad about believing that the entire purpose for existence and for any action or deed is to procreate and anything else is simply a "useless deviation" worthy of hate and treated as comparable to asocial behaviors like theft. When people ask me why I could no longer support the Christian faith, this kind of thinking is on the top of the list.

The purpose of homosexuality, as appears evident by its existance in nature, is to provide a greater adult to child ratio for child rearing purposes and to increase social bonding within highly socialized animals. The fact that Paul gets to define what is natural rather than nature defining what is natural is another less than logical aspect of the Christian faith.

I stated that I dislike the activities, not that I unfairly condemn the person or treat them as less than a human being. I never said HATE, you are assuming far to much and expose your own bias.

Can you show me or suggest other useful deviations derived from homosexuality? I really would like to know. The one you pose is interesting, however is an assumption. Could it not be determined from the same evidence that it is possible that homosexuality is way for humanity to "naturally" control population? If this were true than the higher the population concentration the higher the homosexuality rate would be? Know of any studies?
 
Left handed or right handed is based upon tendencies developed over growth.

This is false:

Left-handedness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2007, researchers discovered that specific alleles of at least one of three single-nucleotide polymorphisms upstream of the already known LRRTM1 gene were linked to left-handedness.[3][4]

Would you like to start again? I'm left handed. You may want to brush up on your knowledge of us.
 
Procreation and sexual orientation are two different things. Homosexuals can procreate and often do. This is just ONE of the many things that your post presented as ignorant. Now, you already seem like someone who has decided to NOT listen to actual information and facts, but if I have the time, I will be happy to educate you by demonstrating how most, if not all of what you said in your original post is completely invalid.

I look forward to it, as I stated in my post. I have questions, and thoughts. If you can show me proof that I am wrong, then why would I not change my mind?

I do wish that people would quit assuming I'm some ignorant, rhetoric spitting neanderthal. I am a human being like everyone else on this forum (until proven otherwise) and I seek to improve upon what I know. Some of that may conflict with your view on things, but it is through honest discussion and debate that we come to a better understanding.
 
This is false:

Left-handedness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Would you like to start again? I'm left handed. You may want to brush up on your knowledge of us.

My knowledge of you seems to be that of a arrogant and pretentious bastard.

However, I was not aware of these studies. I will happily peruse them for they seem intriguing. Not everyone is aware of what you are, someone as educated as you should have learned this from studies of infants. When they start to realize that people around them don't think with the same mind.

Now, back to my original comments if we may. I am still waiting to hear where I am wrong or what is wrong with my thoughts.
 
Left handed or right handed is based upon tendencies developed over growth. To my knowledge, (and I haven't really studied this) It is not impacted in any way by a persons genetics. Unless of course there is some deformity on the opposing side. It is a deviation that has it's uses and continues in the natural breeding cycle. However, as you have stated that left handed people seem more capable in a number of areas. Why are blue or green eyes not more common? the tend to have better night vision and acuity. But darker eyes seem to prevail. Some traits are stronger and more durable than others.

While a left handed person may seem more capable, that is compared to a background of right handed people. Why it played out is a number of possibilities.

Yeah, straight up stormfront with at least GED.
Hope he responds.
 
Not everyone is aware of what you are, someone as educated as you should have learned this from studies of infants. When they start to realize that people around them don't think with the same mind.

Eugenic national socialist.
/Ignore.
 
Eugenic national socialist.
/Ignore.

those are 3 traits that people would never associate with me. And after reading many of your posts, I'm not worried about offending you.
 
I look forward to it, as I stated in my post. I have questions, and thoughts. If you can show me proof that I am wrong, then why would I not change my mind?

I do wish that people would quit assuming I'm some ignorant, rhetoric spitting neanderthal. I am a human being like everyone else on this forum (until proven otherwise) and I seek to improve upon what I know. Some of that may conflict with your view on things, but it is through honest discussion and debate that we come to a better understanding.

:sigh: OK, let's see if you are a man of your word. MOST folks who come here and post the stuff that you did, have no desire to alter their world view even when facts are presented to them.

Is homosexuality a sin? It is my belief based on my faith that it is. However, just as with the thief. I do not hate the individual. I will simply encourage them to make different choices. Dislike the actions, not the person.

That's fine. I have zero issue with someone's religious beliefs or morality around homosexuality. As long as they apply those beliefs to themselves only.

Is it unnatural? I would argue that it is.

And you would be wrong. It occurs in nature. Therefore it is natural. If you are looking to use the words "statistically uncommon" you would be correct, however using the word "unnatural" is incorrect and inflammatory.

I apologize in advance for the hatred or nasty comments this may inspire. But I wish to air these things to have a better understanding.

OK.

This is strongly based on the following evidence. The only way to produce off-spring in the natural world is for a human. To engage in intercourse with a member of the opposite sex. Therefore it would be logical to assume based on the compatibility of nature, that because two of the same gender will never produce off-spring. It is a useless deviation of the human species.

Procreation is irrelevant to sexual orientation. Many gay folks have children naturally. As long as the "equipment" works, there is no reason why they can't procreate if they choose to.

Now, based on this some people have gone to the point of ensuring these individuals do not reproduce. This i believe to be cruel and inhumane, these actions are unacceptable in civilized society.

OK.

However, since it can be proven that homosexuality is a non-viable continuation of the human species this question is worth asking:

Again, sexual orientation has zero to do with procreation. There are certainly homosexuals who want to procreate and do. AND, I don't think there are many homosexuals who want homosexual children. They probably just want HEALTHY children.

How much of the deviations in an individual can produce homosexual tendencies?
-Genetic Hormonal Imbalance (ie Born this way)

This indicates your bias that homosexuality is a "genetic disorder". This is unproven and, since both heterosexuality and homosexuality are, according to researchers, formed similarly, homosexuality is undoubtedly nothing but a deviation from the statistical norm. Like left-handedness, or being Jewish.

-Social Conditioning (ie It's ok to experiment)

Researchers also indicate that environment may have something to do with the formation of sexual orientation... homosexuality AND heterosexuality. You are separating the two which is incorrect.

-Sexual Confusion/Abuse (ie I can't trust a man/woman)

This is behavioral and has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There is an absolute difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation. A gay person may behave in a heterosexual way, and still be gay. The opposite is also true.

these 3 reasons I believe are strong factors in the significant increase in "homosexual population".

Your third reason has nothing to do with sexual orientation at all. You have offered no proof that the homosexual population has increased because of the first two... in fact you have shown no proof that the homosexual population has increased at all. Historically, gays have always encompassed between 4%-7% of the population. There has been no change in this statistic. Therefore, your entire premise is incorrect.

The final basis for increases in homosexual population is manipulation. The belief that various groups wish to use the "victimized" status of homosexuals to change laws and place themselves in power as a champion to the oppressed. I urge caution, I do not believe being gay diminishes the humanity of a person. However I do believe in this day and age in increases the chances manipulation.

Again, since your entire premise of an increase in the homosexual population is incorrect, this makes no sense.

There.
 
those are 3 traits that people would never associate with me. And after reading many of your posts, I'm not worried about offending you.
You're a lost one. Mind christ, and he will mind you. Stay there.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Alright, let's discuss the topic, not the individuals.
 
:sigh: OK, let's see if you are a man of your word. MOST folks who come here and post the stuff that you did, have no desire to alter their world view even when facts are presented to them.

Before I ask any further questions, I just want to say. Wow, and thank you.
 
:sigh: OK, let's see if you are a man of your word. MOST folks who come here and post the stuff that you did, have no desire to alter their world view even when facts are presented to them.

Again, since your entire premise of an increase in the homosexual population is incorrect, this makes no sense.

There.
"And you would be wrong. It occurs in nature. Therefore it is natural. If you are looking to use the words "statistically uncommon" you would be correct, however using the word "unnatural" is incorrect and inflammatory. "

Alright, I will definitely agree with you that it "homosexuality" occurs. I will also agree that "Natural" is at times to subjective a term. Statistically uncommon, certainly. The reason I ultimately agreed with the term unnatural, as was the original question is this post: I have had the opportunity in my life to have as friends and close friends many gay, bisexual and lesbian friends. All of them wonderful people, however. Through the time we've spent knowing each other, they have changed all to eventually become heterosexual. All of whom (over 40 of them) who have come to the conclusion that they were previously wrong. This as you can imagine heavily biases me, so I seek to understand those whom I don't know.

"Procreation is irrelevant to sexual orientation. Many gay folks have children naturally. As long as the "equipment" works, there is no reason why they can't procreate if they choose to."

Of this I have no doubt that they are capable, but my understanding as limited as it may be. Suggests that they are significantly less likely.

"This indicates your bias that homosexuality is a "genetic disorder". This is unproven and, since both heterosexuality and homosexuality are, according to researchers, formed similarly, homosexuality is undoubtedly nothing but a deviation from the statistical norm. Like left-handedness, or being Jewish."

I would say partially guilty on this one; as I stated before. I believe that some possibly many are due to a "disorder". However, I don't currently believe that this is due to genetic reasons. However as the other fellow pointed out apparently I am quite wrong on left-handedness, and I don't believe being Jewish is genetic.(no matter how much the parents may want it.)

"Researchers also indicate that environment may have something to do with the formation of sexual orientation... homosexuality AND heterosexuality. You are separating the two which is incorrect."

I think we can chalk this one up to agreement?

"This is behavioral and has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There is an absolute difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation. A gay person may behave in a heterosexual way, and still be gay. The opposite is also true."

not sure what to say on this, gotta think about it.

"Your third reason has nothing to do with sexual orientation at all. You have offered no proof that the homosexual population has increased because of the first two... in fact you have shown no proof that the homosexual population has increased at all. Historically, gays have always encompassed between 4%-7% of the population. There has been no change in this statistic. Therefore, your entire premise is incorrect."

You're absolutely right, I don't go door to door asking people deep and intimate questions. As I have stated above my current beliefs/ideas are based on what I have read/heard and witnessed. Also I merely present the possibility that some don't realize they are.... (there's no polite word and I'm not looking to further upset people) confused/misled? as for the 4-7% seems like that number keeps jumping up, probably just poor reporting of actual numbers.

Well this has been very informative for me. While I'm not a new convert it has given me a great deal to consider.

Thank you.
 
No, homosexuality is not really....a sin.

And based on the evidence of homosexual acts amoung lots of other animals, homosexuality isn't really "unnatural".

To sum it up, there is nothing really wrong..with being gay.

It may seem unusual & even distasteful to some, but its ok to be gay.
 
I just have to say that I'm disheartened that we're still having this debate in today's society.

*sigh*
 
yes, it is sad that for whatever reasons they have, some folks just can't leave people who are different...alone.

I think that's too broad, but I see your point.

Difference in and of itself is not justification for discrimination. When those differences become harmful to others or detrimental to society we must evaluate them. Homosexuality has never been proven to be harmful to others or detrimental to society in anyway that makes it worthy of discrimination or attack.
 
I just have to say that I'm disheartened that we're still having this debate in today's society.

*sigh*

I am somewhat heartened by the fact though that its good to see someone come in and at least listen to the opposite opinion of others when presented logically and civily and actually admit where the other person may be more correct.
 
I think that's too broad, but I see your point.

Difference in and of itself is not justification for discrimination. When those differences become harmful to others or detrimental to society we must evaluate them. Homosexuality has never been proven to be harmful to others or detrimental to society in anyway that makes it worthy of discrimination or attack.

homosexuality touches a raw nerve with some folks, for whatever reasons and due to whatever private demons they possess. Rather than insult, defame, and harrass homosexuals for touching that nerve, they should deal with their own issues, whatever they might be, and come to peace with themselves.
 
How can one prove something is a sin or not? Would that not mean you would have to prove the religion is right?

Religion seems to be on the path of being more wrong every day..
Whats even more wrong is people clinging so to the old (Bible, Constitution, superstitions, traditions....none of these are BLINDLY right)...Now I feel that homosexuality is 90% un-natural; NOT 100%.
Also, it was NEVER a "sin"...
 
Last edited:
Religion seems to be on the path of being more wrong every day..
Whats even more wrong is people clinging so to the old (Bible, Constitution, superstitions, traditions....none of these are BLINDLY right)...Now I feel that homosexuality is 90% un-natural; NOT 100%.
Also, it was NEVER a "sin"...

does religion make folks homophobic? I'm not sure about that.

those unfortunate souls who constantly rail against gays and their lifestyle, seem to be motivated by much more than just religious doctrine. IMHO, they are motivated more by personal demons & insecurities..and simply use religion as their excuse.
 
"Sin" is such a silly idea to be throwing around in this day and age. The idea that there is an objective code of moral conduct beyond simply not hurting other people... There are cultures in this world that are just as moral and legitimate as ours that do not follow our same rules. And many other such cultures have existed throughout history. According to the Jewish tradition from which Christian morals sprung, suicide is one of the ultimate evils. But in other cultures, suicide had a place in their moral code, and could be a good thing.

And to presume that such an objective moral code comes from the bible? Equally silly. The verse right before the one that condemns male homosexuality prohibits sacrificing one's children to another god. It doesn't prohibit the willful murder of children by their parents, only doing so to appease a different god. Or how about the fact that the penalty for rape is payment to a woman's father, and forcing the woman to marry her rapist. Yes, according to the bible that preaches against homosexuality, abducting and raping women for the purpose of marrying them against their will is fine, so long as you can pay for it.

"Sin" as we understand it, is a useless idea. We have plenty of morality in us without resorting to what is essentially just an appeal to authority. We understand when our actions cause harm. Morality is about not causing harm, and hopefully causing some joy, too. There is nothing harmful about preferring one kind of consensual sex over another.
 
Back
Top Bottom