Is homosexuality a sin?

Is homosexuality a sin?

Created by Travis Morgan on Oct 27, 2007

58,840 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Toby

Portland, OR

#95299 Jan 9, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And I'm simply noting homosexuality is a normal sexual defect.
Smile.
You're making an assumption, a rather narrow minded one at that, kudos for you.

Smirk

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#95300 Jan 9, 2014
Jay wrote:
<quoted text>
People are going to have children.
"Is removing an abusive biological parent" is still a deprivation to the child. Either way the child loses.
Never said " a biological parent be advantageous in the case of a drug addict or mentally ill parent".
Do you think that Phil from the Duck dynasty should have temporally lost his job because of what he said about homosexuality?
So you agree. Your previous post was pointless.

Thank you.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#95301 Jan 9, 2014
Jay wrote:
<quoted text>
People are going to have children.
"Is removing an abusive biological parent" is still a deprivation to the child. Either way the child loses.
Never said " a biological parent be advantageous in the case of a drug addict or mentally ill parent".
Do you think that Phil from the Duck dynasty should have temporally lost his job because of what he said about homosexuality?
How can you lose what you never had?
Toby

Portland, OR

#95302 Jan 9, 2014
People hoping to live in invisible worlds with invisible magical forces and entities, don't get the privilege to dictate who can and can't get married. Got to go to the store , ruminate amongst yourselves.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#95304 Jan 9, 2014
Toby wrote:
Copulation is not the only means to procreation, there is intracervical insemination and millions of women use it every year. Also it seems to me that marginalizing marriages that don't produce children is a senseless and bigoted task when there is about 12% of all of women of childbearing age that is affected by infertility, not to mention that millions of men in America are infertile also.
If the premise to the argument, is that, the total value of marriage is procreating, what does that say about the millions and millions of heterosexual married couples that are infertile or the millions that choose not to have children? You can reduce marriage down to a biological function to present such a false premise, but propagation of the human species is not threatened by homosexuality, and never has been, and is not reliant on ritually recognized unions to maintain its numbers.The truth is now there are more unmarried couples with children than married in America, so ritually or legally recognized marriages have very little relevance to human propagation. So we have established the fact that human propagation is not reliant upon ritually recognized unions or marriages to survive, so equivocating marriage to procreating holds no validity as an argument in opposition to homosexual marriages.
Who EVER said 'the total value of marriage is procreating'?

Except gays.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constrain on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior, making ss marriage an oxymoron.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#95305 Jan 9, 2014
Toby wrote:
<quoted text>
You're making an assumption, a rather narrow minded one at that, kudos for you.
Smirk
Really.

Duplicate sex organs are designed for each other?

Idiot.
Toby

Portland, OR

#95306 Jan 9, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Who EVER said 'the total value of marriage is procreating'?
Except gays.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constrain on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior, making ss marriage an oxymoron.
Smile.
You even plagiarize the unintelligible garbage you do post as rational arguments, you're a phony.

Greg Kirschmann&#8206;- " At it's most basic essence marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Ss couples are a failure of mating behavior."
Toby

Portland, OR

#95307 Jan 9, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Really.
Duplicate sex organs are designed for each other?
Idiot.
Sexual attraction and expression is not confined to what is or what is not procreative, your arguments are sophomoric at best. Marriages are not confined to procreating as millions of infertile marriages indicate and there are millions of marriages who choose not to have children, so procreation is a moot issue. You really based your interpretation on design alone so you would also have to reach the conclusion following that logic( which is really illogic), that any sexual activity outside of intercourse is counter to the basic design, therefore all sexual activity outside of intercourse is an aberration, so I suppose you are opposed to heterosexual oral sex, anal sex and everything besides vaginal intercourse.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#95308 Jan 9, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Nope. I'm just refuting the Fundie claim that homosexuality is "unnatural".
It's not.
Jay has never mentioned he was a Christian. Yes we know you are a bigot.

