• 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:
Ditto.
Click to expand...

There's a difference, mac. Your side brings it up as a degrading tactic. That will not go unanswered. When that kind of ignorance remains without confrontation, someone might actually believe it. Look at this thread, for example. The only people who will believe that homosexuality is unnatural are those who already believe it and who won't change their mind no matter what evidence is presented. Folks who didn't know... after reading this thread they can easily see how both the logic and the definition completely refute the unnaturality argument. They can also see the lack of logic behind the morality of the "natural" argument.

It's not your issue and it's not important to you, so I would think your best move would be to either stay out of it if it comes up, or to confront people on the irrelevance of the argument itself.

We been there, homey. you know my position.
Click to expand...

Sure. And as has been proven, your position is wrong.
 
theplaydrive said:
"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.
Click to expand...

I explained this awhile ago.

CriticalThought said:
Just so we are all clear. mac is using a definition of "natural" from Natural Moral Law which in turn is derived from Aristotelian Philosophy. Most people stopped using his definition of "natural" in the Medieval ages. The Catholic Church and other orthodox Christian sects have kept it alive. His definition of "natural" is a teleological construct. He believes that everything is designed to serve a purpose and if it does not serve that purpose then it is an "unnatural" act. This form of Aristotelian Philosophy was abandoned by most of the world hundreds of years ago since it was based entirely upon speculation and conjecture.

For example, anal sex is "unnatural" because it does not lead to procreation. The rectum is not a reproductive organ. By extension, masturbation and oral sex are equally as "unnatural" since they don't lead to procreation. The hand and the mouth are not reproductive organs. In vitro fertilisation, which is the process of fertilising an egg with a sperm outside the body is also considered a highly "unnatural" act.

Most people today use an empirical definition of "natural". Empiricism is the basis of science, and it holds that observation and measurement are the key to understanding the world. As such, the modern definition of "natural" is that which is observable and measurable. Homosexuality is "natural" by this definition because it can be observed occurring prevalently in the higher animal kingdom.

So nobody is speaking the same language as mac. He is using an ancient and outdated worldview.
Click to expand...

mac just likes his outdated definition.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
There's a difference, mac. Your side brings it up as a degrading tactic. That will not go unanswered. When that kind of ignorance remains without confrontation, someone might actually believe it. Look at this thread, for example. The only people who will believe that homosexuality is unnatural are those who already believe it and who won't change their mind no matter what evidence is presented. Folks who didn't know... after reading this thread they can easily see how both the logic and the definition completely refute the unnaturality argument. They can also see the lack of logic behind the morality of the "natural" argument.
Click to expand...

There's no logic behind either side. Like I said, as long as no-one is saying "it's perfectly natural" I'll hold my peace.

It's not your issue and it's not important to you, so I would think your best move would be to either stay out of it if it comes up, or to confront people on the irrelevance of the argument itself.
Click to expand...

I don't like folks misrepresenting the evidence. For example, homosexuality has not been proven to be genetic.

Sure. And as has been proven, your position is wrong.
Click to expand...

All that's been shown is that you disagree with it and that you care little for evolution. :)
 
Last edited:
mac said:
There's no logic behind either side. Like I said, as long as no-one is saying "it's perfectly natural" I'll hold my peace.
Click to expand...

And if your side doesn't come in and bring it up, you won't see me mention it.

I don't like folks misrepresenting the evidence. For example, homosexuality has not been proven to be genetic.
Click to expand...

Good. And I support you doing that. I usually point that out, too.

All that's been shown is that you disagree with it and that you care little for evolution. :)
Click to expand...

No, what's been shown is that homosexuality is natural based on the definitions and that evolution has zero to do with it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And if your side doesn't come in and bring it up, you won't see me mention it.
Click to expand...

Bring IT!

Good. And I support you doing that. I usually point that out, too.
Click to expand...

Usually...sometimes you slip up.

No, what's been shown is that homosexuality is natural based on the definitions and that evolution has zero to do with it.
Click to expand...

