Is Homosexuality Unnatural...... - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is a leading online debate website and is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is Homosexuality Unnatural......
in Religion

By SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
. . . and therefore wrong?

Then, How about a man born of a virgin birth, who healed lepers and blind people with his hands, walked on water, turned water into wine.
And how all the wrong in the world happened because a rib ate an apple after a talking snake told her to?
Happy_KillbotindependentlyxlJ_dolphin_473JustAnAllMightFanPlaffelvohfen
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • @Swolliw

    Is grass green? Is water wet?

    There are certain things in this word that are simply undeniable. Whether it be evolution, the Science of Biology, God, etc., they all show us the natural order to life.
    The scientific and natural design of our sexuality is OBVIOUSLY between man and woman! We see it in nature, in every species until it comes to humans. (spare me the lies of supposed Gay animals). Show me any Gay pets, livestock, etc. etc. They do not exist... WHY NOT if it is natural!

    People choose to deny the natural roles of our bodies, and live out whatever fetish they choose. It is their choice to live how they want, but it should never be the business of Science , schools, Government, etc. to sanction it as natural. It will never be.

    All this LGBT political correctness is purely politcal. The Left has embraced it for votes... PERIOD!
    independentlyHappy_KillbotJustAnAllMightFanxlJ_dolphin_473madeleine_
  • @We_are_accountable ;

    Suppose I showed you that not all grasses are green.

    Would this change your mind? No it would not.


    Suppose I made a complex semantic argument showing that water is in fact not wet?

    Would this change your mind? No it would not.


    Suppose I showed you that evolution is incompatible with Christian theories of god.

    Would this change your mind? No it would not.


    Suppose I show you video/pictures/anecdotal stories/ and direct evidence of animals in the wild being gay.

    Would this change your mind? No it would not.


    Suppose I show you that with a few minor corrections, that no "fetishes" can be induced and thus are a natural part of one's being.

    Would this change your mind? No it would not.


    Suppose I showed you that the LGBT movement only became political because of systemic harassment from ultra-conservative hate mongering homophones and religious indoctrination in particular.

    Would this change your mind? No it would not.


    At every single turn you are set in your ways of thinking. Your mind is rigid and unmoving. You can not learn. You can not develop. You can not progress. You will soon die and be forgotten, having never done anything meaningful in your life except posed as an enemy to rational discourse.

    Why not be more open-minded for a change? Homosexuals don't hurt you in any way, nor do they hurt your children, nor do they hurt your family, and they don't hurt your institutions. There is no reason for anyone to be opposed to LGBT rights except for irrational hate.
    JustAnAllMightFanxlJ_dolphin_473independentlyDeeWe_are_accountable
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • I never got the "natural" argument. Modern humanity is literally the opposite of natural. If we embraced naturality and did not break boundries then we would not have modern technology. Human level intelligence and ingenuity is hardly natural compared to other species. The scientific version of "natural" is also vastly different from the bible as @Swolliw pointed out.

    @We_are_accountable It also makes no sense to say natural is "good". If we followed what nature has laid out for us we would be constantly subject to childhood death, widespread disease, famine, and a hell of a life compared to now. We see this in natural species.

    We also do not see "man + woman" in every species. Many reproduce asexually or disregard gender altogether. Some cooperate with the sole purpose of survival and not reproduction. Nature is not that simple, so a simple homosexual pairing is hardly any weirder. What is strange and could be "unnatural" is we are the only species that embraces discrimination against such pairings.

    There would be no special treatment of homosexuals if there was never mistreatment. But humans are cruel and hate difference, we abused and ridiculed them for supposed "unnaturality" and for a plethora of "unnatural" religious reasons and many still do today.

    I will not tell you that you are wrong and should change. When reading your post history it is obvious you will never respect other arguments. I agree with @Happy_Killbot. I am only stating my view once to show my perspective. I do not enjoy topics of human discrimination such as religion/homophobia/racism/etc, but this issue is prominent in my family that I felt I should not remain silent this time.
    JustAnAllMightFanHappy_KillbotWe_are_accountablemadeleine_
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    Would you say you feel there is a standard of moral value?
  • @independently ;

    The appeal to nature doesn't make sense in almost any context, because even if you are some unibomber or anarcho-primitivist type who embraces nature a little to much you lose out on all sorts of pragmatic benefits.

    The only good argument I can think of against homosexuality would be something to do with maintaining a stable population, since homosexuals typically don't start families and instead adopt, but even this falls apart when one considers the increase in our population is unsustainable if it doesn't level off at some point in the future.

    Besides these, I don't think there is a single good argument against LGBT rights, or at least I have never heard any.
    independentlyWe_are_accountable
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Purgery is unnatural........More importantly, it is criminal.....

    @Happy_Killbot
    Besides these, I don't think there is a single good argument against LGBT rights, or at least I have never heard any.

    The basic principle of legal grievance is perjury and it is not a human right to commit or have other commit perjury on your behalf. EVER! The danger of having lawyers write legislation of law is the cost of malpractice of law is then no longer contained by the practice of law itself. An additional grievance is a surrogate is married to the donor of consummation be it gay lesbian or not, the legal partner male or female is a Binivir, Mulierfemina, or Virmulier without prejudice. LGBT is not going to like the rules that they have made as there will need to be a warning as legal notice when adverting publicly a perjury. The words gay or lesbian do not need to apply on the possibility of taking part in perjury much like the surgeon general warned of cigarette smoking may cause illness. Being a witness of a purgery count may also make you a perjurer.
  • The scientific and natural design of our sexuality is OBVIOUSLY between man and woman! We see it in nature, in every species until it comes to humans. 
    @We_are_accountable
    Some people naturally have sexual attractions to those of the same gender, therefore it cannot be 'unnatural'. The argument against homosexuality is as toxic as it is illogical. And yes, humans are one of the very few species where homosexuality exists. That doesn't make it unnatural...
    We_are_accountableHappy_Killbot
  • @xlJ_dolphin_473

    So you are saying that rational people can not say that Diaper fetishes are not natural? Beastiality is natural? Attraction to children is natural?

    GET REAL!  WHO DECIDES WHICH FETISHES ARE NATURAL AND WHICH ONES NOT?
    Happy_Killbot
  • @We_are_accountable ;
    Yeh, having diaper fetishes are a natural sexual orientation. How about beastiality? How about attractions towards children? These must all be natural sexual orientations according to extremists on the Left.
    Yes, these are all "natural" insofar as people don't chose them.
    Oh, I keep forgetting, only you all knowing radicals will tell us which unnatural fetishes are to be forced on the States. DENY SCIENCE AND BELIEVE US!
    How ironic coming from someone who routinely denies science.
    IGNORE the hypocrite who would never change his mind no matter how many times he can decieve and not show us a Gay animal. Only mankind can reason and possess the ability to deny nature while choosing unnatural fetishes.
    Dude, I have shown you gay animals before.

    You deny their existence, then claim I'm a radical?

    Give me a break, or better yet:

    Show us some evidence!


    Here is some:
    Did you know dolphins exist and totally can be homosexual and have fetishes?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
    We_are_accountable
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Happy_Killbot

    LOL, from the most radical anti Christian deabter on this site, you are going to talk about never changing your mind?
    As an atheist, I would say that @Happy_Killbot is one of the more reasonable debaters on this site. Of course, you will disagree with me, but I just want to point out that your position is not universal.
    Yeh, having diaper fetishes are a natural sexual orientation. How about beastiality? How about attractions towards children? These must all be natural sexual orientations according to extremists on the Left.
    No fetish is an orientation. They are just that: fetishes. But yes, they are natural. Except for "beastiality"... is that a sexual attraction to dragons?  :D
    Oh, I keep forgetting, only you all knowing radicals will tell us which unnatural fetishes are to be forced on the States. 
    What do you mean... 'forced'? How is it being forced on the states? All I, a so-called 'radical' want, is for the States to allow people to get on with their lives!
    I could continue, but it is plain to see that as @Happy_Killbot said, you are very closed-minded in your argumentation, and often make no effort whatsoever to rebut your opponents. Often you just say they are 'fake news' and 'ignore' them. It's fine if you disagree with me, but at least try to explain why!
    Happy_KillbotSandJustAnAllMightFan
  • @xlJ_dolphin_473

    So you are saying that rational people can not say that Diaper fetishes are not natural? Beastiality is natural? Attraction to children is natural?

