Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural? (2 Viewers)

[ecofarm]

I don't believe in sin and I don't think it is artificial. It occurs naturally, so it's natural.

Well done. I'll try to keep this succinct response in mind.

 

[digsbe]

I never mentioned other animals sexual practices, I only mentioned humans. And humans practice homosexual behavior without artificial interference, or help, so therefore it is natural. And like I said, just because something is natural doesn't mean it is good, like cannibalism, and alot of unnatural things are good, such as how me and you are communicating right now.

Sorry, I mistook your "nature" comment to mean animal life.
I don't think if humans do something it automatically makes it natural. Some humans have sex with children and others have sex with objects, I don't think those are natural. My definition of unnatural is more from a biological standpoint and not necessarily a social one. I do agree though that not all unnatural things are bad. Treating people with synthetic medicines is unnatural but it isn't bad.

 

[Cephus]

It can't be a sin, sin is a foolish concept. Because homosexuality is demonstrably practiced in many species in the animal kingdom, by definition, it cannot be unnatural either.

 

[OscarB63]

Is homosexuality sinful or unnatural? Why?

not everything that is sinful ia unnatural nor is everything unnatural sinful

Do you think it sinless and natural? Why?

again, not everything that is natural is sinless.

homosexuality is a condition that occurs naturally in a very small % of the population. whether this is caused by genetics, pre/post natal environment or upbringing really doesn't matter.

 

[Wake]

Sin does not exist? None, at all?

Then why is polygamy and consensual incest between family deemd perverse? What if cousins are incestual? Would you try to stop them?

If you do not beliee in sin, how, then, can you believe in "wrong"? How does that add up, Cephus, if you equate humans to animals and animals do not regard the term "wrong"?

 

[BayToBay]

I don't think the sexuality of other animals can be equated to human sexuality. My definition of unnatural is how the reproductive system of the human species is designed. The reproductive system was designed for the opposite sex. Even though I believe homosexuality is unnatural and a sin I still support homosexual rights, those are just my beliefs on the matter.

Right, let's avoid creating a rigorous definition that makes the propaganda phrase fall flat.

The sexuality of other animals (especially mammals, primates and apes) is most definitely useful in understanding human sexuality. It's certainly not the only thing we should consider, but in the cases where it does not apply you need to provide a valid reason why it should not apply. You have not done so. Gay sex in bonobos does not lead to reproduction. It does not lead to reproduction in bison. It does not lead to reproduction in penguins. Is gay sex in those species unnatural?

Your definition of natural is totally dependent on the idea that human nature was determined by God and therefore is not comparable to what is natural in other animals.

 

[OhIsee.Then]

I believe that it is a sin according to the Bible. I also believe it's unnatural.

Set your belief aside. (If you can’t you’re not even free to think about this subject, you’re just quoting someone else.) Then, please give us considered answers. Thanks.

 

[Your Star]

Sin does not exist? None, at all?

Then why is polygamy and consensual incest between family deemd perverse? What if cousins are incestual? Would you try to stop them?

If you do not beliee in sin, how, then, can you believe in "wrong"? How does that add up, Cephus, if you equate humans to animals and animals do not regard the term "wrong"?

One can have a sense of right and wrong without believing in sin. Sin is a religious idea, and if one is not religious, then believing in sin is something absurd to them.

 

[Your Star]

Sorry, I mistook your "nature" comment to mean animal life.
I don't think if humans do something it automatically makes it natural. Some humans have sex with children and others have sex with objects, I don't think those are natural. My definition of unnatural is more from a biological standpoint and not necessarily a social one. I do agree though that not all unnatural things are bad. Treating people with synthetic medicines is unnatural but it isn't bad.

I define natural by something that occurs in nature, without artificial interference, or help. So yes, I think those examples you listed are natural.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I'm not sure I'd believe that any god would define something as wrong, that means you couldn't follow your heart to the person you love.

If so, I'd rather not be a part of such a religion or god.

 

[Wake]

Set your belief aside. (If you can’t you’re not even free to think about this subject, you’re just quoting someone else.) Then, please give us considered answers. Thanks.

You set your belief aside, OhIsee.Then.

Do not assume your belief is scientifically correct. You are not absolute. We all speak our beliefs, and all of our beliefs are unproven in terms of "right and "wrong." Do not for once think your belief is absolute among others.

If you're not even free to think deeply on this subject, then you're just speaking someone else's talking points.

 

[BayToBay]

Sin does not exist? None, at all?

Then why is polygamy and consensual incest between family deemd perverse? What if cousins are incestual? Would you try to stop them?

Social norms. What if? No.

If you do not beliee in sin, how, then, can you believe in "wrong"? How does that add up, Cephus, if you equate humans to animals and animals do not regard the term "wrong"?

You will know them by their fruits (not fruity queer). "Wrong" as a moral concept is only meaningful in how we interact with each other.

 

[OscarB63]

Sin does not exist? None, at all?

Then why is polygamy and consensual incest between family deemd perverse?

it's a societal issue.

What if cousins are incestual? Would you try to stop them?

If you are religious and believe in the Bible and the story of creation as related in Genesis...who do you think the children of Adam and Eve had sex with? only two options, they either had sex with their siblings or one of their parents.

 

[digsbe]

Set your belief aside. (If you can’t you’re not even free to think about this subject, you’re just quoting someone else.) Then, please give us considered answers. Thanks.

Um, I do set my beliefs aside as even though I believe homosexuality is a sin and wrong I still support SSM and homosexual rights. Please don't be arrogant and judgmental of my beliefs.

Right, let's avoid creating a rigorous definition that makes the propaganda phrase fall flat.

The sexuality of other animals (especially mammals, primates and apes) is most definitely useful in understanding human sexuality. It's certainly not the only thing we should consider, but in the cases where it does not apply you need to provide a valid reason why it should not apply. You have not done so. Gay sex in bonobos does not lead to reproduction. It does not lead to reproduction in bison. It does not lead to reproduction in penguins. Is gay sex in those species unnatural?

Your definition of natural is totally dependent on the idea that human nature was determined by God and therefore is not comparable to what is natural in other animals.

In nature, some animals will eat their mate or mate before they die. My arguments come from biology and the design and function of the human reproductive system.

I define natural by something that occurs in nature, without artificial interference, or help. So yes, I think those examples you listed are natural.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think socially homosexuality isn't unnatural, but biologically it is.

 

[Wake]

One can have a sense of right and wrong without believing in sin. Sin is a religious idea, and if one is not religious, then believing in sin is something absurd to them.

What should be noted is that this, too, is an unproven belief. Can you scientifically prove that one can have a sense of right and wrong without believing in sin, Your Star? I think you cannot. What validates your belief? A feeling?

Nonreligious people can have legions of beliefs uinproven, as well. Yours is no exception.

 

[Your Star]

What should be noted is that this, too, is an unproven belief. Can you scientifically prove that one can have a sense of right and wrong without believing in sin, Your Star? I think you cannot. What validates your belief? A feeling?

Nonreligious people can have legions of beliefs uinproven, as well. Yours is no exception.

Most everyone has a sense of right, and wrong, and the belief in sin has no bearing on that.

And if your asking for scientific proof, scientifically prove sin. I eagerly await this.

 

[digsbe]

What should be noted is that this, too, is an unproven belief. Can you scientifically prove that one can have a sense of right and wrong without believing in sin, Your Star? I think you cannot. What validates your belief? A feeling?

Nonreligious people can have legions of beliefs uinproven, as well. Yours is no exception.

Atheists and the non-religious can still have beliefs on what is right and wrong. Religion and faith isn't required for this. You don't need to believe in sin to believe that murder is wrong and should be punished or that giving to the needy is good.

 

[Wake]

Social norms are absolute?

No. No, they are not.

Society can feel to do whatever it wants.

Why should polygamists and incestic people care for your belief in normality? Oh hoh, are you bigoted, perhaps?

...

 

[CriticalThought]

What should be noted is that this, too, is an unproven belief. Can you scientifically prove that one can have a sense of right and wrong without believing in sin, Your Star? I think you cannot. What validates your belief? A feeling?

I have a sense of right and wrong and don't believe in sin.

 

[lpast]

I voted its not wrong but unnatural if it were natural two men or women could procreate.

 

[Wake]

People are against murder because they don't like it. Doesn't mean it's wrong, right? Like =/= absolute.

Shocking, yes?

 

[Wake]

I have a sense of right and wrong and don't believe in sin.

And why is that, CriticalThought? What validates your belief? A feeling? Something deep within hat makes you feel absolutely convinced that you alone are right in your beliefs? You aren't absolute.

Why do you believe what you believe? Can you even prove it? What makes your belief better than an unlikeable belief that also can't be proven? Popularity?

...

 

[Baralis]

I just want to point out that something naturally occurring in animals or humans does not necessarily equate to normal. Many traits found in creatures can be considered a flaw yet be naturally occurring. Many genes can be affected by all sorts of influences that end with a negative result.

Now before you start bashing me and claim that I am saying being gay is a flaw I am just asking persons to keep an open mind and consider that it is possible it may be found in time to be just that. Now Im not saying that it is wrong or unacceptable only that it may be a defect in biology. We will often times base our acceptance on the end result. For example say X gene is known to cause a high percentage of cancer, we would consider that to be a flaw. However if X gene made us live 40% longer we would consider that a positive gene and not a flaw but in reality they both could be flaws. Its just one has a positive outcome and the other negative by our views.

 

[BayToBay]

In nature, some animals will eat their mate or mate before they die.

And?

You are talking about insects which are very different from us. I already indicated that we can not only look at animals and that the closer the relation the more usueful. You still deployed the strawman, anyway. Wow!

My arguments come from biology and the design and function of the human reproductive system.

Which are not that different than the reproductive systems of bonobos, bison or even penguins, IN THIS CASE. None of those species can procreate through same sex couplings. You have not identified a relevant distinction.

 

[Wake]

Most everyone has a sense of right, and wrong, and the belief in sin has no bearing on that.

And if your asking for scientific proof, scientifically prove sin. I eagerly await this.

Feelings are for naught if unprovable. They all, and I mean all, become equal.

Prove that any belief can be scientifically proven.