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#95309 Jan 9, 2014
Jay wrote:
<quoted text>
If i found out some teacher at school was gay, that would mean he is gay. What i expect is for him-her to be a good teacher.
What did you think of the Duck dynasty controversy? Do you think Phil should have lost his job for saying what he did about homosexuals?
I don't have cable, don't pay attention to very many TV shows. If the ZZTop look a like says something, that is his right. I think he was reinstated and I have no opinion if he should lose his job, that is up to his boss.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#95310 Jan 9, 2014
Jay wrote:
It is not bigotry to be against homosexuality on moral and health grounds.
Blaming God and your own misinformed imagination doesn't help your cause in the slightest. It's still bigotry even if you are praying that God hates us too.
Jay wrote:
No one can make the case that homosexuality is a good thing for a human to be involved in.
Heterosexuality. Learning disorder or what?
Jay wrote:
The baker did not law because there is no law that anyone has to serve homosexuals or anyone else.
Wrong answer, Colorado state law regarding businesses, say they cannot discriminate in how they provide their goods and services on the basis of their sexual orientation. Refusing to provide a wedding cake to a couple because they were gay, illegal, even if the business owner is of the belief that God don't do gay weddings and neither should he.
Jay wrote:
It is a violation of the state to interfere with consciences of the people and their religious freedoms.
Those rights aren't absolute, the government can in fact limit them if a compelling interest of the state is served by doing so and keeping bigots from doing mean bigoted things to other folk in the public square, one such compelling interest. He was being hired for his cake decorating skills, not his blessing.
Jay wrote:
The only reason there is such a thing as "gay marriage" is that we have corrupt and perverted judges.
Don't worry, this whole kerfuffle is going to be pretty much over soon. The next state Constitutional ban on same sex marriages before the Supreme Court kills them all. The case for them can barely survive a rational basis test and then only if you fudge on what is really rational.
Jay wrote:
Are you claiming that polygamy is legal in most states?
As long as you aren't claiming more than one person as your legal spouse, you can have the same sort of relationship that the Brown families have, pretty much anywhere in the country. You can have as many spiritual wives or husbands or both if that is what makes you happy, as long as you aren't claiming more than one as a legal spouse and these are legal, consensual relationships, you do have a right to privacy. In Utah, if you are legally married and have sex with anyone but your spouse, you have broken the law, whether your spouse consents or not and the person they have sex with, if they knew you to be legally married, charged as well.
Jay wrote:
If marriage can be defined to mean anything then there should be no restrictions against the legal plural marriages or if a father wants to marry his daughter or any other kind of "marriage configuration".
Wrong answer, the state has an interest served by keeping married couples similarly situated in terms of the number of people allowed into a marriage contract at two with a limit of one contract at a time. The state has an interest in being able to regulate marriage and no other limits can be rationally defended.
Jay wrote:
So you are one those that wants to silence those that are against your bigoted position.
Some folk should realize that their best expression of their rights is keeping them to yourself, but it is your choice as to whether you want to go on proving just how badly informed your personal choice of bigotries is.
Jay wrote:
BTW- how does one prove they are homosexual in public?
The couple in Colorado did it by ordering a wedding cake for a reception for family and friends who hadn't made it to their legal wedding in Massachusetts, the couple in New Mexico, by walking into a photography studio and asking for photographs of their upcoming commitment ceremony.
Toby

Portland, OR

#95311 Jan 9, 2014
This is the last comment tonight I will make on the subject, being that the counter arguments to same sex marriages and the opposition to homosexuality posted here, are based on some rather vague misconstrued concepts of evolutionary mating behavior(which is just plagiarized and parroted without much scrutiny or afterthought), or are just religious fundamentalist drivel from the local hillbilly Taliban.

You can spend an unbelievable amount of wasted time demanding in one form or another that homosexuality needs your personal validation to exist, or that homosexual marriages needs your approval, but the fact is homosexuality has always existed and always will, and homosexual marriages eventually will be approved. Masturbation , why do people do it, you can stop it KiMare!

GTG watch Jeopardy , be back later tonight

Discuss amongst yourselves
Joe

Newark, OH

#95312 Jan 9, 2014
Yep, it is.
SAYS IT ALL

Scotts Valley, CA

#95313 Jan 9, 2014
No it isn't
This says it all

Results

Is homosexuality a sin?

No 34,028 70%
Yes 14,544 29%
Current Total 48,572

“I have a brain,I try to use it”

Since: Jan 14

<3London<3 <3Denmark<3

#95314 Jan 9, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course animals can have a sexual defect too. However, often ss anal sex among many animals is an act of domination. But don't stop there. Animals eat shit and lick butts too. All 'natural'. Are you sure you want to use animals to justify gay behavior???
I'm sorry, but anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. You really need to get an education. Please show me a medical/scientific site that verifies your claim.
You have no way of proving beyond a doubt that there is no God. If you want to have faith that there isn't one, that is your right.
Smile.
Smoking is harmful, unhealthy, and demeaning but people do it any way, it goes both ways

Your whole argument was a cope out, the fact that every animal does it is PROOF that it's natural.

How about you show me proof that the boogie man doesn't exist, then I'll prove to you god don't exist

And to think anal sex is demeaning/harmful is a matter of opinion, and it isn't always unhealthy
MUQ

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

#95315 Jan 9, 2014
TheKingIam wrote:
<quoted text>
Smoking is harmful, unhealthy, and demeaning but people do it any way, it goes both ways
Your whole argument was a cope out, the fact that every animal does it is PROOF that it's natural.
How about you show me proof that the boogie man doesn't exist, then I'll prove to you god don't exist
And to think anal sex is demeaning/harmful is a matter of opinion, and it isn't always unhealthy
Every one tells how harmful is smoking....no one praises these people any more.

There are fines for smoking in no smoking areas.

Why can't they do the same for these homos? They should educate people how harmful it is for society, people and human race.

Why should they bend "backwards" to console them and assure them that they are as usual as any one else?

Does it not come under "encouraging and glamorizing" these acts?

Have people lost Common Sense in your advanced countries?

Was that Homosexuality that made your countries great?

“I have a brain,I try to use it”

Since: Jan 14

<3London<3 <3Denmark<3

#95316 Jan 10, 2014
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Every one tells how harmful is smoking....no one praises these people any more.
There are fines for smoking in no smoking areas.
Why can't they do the same for these homos? They should educate people how harmful it is for society, people and human race.
Why should they bend "backwards" to console them and assure them that they are as usual as any one else?
Does it not come under "encouraging and glamorizing" these acts?
Have people lost Common Sense in your advanced countries?
Was that Homosexuality that made your countries great?
What does it matter if homosexuality has anything to do with my countries?

Again: homosexuality is a natural thing that every animal experiences, the only reason for the last 2000 years homosexuality has become taboo and bad is because of religion

Theres nothing else to it, I'm bi I like guys and girls and I know a few other bis in the school, 40 years ago there would have been none, but as we advance both culturally and technologically homosexuality is slowly being normalized again and thats for the better.

What gives you the right to say its bad? It's natural
The only thing "unhealthy" (if that term can even be used) is when one man puts hes dick in an another man's anus but were already doing that to women!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#95317 Jan 10, 2014
Toby wrote:
<quoted text>
You even plagiarize the unintelligible garbage you do post as rational arguments, you're a phony.
Greg Kirschmann&#8206;- " At it's most basic essence marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Ss couples are a failure of mating behavior."
How does someone plagiarize a scientific fact?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#95318 Jan 10, 2014
Toby wrote:
<quoted text>
Sexual attraction and expression is not confined to what is or what is not procreative, your arguments are sophomoric at best. Marriages are not confined to procreating as millions of infertile marriages indicate and there are millions of marriages who choose not to have children, so procreation is a moot issue. You really based your interpretation on design alone so you would also have to reach the conclusion following that logic( which is really illogic), that any sexual activity outside of intercourse is counter to the basic design, therefore all sexual activity outside of intercourse is an aberration, so I suppose you are opposed to heterosexual oral sex, anal sex and everything besides vaginal intercourse.
I'm curious.

How did evolution evolve two penises as a natural orientation?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#95319 Jan 10, 2014
Toby wrote:
This is the last comment tonight I will make on the subject, being that the counter arguments to same sex marriages and the opposition to homosexuality posted here, are based on some rather vague misconstrued concepts of evolutionary mating behavior(which is just plagiarized and parroted without much scrutiny or afterthought), or are just religious fundamentalist drivel from the local hillbilly Taliban.
You can spend an unbelievable amount of wasted time demanding in one form or another that homosexuality needs your personal validation to exist, or that homosexual marriages needs your approval, but the fact is homosexuality has always existed and always will, and homosexual marriages eventually will be approved. Masturbation , why do people do it, you can stop it KiMare!
GTG watch Jeopardy , be back later tonight
Discuss amongst yourselves
Nothing vague at all about human mating behavior or the constraint of marriage. Look it up.

SS marriage is an oxymoron. That is why the claim of such a union has historically collapsed on itself.

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
Muslims go home 4 min reality check 12
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 min Spider1954 950,260
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 23 min Frank Merton 698
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 25 min Adam 615,719
Too many Asians in California which makes it suck (Mar '12) 33 min Mr Danville 1998 153
Poll My Main Use of Topix (Feb '12) 48 min Sollers 45
((O99,1111,6165))Noida sector 61,62,63,64,65 Ca... 55 min kapil 1
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Rosesz 627,239
More from around the web