    GET REAL!  WHO DECIDES WHICH FETISHES ARE NATURAL AND WHICH ONES NOT?
    All fetishes are natural, because they occur in nature! What about this do you not get? As for pedophilia, although it's probably damaging to society, that doesn't make it unnatural.
    Happy_Killbot
  • @independently

    You hypocrites who constantly insult and ridicule my opinions, have the nerve gto talk about respecting other's arguments?

    How can you make these statements with a straight face? The Left is made up with the most judgmental, arrogant, narcissistic, control fanatics the world has ever known. It's your way, or we are taken to court.
    Happy_Killbotindependently
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    Man! You're Hilarious!
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • Sand said:

    Man! You're Hilarious!
    Simply because I choose to accept all fetishes, considering that they are natural in the sense that people don't choose them? Alright...
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    Would you say you feel there is a standard of moral value?

  • Sand said:

    Would you say you feel there is a standard of moral value?

    what do you mean?
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    Is homosexuality right or wrong?
    Is slavery right or wrong?
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 436 Pts
    edited August 1
    Sand said:
    Is homosexuality right or wrong?
    @Sand Homosexuality is neither right nor wrong, it's just a sexual phenomenon experienced by some people.
    Sand said:
    Is slavery right or wrong?

    Slavery, on the other hand, is wrong because it increases total human unhappiness and violates human rights. What's your point?
    ZeusAres42
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1475 Pts
    Well, I think I understand your point. From my understanding several religious people are not very enlightened when it comes on homosexuality. Then again, I also think you've got others that are more aware but are in self-denial because they are very attached to their religion.

    PS. just because something is unnatural does not mean it's bad/wrong. And just because something is natural does not mean it's good/right.
    xlJ_dolphin_473JustAnAllMightFan










  • You hypocrites who constantly insult and ridicule my opinions, have the nerve gto talk about respecting other's arguments?

    How can you make these statements with a straight face? The Left is made up with the most judgmental, arrogant, narcissistic, control fanatics the world has ever known. It's your way, or we are taken to court.
    @We_are_accountable I don't "insult" and "ridicule". I give my own opinions, which can be different than yours. You automatically think I am insulting you by giving a different opinion, why?

    I make these statements with a straight face because of the injustice and unfiltered hate I have seen in my life.

    I do not care about "The Left" when I am giving my pure opinion and logical argument that has had no influence from any political party. You did not even attempt to respond to my argument and instead lumped it into your hatred of "The Left". I am an individual.

    I am not being a hypocrite. Learn to respect others and they will respect you. There is a reason I don't respond to most of your posts.
    ZeusAres42xlJ_dolphin_473Happy_KillbotJustAnAllMightFanWe_are_accountable
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    How did you come to such decisions?
    Was it governed by the majority of people?

  • Sand said:
    How did you come to such decisions?
    Was it governed by the majority of people?
    @Sand
    Everyone agrees that slavery is wrong.
    63% of Americans support gay marriage, and this number is expected to continue rising.
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    edited August 1

    That may be the case now but has that always been the case?
    Throughout history, did everyone always agree slavery was wrong?
    Throughout history, did 63% of Americans always support gay marriages?

  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    Is living in a tree house natural ? Is wanting  to be a tightrope Walker natural , is fire eating natural ?


    What does it even mean to say something is ‘natural’?
    Happy_KillbotindependentlyJustAnAllMightFanrosends
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    edited August 1
    Homosexuality because of the typical process leads to a lot of sexually transmitted diseases.
    Unlike today, it was highly untreatable.
    Chlamydia, Gonorrhea carried an average of 28 years, with a host of side effects.
    Syphilis carried an average of 15 years.
    These were not the only ones.

    This is one of the reasons it was not a popular way of life in the past.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @We_are_accountable
    .............(spare me the lies of supposed Gay animals).

    No, I won't, because homosexuality amongst animals is rife and "natural". Sheep, ducks and many fish have homosexuals, many fish change gender in order to reproduce and the male seahorse actually gives birth.

    So, despite the wishes of some to blank out the facts through ignorance and arrogance, homosexuality is and always has been "natural".

    Next homophobic excuse, please.
    We_are_accountable
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @We_are_accountable
    .............(spare me the lies of supposed Gay animals).

    No, I won't, because homosexuality amongst animals is rife and "natural". Sheep, ducks and many fish have homosexuals, many fish change genders in order to reproduce and the male seahorse actually gives birth. So, despite the wishes of some to blank out the facts through ignorance and arrogance, homosexuality is and always has been "natural".
    Next homophobic excuse, please.
    Happy_KillbotindependentlyWe_are_accountable
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @Sand
    Would you say you feel there is a standard of moral value?

    Yes. The attitude towards homosexuality, like many human behaviours has always been subject to societal acceptance.
    Slavery, racism and women's rights have changed over the years and we have the "zeitgeist of time" to thank for that.
    My point is that society has moved along and improved dramatically since the dark ages which were barbaric, oppressive and primitive, to say the least.
    So, moral values change and it is religions such as Christianity that drag its heals along in the dark ages, especially when it comes to sexism and vilification of minority groups.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473
    Some people naturally have sexual attractions to those of the same gender, therefore it cannot be 'unnatural'. The argument against homosexuality is as toxic as it is illogical. And yes, humans are one of the very few species where homosexuality exists. That doesn't make it unnatural...

    I would like to see the smiles on the dials of homophobes in say, 100 years time when it will be considered unnatural to be heterosexual.
    At the rate we are going now (and indeed it does happen) we won't need heterosexual reproduction of the species.
    And we all know that men understand men better and woman understand women better; what could be more natural?
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    So you would admit that your stand on such topics would have been different living during those times?
    As moral values will be different in the future.
    Is it fair for someone to vilify you for the stand you are taking now opposed to the future stand you may possibly take?
    Or is it fair for minority groups to come to your house and make rules that you may or may not agree with?

    Right now it is possible to make your own Religion however you want and to outline any rules you want.
    But to force a group regardless of the size to adhere to a different group's rules or feelings on matters encroaches on that first group's freedom, don't you think?
    Happy_Killbot
  • @Sand ;
    Right now it is possible to make your own Religion however you want and to outline any rules you want.
    But to force a group regardless of the size to adhere to a different group's rules or feelings on matters encroaches on that first group's freedom, don't you think?
    Let's apply that thinking to LGBT: Their rights such as the right to marry has been historically infringed upon due to religious doctrine.

    Is it right for dogmatic religion to infringe upon these group's rights?
    Sand
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    edited August 2

    It was mostly infringed upon due to it not being socially accepted.
    Because they wanted the right to go into restrooms and locker rooms outside of their birth sex.
    Which caused another uneasy issue of voyeurism.

    Their rights to marry was hindered not by the religion but by the states.
    If LGBT wanted to be married by religion, they only needed to create their own religion and get married.
    But that doesn't make national news or draw attention to their plight.
    Religious people were not the only groups supporting the social norms at the time.
    Atheists were also supporting those norms.
    Schools/Colleges were also supporting those norms.
    State and Federal Governments were also supporting those norms.
    But it is always religion that gets vilified for someone who wants to make a new way, or in order to gain attention.

    >>>Is it right for dogmatic religion to infringe upon these group's rights?<<<
    No it is not right, this is also stated in the Bible.

    Religious organizations, as far as I know, do not hinder people from doing what they want, they just say don't do it here, do it somewhere else.
    Usually, when you are a new group the first line of thought is not to make your own way, it is to make others conform to you.
    Happy_Killbot
  • @Sand ;

    What you don't seem to grasp is the connection between old social norms and religion. The only reason these social norms existed is because of the influence of religion on European culture, which pre-dated the US.

    Simply "making a new religion" doesn't solve the problem that institutions will not issue marriage licences to same-sex couples. It is necessary to broaden the definition of marriage to "any two people" from "between a man and a woman" which is an entirely religious-based idea.

    It would seem that at every turn we have to fight against religion for social freedoms.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    edited August 2
    @Happy_Killbot

    I agree but freedom includes the religions' right to adhere to or influence old social norms or new.

    Why should they get married period?
    That is an old social norm. 
    Marriage certificates are not issued from the religion, only the marriage ceremony.
    https://family.findlaw.com/marriage/legal-requirements-for-marriage-faq-s.html#type-Marriage-license
    You are right about broadening the definition, but that is from the states viewpoint.

    I know you use the term "social freedoms" but what we are talking about written or unwritten rules of behavior or expectations, that someone doesn't want to adhere to but wants to still be part of a group.

    Saying hello, giving personal space, dressing appropriately, not picking your nose, not cursing or saying racial slurs, not rearranging areas, being respectful, waiting to be invited in a persons place of dwelling, cover your nose before you sneeze, these are social norms. 

    By fighting for "social freedoms" you encroach on the national freedoms of others.
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    Think about the NFL.
    They have a group of the top selected football players nationwide.
    A "social norm" would be to allow anyone to play for the NFL regardless of skill or selection.
    Also preventing the NFL teams from restricting or preventing players who are not capable.
    You could imagine what this would do to the sport.
    But this is a "social freedom" that someone could fight for.

    Happy_Killbot
  • @Sand ;
    Sand said:

    Think about the NFL.
    They have a group of the top selected football players nationwide.
    A "social norm" would be to allow anyone to play for the NFL regardless of skill or selection.
    Also preventing the NFL teams from restricting or preventing players who are not capable.
    You could imagine what this would do to the sport.
    But this is a "social freedom" that someone could fight for.

    The NFL is a private institution that has no bearing on society, what is your point?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Sand ;
    I agree but freedom includes the religions' right to adhere to or influence old social norms or new.
    Religion must be kept out of politics. They have no right to influence me based on their beliefs. To suggest otherwise makes you an enemy to the USA.
    Why should they get married period?
    That is an old social norm. 
    Marriage certificates are not issued from the religion, only the marriage ceremony.
    https://family.findlaw.com/marriage/legal-requirements-for-marriage-faq-s.html#type-Marriage-license
    You are right about broadening the definition, but that is from the states viewpoint.
    Why should anyone get married?

    Its for tax purposes.
    I know you use the term "social freedoms" but what we are talking about written or unwritten rules of behavior or expectations, that someone doesn't want to adhere to but wants to still be part of a group.

    Saying hello, giving personal space, dressing appropriately, not picking your nose, not cursing or saying racial slurs, not rearranging areas, being respectful, waiting to be invited in a persons place of dwelling, cover your nose before you sneeze, these are social norms. 
    Social norms also include legal matters, i.e. "do not kill", property rights, city ordinances, and who can marry who.
    By fighting for "social freedoms" you encroach on the national freedoms of others.
    This is simply false. Prove to me that two men marrying in California effects a heterosexual couple in New York.

    You have no right to say who can or can not marry based on your speculative and immoral religion.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    Why are you trying to make this about marriage?
    Religions do not control who can and cannot be married.

    The only thing that religion can control is the marriage ceremony and they are also private institutions.
    The state controls who can and cannot be married.

    >>>Religion must be kept out of politics. They have no right to influence me based on their beliefs. To suggest otherwise makes you an enemy to the USA.<<<
    Religions are private institutions that have rights also. So they cannot be kept out of politics.

    >>>Social norms also include legal matters, i.e. "do not kill", property rights, city ordinances, and who can marry who.<<<
    No. That is the Law. It is not controlled by religion.

    >>>This is simply false. Prove to me that two men marrying in California effects a heterosexual couple in New York.<<<
    Who you marry is governed by federal and state laws, not religion.

    >>>The NFL is a private institution that has no bearing on society, what is your point?<<<
    My point is as a private institution, "social freedoms" would hinder the organization.

    I believe you have misunderstood what "social norms" are, and are comparing them to politics and laws.
    They are not the same as laws, they are written or unwritten rules of behavior or expectations.

    Religion does not control marriage, never has, and never will.
  • @Sand ;
    Why are you trying to make this about marriage?
    Religions do not control who can and cannot be married.
    The point I am making is that religious persons oppose LGBT equality, including the right to marriage as seen in the fact that more religious areas have more opposition to LGBT right.
    Religions are private institutions that have rights also. So they cannot be kept out of politics.
    That's not how this works. If religion is allowed in politics, then that means that the state is allowed to make decisions based on religion, which is a direct violation of the first amendment.
    No. That is the Law. It is not controlled by religion.
    And why shouldn't laws be counted as social norms? Seems to me that they are both social and normal.
    Who you marry is governed by federal and state laws, not religion.
    No, but when theocrats try to impose their religious laws, then they do. Get it?
    I believe you have misunderstood what "social norms" are, and are comparing them to politics and laws.
    They are not the same as laws, they are written or unwritten rules of behavior or expectations.

    Religion does not control marriage, never has, and never will.
    When a social norm becomes institutionalized, it is called a law.

    Anyways, that doesn't change the point that I am making, because the fact still stands that religion hinders progress, such as social acceptance of homosexuals.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    >>>The point I am making is that religious persons oppose LGBT equality, including the right to marriage as seen in the fact that more religious areas have more opposition to LGBT right.<<<
    You must be talking about a specific religious entity or a particular experience. Because no religious persons I know (I have studied in many different religions) try to oppose LGBT equality.

    >>>That's not how this works. If religion is allowed in politics, then that means that the state is allowed to make decisions based on religion, which is a direct violation of the first amendment.<<<
    There are no government-sponsored religions. All religious entities are private.

    >>>And why shouldn't laws be counted as social norms? Seems to me that they are both social and normal.<<<
    Can you imagine being locked up for forgetting to say excuse me?

    >>>No, but when theocrats try to impose their religious laws, then they do. Get it?<<<
    There are no religious laws that apply to the government, only to their private entity.

    >>>When a social norm becomes institutionalized, it is called a law. Anyways, that doesn't change the point that I am making, because the fact still stands that religion hinders progress, such as social acceptance of homosexuals. <<<
    You mean when the government institutionalizes something they make it a law.
    I do not see how religion hinders any progress, it definitely does not hinder the social acceptance of homosexuals.
    You have some form of religious paranoia, you obviously think religions have more power than they actually do.
    Or you watch too many TV shows.
    There is no secret religious group controlling the government to prevent homosexual marriage.
    Any entity forcing anyone to do anything outside of their will is against the law.
    So if there was any entity forcing someone or preventing someone's rights that entity becomes accountable.
    I believe every religious entity knows the laws and adheres to them if not, do not bring it up here take it to your local authorities.
  • @Sand ;
    You must be talking about a specific religious entity or a particular experience. Because no religious persons I know (I have studied in many different religions) try to oppose LGBT equality.
    Did you read the other comments? There are some of them on this site!
    There are no government-sponsored religions. All religious entities are private.
    And therefore should have no say in politics.
    Can you imagine being locked up for forgetting to say excuse me?
    That doesn't follow. If Laws are social norms that does not mean that all social norms are laws.
    There are no religious laws that apply to the government, only to their private entity.
    How about tax exemptions?
    I do not see how religion hinders any progress, it definitely does not hinder the social acceptance of homosexuals.
    Read the other comments! The only opposition to homosexuals is from religion.