See, slippin. Homosexuality serves no purpose, no benefit to the species. It's not natural....and the definition of natural, from what ever dictionary you like, can be misrepresented to prove that a whole host of unnatural things....are natural.
 
mac said:
All that's been shown is that you disagree with it and that you care little for evolution. :)
Click to expand...

Classic mistake on my part. Out of curiosity I had to read your last few posts.

You don't even understand evolution. Your insistence on using the word "purpose" proves that you have no conception of evolution. You are a teleologist. Nothing more and nothing less. Evolution is a process and it has no purpose. Evolution is the adaptation of a species to their environment over several generations. Natural selection ensures that traits which help the species survive to reproduce within its environment will prosper whereas traits that do not help a species reproduce will disappear. As it so happens, sex in primates has evolved to serve a dual role. Not only does it lead to procreation it also acts as a social bonding agent that resolves conflict. You need proof? Just look at history. The most sexually repressed cultures are always the most violent and brutal. Homosexuality is a trait that increases the fitness of a tribe of primates by improving the tribe's social cohesiveness so that it can compete better than other tribes. That ability offsets the loss of offspring. This is a fact that is observable in those Bonobos that you like to ignore.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Well, good. Maybe you'll learn something.
Click to expand...

I have learned a lot from you. You have taught me that sexual repression rots the brain and corrodes a man's ability to use basic logic.
 
CriticalThought said:
I have learned a lot from you. You have taught me that sexual repression rots the brain and corrodes a man's ability to use basic logic.
Click to expand...

Well.............. I'm sure you'll get better.
 
mac said:
Bring IT!
Click to expand...

You know I will.

Usually...sometimes you slip up.
Click to expand...

Ummm... no... I have my standard answer that I always use. Feel free to post where I have contradicted this.

See, slippin. Homosexuality serves no purpose, no benefit to the species. It's not natural....and the definition of natural, from what ever dictionary you like, can be misrepresented to prove that a whole host of unnatural things....are natural.
Click to expand...

Unless you can link to the designer's website and prove the purpose of things, you position above is nothing but your own opinion.

And you have completely failed to provide any definition of natural that supports your position... except the one you made up.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Unless you can link to the designer's website and prove the purpose of things, you position above is nothing but your own opinion.

And you have completely failed to provide any definition of natural that supports your position... except the one you made up.
Click to expand...

Can't. Lighting bolts..locusts....you'll have to take my word for it. Or show why it's "perfectly natural" despite having no benefit to the species.
 
mac said:
Can't. Lighting bolts..locusts....you'll have to take my word for it. Or show why it's "perfectly natural" despite having no benefit to the species.
Click to expand...

"Benefit to the species" is not part of ANY accepted definition of natural. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
 
mac said:
Can't. Lighting bolts..locusts....you'll have to take my word for it. Or show why it's "perfectly natural" despite having no benefit to the species.
Click to expand...

Sorry. There are no qualifiers like "beneficial" in defining natural. That's YOUR definition which you created... and has no validity.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Sorry. There are no qualifiers like "beneficial" in defining natural. That's YOUR definition which you created... and has no validity.
Click to expand...

I think it does, you can ignore if you like, but I think it's valid. If it's unimportant to the argument in general, why are you so hell bent on proving it natural?
 
mac said:
I think it does, you can ignore if you like, but I think it's valid. If it's unimportant to the argument in general, why are you so hell bent on proving it natural?
Click to expand...

You can "think" it does, but you have absolutely nothing credible to base it on. It's you reverse engineering a definition to fit your agenda.

And I am not trying to prove it's natural. I am correcting your error. I told you that's what I do with this issue.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You can "think" it does, but you have absolutely nothing credible to base it on. It's you reverse engineering a definition to fit your agenda.
Click to expand...

You can think it doesn't...makes no difference, you can't prove it's natural.

And I am not trying to prove it's natural. I am correcting your error. I told you that's what I do with this issue.
Click to expand...

And I yours.
 
RamFel said:
Well, since it IS unnatural, then SSM can't happen.
Click to expand...

Wow!

Damn, why is it I have to have a busy day when something like this is said. Seriously, could you break down this train of thought a little bit? Marriage itself is an artificial construct, so what does being unnatural have to do with it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom