• 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
mac said:
In reality though, all that was enforced was white/black marriages. Also, being attracted to someone of the same gender is not the same thing as being attracted to someone of a different race. Primarily because "race" doesn't legitimately exist. We are genetically human...there is no sub-species.
Click to expand...

This is precisely why SSM should be allowed :)
 
mac said:
In reality though, all that was enforced was white/black marriages. Also, being attracted to someone of the same gender is not the same thing as being attracted to someone of a different race. Primarily because "race" doesn't legitimately exist. We are genetically human...there is no sub-species.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, specific characteristics of a person make them attractive to another person, whether it is skin color, hair color, hair length, facial hair, personality, height, weight, sex/gender, etc. It makes no difference what causes that attraction, whether it is inborn or a choice, because you still haven't given a legitimate reason for why they should be denied marriage based on gender. The only thing that makes two people of the same gender different than two people of the opposite gender is that we know that the two people of the same gender cannot have children together but we still don't know if the two people of the opposite gender can have children together, nor do we know if they want to have children together, nor are any states' marriage laws based on a couple's ability and/or desire to procreate, so that cannot even be considered a factor in denying a person equal access to a marriage license.
 
StillBallin75 said:
In fairness, I don't think that mac meant "sub-human" when he said "subspecies"
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. Though I'm not sure if different races could be classified as being a sub-species.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Yeah, I agree. Though I'm not sure if different races could be classified as being a sub-species.
Click to expand...

They can't. The genetic and biological differences between the different races doesn't even come close to being enough to classify them as separate subspecies. A better example would be Neanderthal.
 
StillBallin75 said:
They can't. The genetic and biological differences between the different races doesn't even come close to being enough to classify them as separate subspecies. A better example would be Neanderthal.
Click to expand...

Yup. Excellent point.
 
I've been peeking back and fourth at this thread and made some earlier posts and now Im gonna through in some more in.

I identify myself Christian
I have admitted that I'm not exactly "gay friendly" but I'm working on it, I dot know why I'm that way but just am but I'm getting better because it is NOT right. My brother has some gay friends mostly girls and some guys and I interact with them and well, there no different in reality I just got to get over my issues.

But if you look at my post history I am totally fine with gay rights because in America that's whats right and that's whats fair and its none of my business. I could never be so selfish and ignorant to do anything to stop it outside of my own doors.

Your beliefs are YOURS, my beliefs are MINE and in America we leave it at that.

I also still find it funny that a person was so desperate to defend his own stance that he claimed the the majority of christian males would bang anything, desperation like that is hilarious.
 
StillBallin75 said:
In fairness, I don't think that mac meant "sub-human" when he said "subspecies"
Click to expand...

True, but neither are the different genders in "subspecies" nor are people of differing sexualities in "subspecies".

I will agree that there are inherent differences in men and women, more probably than between a man of one race and a man of a different race, but that doesn't mean the differences are so vast that there being attracted to people of a certain race is much different than being attracted to people of a certain gender. Especially when there is no way a person can know beyond a shadow of a doubt with an initial attraction that the other person will be able to procreate with them.

(And I know your position on this, just trying to add to what I posted and your response seemed a good way to do it without having to edit my last post.)
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Yeah, I agree. Though I'm not sure if different races could be classified as being a sub-species.
Click to expand...

StillBallin75 said:
They can't. The genetic and biological differences between the different races doesn't even come close to being enough to classify them as separate subspecies. A better example would be Neanderthal.
Click to expand...


SB75 beat me to it. Concur, 100%.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
True, but neither are the different genders in "subspecies" nor are people of differing sexualities in "subspecies".

I will agree that there are inherent differences in men and women, more probably than between a man of one race and a man of a different race, but that doesn't mean the differences are so vast that there being attracted to people of a certain race is much different than being attracted to people of a certain gender. Especially when there is no way a person can know beyond a shadow of a doubt with an initial attraction that the other person will be able to procreate with them.

(And I know your position on this, just trying to add to what I posted and your response seemed a good way to do it without having to edit my last post.)
Click to expand...

Personally, I think the interracial marriage comparison is useful up to a point - the point being that marriage, and social norms in general, are constantly evolving.
 
How about those gay Texas cowboys on all of the states ranches? Wonder how they might be playing a role in the moral destruction of the great state of Texas? One good thing is all of these gay cowboys weren't influenced by the live stock that they tend everyday to convert from being gay to bestiality.

Gotta watch for those thing. Ya know how easy it is for one sexual orientation to co-op unsuspecting members of another orientation to convert.

Just saying... No other explanation for it.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Personally, I think the interracial marriage comparison is useful up to a point - the point being that marriage, and social norms in general, are constantly evolving.
Click to expand...

That I agree with...if American society decides that is wishes to allow SSM, then it will regardless of any currently existing barrier.
 
mac said:
That I agree with...if American society decides that is wishes to allow SSM, then it will regardless of any currently existing barrier.
Click to expand...

It wasn't society that decided interracial marriage was okay though, it was the SCOTUS. And it will probably be the SCOTUS that strikes down SSM bans as well.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Personally, I think the interracial marriage comparison is useful up to a point - the point being that marriage, and social norms in general, are constantly evolving.
Click to expand...

mac said:
That I agree with...if American society decides that is wishes to allow SSM, then it will regardless of any currently existing barrier.
Click to expand...

True. This is how society tends to operate. Once enough people agree that an issue needs to be changed, it does. Society is constantly evolving... we do not have the same social norms we had 1000 years ago... or even 100 years ago.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Personally, I think the interracial marriage comparison is useful up to a point - the point being that marriage, and social norms in general, are constantly evolving.
Click to expand...

True. And sometimes I go too far with it.

I just can't see how people don't see that the arguments are the same and the only thing that is different about the relationships involved is the ability to procreate, which would be valid if we required procreation (ability and desire) of those opposite sex couples who wanted to get married.
 
roguenuke said:
It wasn't society that decided interracial marriage was okay though, it was the SCOTUS. And it will probably be the SCOTUS that strikes down SSM bans as well.
Click to expand...

Rogue, I think this is a very interesting discussion. I took a Law and Society class this past semester that discussed whether the legal institutions are an agent of social control, or of social change.

I agree that on many social issues in the past few decades, SCOTUS has generally been ahead of the curve compared to the general public (for instance integration/desegregation, abortion, etc.)

If it weren't for groups of vocal citizens and their supporters, such cases would never even reach the courts in the first place. I agree that some changes don't happen until society permits them to. However, changes that do happen without the support of the majority must at least have enough support to have a certain degree of impetus behind them.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
Rogue, I think this is a very interesting discussion. I took a Law and Society class this past semester that discussed whether the legal institutions are an agent of social control, or of social change.

I agree that on many social issues in the past few decades, SCOTUS has generally been ahead of the curve compared to the general public (for instance integration/desegregation, abortion, etc.)

However, if it weren't for groups of vocal citizens and their supporters, such cases would never even reach the courts in the first place. I agree that some changes don't happen until society permits them to. However, changes that do happen must have enough support to have some degree of impetus behind them.
Click to expand...

I can see that.

And I also believe that despite the clear violation of Equal Protection that SSM bans and DOMA are, that it wasn't likely to make it in the SCOTUS even a decade ago, despite having more support behind it then than interracial marriage had when it was repealed. Even now, it is very likely that a decision by the SCOTUS to strike down SSM bans and/or DOMA on the basis of Equal Protection is not going to be unanimous (unfortunately) and there is even the slight possibility that it won't happen with the first case or two to reach the SCOTUS. I just think that it is more likely to be done by the SCOTUS than our Congress, and especially more likely than trying to change each state's laws/constitutions one at a time, even with support for SSM being over 50% and growing.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Personally, I think the interracial marriage comparison is useful up to a point - the point being that marriage, and social norms in general, are constantly evolving.
Click to expand...

I agree but for people that aren't aware when it was first passed in California and then Nation wide it was NOT the norm or did the majority of people polled support it.

Our elected officials were smart enough at the time to be ahead of the curve and actually look at the laws, freedoms and rights and decided to make the RIGHT choice which is what I believe will happen with Gay rights. It wont be long in my opinion.

Cant remember the numbers so don't hold me to them but when Cali passed it I think 80+% didnt want it, when the nation passed it 70+% didn't want it and sadly until I believe sometimes in the late 90s, yes the 90s was the first time ever the majority of people approved of interracial marriage.
 
O_Guru said:
I agree but for people that aren't aware when it was first passed in California and then Nation wide it was NOT the norm or did the majority of people polled support it.

Our elected officials were smart enough at the time to be ahead of the curve and actually look at the laws, freedoms and rights and decided to make the RIGHT choice which is what I believe will happen with Gay rights. It wont be long in my opinion.

Cant remember the numbers so don't hold me to them but when Cali passed it I think 80+% didnt want it, when the nation passed it 70+% didn't want it and sadly until I believe sometimes in the late 90s, yes the 90s was the first time ever the majority of people approved of interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

I found it in another thread, sorry I was wrong about the LATE 90s it was 91

"in 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry.

and then not until 1967(19 years later), about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court was legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S.

and then not until 1991 (24 years later), those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time"


I doubt it will take this long from now, excuse me for not knowing but when was the fist legal gay marriage, though anyone know?

Anyway like I said hopefull our government moves forward and does the right thing again, thats what AMerica does, slowly but surely we will be equal, we right our wrongs and remove discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom