Is homosexuality a sin?

Is homosexuality a sin?

Created by Travis Morgan on Oct 27, 2007

58,176 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Frazier Thomas

Justice, IL

#93635 Oct 9, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that made utterly no sense...
You homosexuals want to violate a woman's right to privacy at the realization that homosexuals in the future would be aborted.

I've never heard one of you decry abortion until now.

You're going to get aborted in way-out percentages mirroring your way-out AIDS infection rate.
Frazier Thomas

Justice, IL

#93636 Oct 9, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, it is just part of the slippery slope fallacy.
No, I got the idea from the movie Gattaca.

And from a Princeton professor whose Yale U. book refuting a 1960 religion professor who claimed Jesus and His apostles were homosexual included the plain fact that prenatal genetic testing is going to lead to homosexuals being aborted.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#93637 Oct 9, 2013
Frazier Thomas wrote:
<quoted text>
You homosexuals want to violate a woman's right to privacy at the realization that homosexuals in the future would be aborted.
I've never heard one of you decry abortion until now.
You're going to get aborted in way-out percentages mirroring your way-out AIDS infection rate.
LOL...of course, kitten, of course.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#93638 Oct 9, 2013
Frazier Thomas wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I got the idea from the movie Gattaca.
And from a Princeton professor whose Yale U. book refuting a 1960 religion professor who claimed Jesus and His apostles were homosexual included the plain fact that prenatal genetic testing is going to lead to homosexuals being aborted.
Paul was as queer as a three-legged duck.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#93639 Oct 9, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, let me correct myself, not in all cases is abortion wrong, but I think you no where I was coming from mr Wastewater. I do believe in cases as you have posted, I agree it has it's purpose except maybe the last one. The sole supporter can by played out in many different ways which is where the real abortion debate rests.
I have to agree with you.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#93640 Oct 9, 2013
Roe v Wade wrote:
<quoted text>
What exactly don't you understand about a woman's right to privacy?
If you must know, millions of women don't want their son to grow up to be an unlicensed proctologist and march up and down State Street in a giant penis suit.
It could be worse. Suppose they grew up to be a Teatard Republican? I would abort one of those for sure.
Toby

Portland, OR

#93641 Oct 9, 2013
Frazier Thomas wrote:
<quoted text>
You homosexuals want to violate a woman's right to privacy at the realization that homosexuals in the future would be aborted.
I've never heard one of you decry abortion until now.
You're going to get aborted in way-out percentages mirroring your way-out AIDS infection rate.
I don't know where this idea is coming from that scientist have stated that homosexuality can be prevented. Epi-marks is just one variable, there are many more factors to homosexuality than Epi-Marks, it is as if homophobes are purposely embellishing the information they read on Epi-marks to fulfill their own anti-gay agenda. Their like little Jerry Falwells sitting back and saying " homosexuals will be eliminated, those dirty gays will be extinct soon, praise jeebus!"

From a religious standpoint why would an omniscient and omnipotent God allow Epi-marks to cause homosexuality in the first place ? Fundamentalist can't answer that with any lucidity, but they can inform everyone that homosexuality and abortion is basically evil, but then they can't explain why their omnipotent God has no obviation with abortion or homosexuality.

Moral absolutist despise abortion yet believe that if it's possible (which it hasn't been proven to be). then aborting homosexual embryos is Gods will, yet the strange thing is God for some reason can't control Epi-marks or other environmental factors that could contribute to homosexuality, yet God is suppose to be omniscient and omnipotent.
Says It All

Scotts Valley, CA

#93642 Oct 9, 2013
Is homosexuality a sin?
No 31,224 68%
Yes 14,299 31%
Current Total 45,523
Toby

Portland, OR

#93643 Oct 9, 2013
There are many reasons women get abortions, a woman might be of such a low SES that the developing embryo not receive an adequate amount of nourishment, the woman might just barely be meeting the levels of sustenance for herself and that carrying a baby to full term be a risk to the woman and her baby.

There is drug dependence and horrible environments Mothers don't want to expose another human too, pregnancy can interfere with being employed, it can interfere with career and education, a woman might already have too many dependents, there can be health issues with the Mother or the child,the list could go on and on.

Why not make the morning after pill available free to all women capable of pregnancy?
Toby

Portland, OR

#93644 Oct 9, 2013
Why do some people posting here believe that eliminating homosexuals will eliminate anal sex? There is no historical evidence that anal sex was invented by homosexuals, it exist amongst the heterosexual population absent any homosexuals. It's like saying that you could eliminate heterosexual oral and anal sex by eliminating homosexuals.

Ninety percent of heterosexual males have oral sex by the age of forty-four, and 40 % of all heterosexual males have had anal sex with a woman by age forty-four. Eighty-eight percent of all woman in America has had oral sex by age forty-four and thirty-five percent have had anal sex.

So really I am just wondering why some people believe that anal sex is exclusively a homosexual practice, there are millions of heterosexual (unlicensed proctologist) in America and billions in the world.

"What exactly don't you understand about a woman's right to privacy?
If you must know, millions of women don't want their son to grow up to be an unlicensed proctologist and march up and down State Street in a giant penis suit."
Toby

Portland, OR

#93645 Oct 9, 2013
The idea that homosexuals could be eliminated through testing for Epi-Marks is not an exact science, and not a proven fact, and certain Epi-Marks being detected would not necessarily mean homosexuality in many cases, so in effect those who oppose of abortion would be aborting future humans who would have not been homosexuals. But let's for the sake of argument say that it could become possible to eliminate 50 % of all embryos that would be homosexuals,millions of others would be sacrificed for the objective of eliminating homosexuals,and remember that homosexuality is not reliant on the single factor of Epi-Marks, that is just one of the factors.
Toby

Portland, OR

#93646 Oct 9, 2013
Epi-marks must be of the deeble (devil) then if Epi-Marks contribute to homosexuality. God hates Epi-marks!
Toby

Portland, OR

#93647 Oct 9, 2013
The hypothesis that epigenetic modifications exert influence on sexual preference is not an hypothesis that Epi-Marks is the sole origin of Homosexuality, it just means that it is one of the many factors. A correlation between E and H, doesn't mean that homosexuality is dependent on E for its existence or development. Bigots are searching for a Hitlerian and draconian solution to what they deem to be immoral, it is most likely that homosexuality has biological, environmental and psychological origins.

A variation in sexual preference should not be interpreted as any kind of threat.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#93648 Oct 9, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Not always. Suppose there is a mother of three who will die if she goes through pregnancy? Suppose a woman is raped and becomes pregnant? Suppose a woman is the sole supporter of her family and cannot afford taking time off and raising another infant?
A doctor takes a vow to save any and all lives to the best of their ability. The scenarios you set up were already addressed before abortion was legalized.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#93649 Oct 9, 2013
Toby wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know where this idea is coming from that scientist have stated that homosexuality can be prevented. Epi-marks is just one variable, there are many more factors to homosexuality than Epi-Marks, it is as if homophobes are purposely embellishing the information they read on Epi-marks to fulfill their own anti-gay agenda. Their like little Jerry Falwells sitting back and saying " homosexuals will be eliminated, those dirty gays will be extinct soon, praise jeebus!"
From a religious standpoint why would an omniscient and omnipotent God allow Epi-marks to cause homosexuality in the first place ? Fundamentalist can't answer that with any lucidity, but they can inform everyone that homosexuality and abortion is basically evil, but then they can't explain why their omnipotent God has no obviation with abortion or homosexuality.
Moral absolutist despise abortion yet believe that if it's possible (which it hasn't been proven to be). then aborting homosexual embryos is Gods will, yet the strange thing is God for some reason can't control Epi-marks or other environmental factors that could contribute to homosexuality, yet God is suppose to be omniscient and omnipotent.
Well welcome back Toby...

First, if you want me to play nice, don't put me in the hate box. I've shown you I know more about your condition then you do.

Epi-marker causing homosexuality is still a theory. Additionally, most scientists believe that homosexuality is a combination of nature and nurture.

However, homosexuals have to be ready to face two critical facts.
1. Proof that their condition is a sexual defect.
2. That it could become treatable before birth.

As to God's part, welcome to a whole host of 'victims' who suffer because God allows it. While I would agree that homosexuality is a severe difficulty, there are worse.

You are simply mistaken that there have not been significant defenses of God allowing suffering. Clearly you have not searched out those explanations.

Finally, you deliberately lie about my comment on how a Christian would respond to abortion for any reason. Your bigotry and hatred is exposed by that lie. If abortion were a means of dealing with homosexuality, the one and only SURE salvation of homosexuals would be Christians.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#93650 Oct 9, 2013
Toby wrote:
There are many reasons women get abortions, a woman might be of such a low SES that the developing embryo not receive an adequate amount of nourishment, the woman might just barely be meeting the levels of sustenance for herself and that carrying a baby to full term be a risk to the woman and her baby.
There is drug dependence and horrible environments Mothers don't want to expose another human too, pregnancy can interfere with being employed, it can interfere with career and education, a woman might already have too many dependents, there can be health issues with the Mother or the child,the list could go on and on.
Why not make the morning after pill available free to all women capable of pregnancy?
They already have birth control pills.

I met a doctor in Kona, HI who was being kicked out of the local hospital because he would not perform abortions. He told me his conviction was not for religious reasons. He was the product of a Mexican prostitute who refused an abortion.

No one has the right to choose life or death for another person based on their prediction of the future.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#93651 Oct 9, 2013
Toby wrote:
Why do some people posting here believe that eliminating homosexuals will eliminate anal sex? There is no historical evidence that anal sex was invented by homosexuals, it exist amongst the heterosexual population absent any homosexuals. It's like saying that you could eliminate heterosexual oral and anal sex by eliminating homosexuals.
Ninety percent of heterosexual males have oral sex by the age of forty-four, and 40 % of all heterosexual males have had anal sex with a woman by age forty-four. Eighty-eight percent of all woman in America has had oral sex by age forty-four and thirty-five percent have had anal sex.
So really I am just wondering why some people believe that anal sex is exclusively a homosexual practice, there are millions of heterosexual (unlicensed proctologist) in America and billions in the world.
"What exactly don't you understand about a woman's right to privacy?
If you must know, millions of women don't want their son to grow up to be an unlicensed proctologist and march up and down State Street in a giant penis suit."
1. Who said eliminating homosexuals would eliminate anal sex?

2. Why does any percentage of people engaging in an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning act matter? Are you insinuating it is no longer abuse?

3. Who said anal sex is exclusively a homosexual act?

Why are you setting up these straw man arguments?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#93652 Oct 9, 2013
Toby wrote:
Epi-marks must be of the deeble (devil) then if Epi-Marks contribute to homosexuality. God hates Epi-marks!
Why do you keep trying to bring God into a scientific discussion?

It seems you'd rather argue faith than fact...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#93653 Oct 9, 2013
Toby wrote:
The hypothesis that epigenetic modifications exert influence on sexual preference is not an hypothesis that Epi-Marks is the sole origin of Homosexuality, it just means that it is one of the many factors. A correlation between E and H, doesn't mean that homosexuality is dependent on E for its existence or development. Bigots are searching for a Hitlerian and draconian solution to what they deem to be immoral, it is most likely that homosexuality has biological, environmental and psychological origins.
A variation in sexual preference should not be interpreted as any kind of threat.
Please provide source for your assertion that homosexuality is not a primary cause of homosexuality.

No one can assert ANY conclusion without having scientific proof.
For the Whole Family

Justice, IL

#93654 Oct 9, 2013
I just read that quote where that phony Toby is advocating abortion before he saw how the tables will be turned on homosexuals!!!

WasteWater and Toby, your free lunch is over--an entrepreneur like the one who invented Twitter is already working on it.



Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Buck Crick 864,143
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 3 min The swamiji 7,490
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min Liam 599,517
The Christian Atheist debate 36 min Mr Wiggley 1,961
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr janeebee 6,422
News Teacher back in class after Bush-Hitler comparison (Mar '06) 1 hr Burke Devlin 151
Is Obama Really Black? (Jul '09) 1 hr Burke Devlin 33
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Great Day of Arma... 612,898
More from around the web