• 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
Okay, you finally gave a straight answer.



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



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



As answered above.

Flawed logic? You’re making me laugh. I think the only reason you’re saying that a behavior doesn’t need to fulfill a purpose to be natural is because you actually have no reliable answers. You don’t really know anything. Let me show you what I mean. Let’s take a look at some of the articles:

From “The Purpose of Homosexuality”:

In this article, the author, Toby Johnson doesn’t seem to be sure about anything. Here’s what I mean.

Homosexuality <u>seems to be</u> simply an inherent aspect of human nature.

Homosexuality is, at least, <u>a possible reproductive strategy</u> for controlling population.

Here’s another one:

That is, homosexual uncles and lesbian aunts <u>may have given offspring</u> in the tribe a richer experience and better education. Gay people <u>may exist</u> primarily to be teachers and guides.

All those “seems to be”…and “possible’s”…and “may have’s” and so on tells me that Toby Johnson doesn’t seem to be too sure about anything. Has he got any positive conclusions? Anything he’s sure about?

Now “Same-sex relationships may play important role in evolution”:

"Same-sex behaviors – courtship, mounting or parenting – are traits that <u>may have</u> been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations," Bailey said. "But our review of studies <u>also suggests</u> that these same-sex behaviors <u>might act</u> as selective forces in and of themselves."

These are smart researchers, I’m sure, but don’t you want to be sure you have all the facts, and not guesses? There may be more examples in this article, but I want to move on to the third article “Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality”.

I like this quote: “A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex.

That confirms to me that gay sex is unnatural, and that if gays wanted children, they had to mate with a partner of the opposite sex because, why? Because the purpose of sex is procreation. I see nothing in these articles that makes your point.

The funniest thing you said was this “The natural purpose of HETEROSEXUAL sexual intercourse is for procreation”.

I’m trying to stifle a laugh. You’re really too hilarious. That’s what happens when you don’t know what you’re talking about. Someone makes a good point, and instead of answering intelligently, you react, and this is what you get.

Sex really doesn’t have separate heterosexual and homosexual purposes. It only has one purpose. That’s why women and men have different genitalia. They’re made for each other. And the purpose for matching men and women together is so that they can make a child, if they want to. The very fact that they CAN make children, and gay men CANNOT make children (through homosexual sex) means that gay sex is UNNATURAL.
 
Sex really doesn’t have separate heterosexual and homosexual purposes. It only has one purpose. That’s why women and men have different genitalia. They’re made for each other. And the purpose for matching men and women together is so that they can make a child, if they want to. The very fact that they CAN make children, and gay men CANNOT make children (through homosexual sex) means that gay sex is UNNATURAL.
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.
 
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.

Not only that, but it also assumes that the person making such assumptions knows exactly what that they know that said "designer" only wanted sex to be about procreation and that any sex that is done outside the sole purpose of procreation is also unnatural, no matter who is engaged in the sex, two males, two females, a male and a female, just one person, or > 2 people.

That would indicate the vast majority of people are involved in unnatural sex (except for those very few people who honestly only have sex when they are trying to procreate, I have a great aunt who really does believe sex is solely for procreation but she also has never been married).

And it completely disregards the fact that personal relationships at the marriage level are generally not about the sex. Sex is involved in the vast majority of those, but it probably wouldn't be considered the foundation of the relationship.

Despite some beliefs, intimacy is not just about sex. For some couples, it doesn't involve sex at all.
 
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?

If it were credible enough to me then yes I would consider it. I don't care about the many as in this country when talking about rights we consider individual rights to be more important than majority's percieved rights.
 
Flawed logic? You’re making me laugh. I think the only reason you’re saying that a behavior doesn’t need to fulfill a purpose to be natural is because you actually have no reliable answers. You don’t really know anything. Let me show you what I mean. Let’s take a look at some of the articles:

RamFel, what is the purpose of being left handed vs right handed?
 
Flawed logic? You’re making me laugh. I think the only reason you’re saying that a behavior doesn’t need to fulfill a purpose to be natural is because you actually have no reliable answers. You don’t really know anything. Let me show you what I mean. Let’s take a look at some of the articles:

From “The Purpose of Homosexuality”:

In this article, the author, Toby Johnson doesn’t seem to be sure about anything. Here’s what I mean.

Homosexuality <u>seems to be</u> simply an inherent aspect of human nature.

Homosexuality is, at least, <u>a possible reproductive strategy</u> for controlling population.

Here’s another one:

That is, homosexual uncles and lesbian aunts <u>may have given offspring</u> in the tribe a richer experience and better education. Gay people <u>may exist</u> primarily to be teachers and guides.

All those “seems to be”…and “possible’s”…and “may have’s” and so on tells me that Toby Johnson doesn’t seem to be too sure about anything. Has he got any positive conclusions? Anything he’s sure about?

Now “Same-sex relationships may play important role in evolution”:

"Same-sex behaviors – courtship, mounting or parenting – are traits that <u>may have</u> been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations," Bailey said. "But our review of studies <u>also suggests</u> that these same-sex behaviors <u>might act</u> as selective forces in and of themselves."

These are smart researchers, I’m sure, but don’t you want to be sure you have all the facts, and not guesses? There may be more examples in this article, but I want to move on to the third article “Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality”.

I like this quote: “A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex.

That confirms to me that gay sex is unnatural, and that if gays wanted children, they had to mate with a partner of the opposite sex because, why? Because the purpose of sex is procreation. I see nothing in these articles that makes your point.

The funniest thing you said was this “The natural purpose of HETEROSEXUAL sexual intercourse is for procreation”.

I’m trying to stifle a laugh. You’re really too hilarious. That’s what happens when you don’t know what you’re talking about. Someone makes a good point, and instead of answering intelligently, you react, and this is what you get.

Sex really doesn’t have separate heterosexual and homosexual purposes. It only has one purpose. That’s why women and men have different genitalia. They’re made for each other. And the purpose for matching men and women together is so that they can make a child, if they want to. The very fact that they CAN make children, and gay men CANNOT make children (through homosexual sex) means that gay sex is UNNATURAL.

1) We don't know for sure what the purposes of homosexuality are, but all of the above are possible theories. I never said they were facts. They are potential explanations for why it exists. We don't know for sure what the purposes of homosexuality are, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The research just hasn't progressed to the point where we have facts instead of theories.

2) Where, in the definition of nature, does it say that something must have a purpose in order to be natural? And since you don't personally know "what nature intends" or "who the designer is," how can you be so sure that homosexuality serves no purpose? And how can you be so sure that the ONLY purpose of sex is procreation?

3) You've not provided a logically sound explanation for why sexual behavior is unnatural just because it doesn't involve procreation. Sorry. All of the assertions you've made above are even more conjectural than the articles I presented.
 
Last edited:
1) We don't know for sure what the purposes of homosexuality are, but all of the above are possible theories. I never said they were facts. They are potential explanations for why it exists. We don't know for sure what the purposes of homosexuality are, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The research just hasn't progressed to the point where we have facts instead of theories.

2) Where, in the definition of nature, does it say that something must have a purpose in order to be natural? And since you don't personally know "what nature intends" or "who the designer is," how can you be so sure that homosexuality serves no purpose? And how can you be so sure that the ONLY purpose of sex is procreation?

3) You've not provided a logically sound explanation for why sexual behavior is unnatural just because it doesn't involve procreation. Sorry. All of the assertions you've made above are even more conjectural than the articles I presented.

Pleasure responses evolved to encourage us to conduct certain behaviors that are beneficial to the species, while pain and fear responses are meant to avert us from behaviors and circumstances that may harm us. The pleasure responses are hijacked in a number of ways, not just homosexuality. Why is this difficult for people to see? Homosexuality exists because we created it, not because it evolved to serve a purpose.
 
Pleasure responses evolved to encourage us to conduct certain behaviors that are beneficial to the species, while pain and fear responses are meant to avert us from behaviors and circumstances that may harm us. The pleasure responses are hijacked in a number of ways, not just homosexuality. Why is this difficult for people to see? Homosexuality exists because we created it, not because it evolved to serve a purpose.

Prove that we created it. Not to mention prove that "pleasure responses are hijacked".
 
Last edited:
Pleasure responses evolved to encourage us to conduct certain behaviors that are beneficial to the species, while pain and fear responses are meant to avert us from behaviors and circumstances that may harm us. The pleasure responses are hijacked in a number of ways, not just homosexuality. Why is this difficult for people to see? Homosexuality exists because we created it, not because it evolved to serve a purpose.

I don't think that's true. If it occurs elsewhere in the animal kingdom naturally, then how can you rule out that possibility in humans?
 
Pleasure responses evolved to encourage us to conduct certain behaviors that are beneficial to the species, while pain and fear responses are meant to avert us from behaviors and circumstances that may harm us. The pleasure responses are hijacked in a number of ways, not just homosexuality. Why is this difficult for people to see? Homosexuality exists because we created it, not because it evolved to serve a purpose.

Because there is absolutely zero evidence to support this assertion. There is also zero evidence that purpose exists.
 
Because there is absolutely zero evidence to support this assertion. There is also zero evidence that purpose exists.

There's plenty of evidence about pleasure responses and why they exist, and there is plenty of evidence for evolutionarily valid "purpose".
 
I don't think that's true. If it occurs elsewhere in the animal kingdom naturally, then how can you rule out that possibility in humans?

Inability to control impulse.
 
There's plenty of evidence about pleasure responses and why they exist, and there is plenty of evidence for evolutionarily valid "purpose".
Yea i've only heard of one theory about the purpose of homosexuality in evolution, but that theory doesnt explain the occurance in other species so it is invalid.
 
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?
 
Yea i've only heard of one theory about the purpose of homosexuality in evolution, but that theory doesnt explain the occurance in other species so it is invalid.

Like I've said elsewhere, it's tricky comparing homosexuality in animals to that in humans.

There are multiple hypotheses as to why homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom and in humans, but I disagree with the logic that if it somehow doesn't explain the behavior in all species, that it's somehow invalid.
 
Yea i've only heard of one theory about the purpose of homosexuality in evolution, but that theory doesnt explain the occurance in other species so it is invalid.

The purposes for homosexuality in other animals need not be driven by the same factors. Homosexuality in bonobos and giraffe can simply be due to lack of impulse control resulting from more primitive brain processes.
 
The purposes for homosexuality in other animals need not be driven by the same factors. Homosexuality in bonobos and giraffe can simply be due to lack of impulse control resulting from more primitive brain processes.


I wonder what the purpose of brown eyes is/are?
 
The purposes for homosexuality in other animals need not be driven by the same factors. Homosexuality in bonobos and giraffe can simply be due to lack of impulse control resulting from more primitive brain processes.

If you subscribe to this view, apart from the religious argument, what precisely is wrong or unnatural about this same lack of impulse in humans?
 
Like I've said elsewhere, it's tricky comparing homosexuality in animals to that in humans.

There are multiple hypotheses as to why homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom and in humans, but I disagree with the logic that if it somehow doesn't explain the behavior in all species, that it's somehow invalid.
I think it's much more logical to think it's a malfunction in the part of our brain that almost all animals have in common. The sex drive is in every mammal, and i see the same thing occur over many species. In humans, it is a lot more complicated, but not the basic drive/desire. The desire/drive part is still a very basic mammal attribute we have. And i think whether we are born male or female that drive is what determines what we desire, in males it normally functions in desiring for a female and female for a male, but there is a common birth defect that happens across many species where the drive gets messed up or confused.

I think there is some proof that it is a birth defect in which it occurs more often that when a pregnancy is more stressful... it heightens the chance of a homosexual child to be born.
 
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.
 
I think it's much more logical to think it's a malfunction in the part of our brain that almost all animals have in common. The sex drive is in every mammal, and i see the same thing occur over many species. In humans, it is a lot more complicated, but not the basic drive/desire. The desire/drive part is still a very basic mammal attribute we have. And i think whether we are born male or female that drive is what determines what we desire, in males it normally functions in desiring for a female and female for a male, but there is a common birth defect that happens across many species where the drive gets messed up or confused.

I think there is some proof that it is a birth defect in which it occurs more often that when a pregnancy is more stressful... it heightens the chance of a homosexual child to be born.

I don't believe that homosexuality is a birth defect (in addition I believe the definition of defect to be subjective), but that's for another thread.

Let's say that, for the sake of argument, homosexuality is a birth defect. The incidence of defects among any population is, in my opinion, still a NATURAL occurrence.
 
There's plenty of evidence about pleasure responses and why they exist, and there is plenty of evidence for evolutionarily valid "purpose".
Pleasure responses yes. I was referring to your assertion about "us creating homosexuality". Nonetheless, there isn't any evidence for "purpose", purpose requires a designer and there isn't any evidence of a designer other than personal experience and religious texts, neither of which can be verified by said designer.
 
If you subscribe to this view, apart from the religious argument, what precisely is wrong or unnatural about this same lack of impulse in humans?

Right/wrong is irrelevant when speaking of other animals, but, the human brain has evolved to allow us control over these impulses, which has allowed other adaptations such as hidden estrous. Also, at risk of crossing streams, I dare you to google Margaret Sanger, aborigine, and sexual impulse control.
 
Back
Top Bottom