    F***, the Quran explicitly states to throw homosexuals off of buildings. Then there are those pesky passages in Leviticus and in Romans...
    You have some form of religious paranoia, you obviously think religions have more power than they actually do.
    In the US, atheists are one of the only groups that are deemed "unelectable" because of evangelical nuts. On top of that, I have spent a lot of time explaining to people the very basics of the US constitution to know that Muslims and Christians do not have the best interests of the American people in mind. Theocracy is something I very much stand against.
    Or you watch too many TV shows.
    The last time I watched TV i couldn't believe how cringy and it was. That was over a month ago, and it was only because I was at a family gathering. Needless to say, I almost never watch TV.
    There is no secret religious group controlling the government to prevent homosexual marriage.
    Any entity forcing anyone to do anything outside of their will is against the law.So if there was any entity forcing someone or preventing someone's rights that entity becomes accountable.I believe every religious entity knows the laws and adheres to them if not, do not bring it up here take it to your local authorities.
    I agree, they do it in the open. There is no need to be secret about it.

    I'm sorry, but are you just totally oblivious to the fact that same sex marriage is not universally legal in the US?
    Only 37 states have legalized same-sex marriage and some counties still reject marriage licences for same-sex couples.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States 
    Sand
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @Sand
    But to force a group regardless of the size to adhere to a different group's rules or feelings on matters encroaches on that first group's freedom, don't you think?

    We are entitled to our freedoms but when certain "freedoms" encroach upon human rights, we have a different situation.
    Society has decided that the vilification of homosexuals should be unlawful which is why laws are put in place.
    If the group (homophobes) does not like it and wants to flout the law and do not understand decent, civilized morals then tough titties for them.

    "Is it fair for someone to vilify you for the stand you are taking now opposed to the future stand you may possibly take?"

    I'm talking about the stand that society takes. The zeitgeist of time continually moves and there will always be some in our society who refuse to move with the times because of their own draconian, stubborn prejudices and hide behind an organisational shield. The general term for these people is bigots. More specifically, we are talking here about the sub-group known as Religious.
    Happy_Killbot
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    Wow, I am sorry you all are having struggles in this area.
    Maybe I am oblivious to what is really going on with LGBT and getting married.
    If religion is playing a role as you say, then I apologize for not relating to your plight.

    Christian Religion is not supposed to have a say in the affairs of those who are not Christian.

    1 Corinthians 5:11, 12 - "But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?"

    This scripture says do not judge those outside the church, but to judge those that are inside.
    So treatment of those inside the church should be different for those outside the church, if the ones inside become immoral or violate rules you remove them as Christians placing them outside.
    Treatment of the ones outside is not to be judged but treated with love, peace, and respect.

    Matthew 7:12 - "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
    Romans 12:17,18 - "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men."

    I believe you are attacking the wrong thing, that is the reason for your struggle.

    Here is the solution to your problem.
    Give a dog a good name.

    Villainize the problem not the players in the game.

    Religion is the most powerful nonprofit entity out there. To villainize religion is to build a uphill battle for yourself.
    If you villainize religion they will put up their defenses, and if they could help you, they won't.

    Let me give you an example:
    It is like a cowboy who is in a saloon and the Bartender will not serve him for some strange reason.
    Say its because he has a big nose.
    So the cowboy leaves mad, he is so mad that he bursts back in the saloon shooting at all the customers and the Bartender.
    What will the customers do?
    They will put down a table and shoot back. So now this cowboy has the whole saloon as his enemy when originally it was between two people.

    When you say Religion is the problem to homosexuals getting married.
    That means Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Adventist, Lutheran just to name a few.
    They are not all actively trying to prevent homosexuals from getting married, a great majority could care less about what they do.

    Back to the example:
    If that cowboy instead goes in the saloon and make friends with the customers start telling jokes, singing songs, building relationships.
    Then asks one of them if they could get him a drink, here is the money, it leverages against the Bartender.
    Now if the Bartender refuses to give you a drink though another party, they become part of your plight.

    The problem of marriage certificates is with the last 13 states.
    Go and make statements about religions and talk about how they treated you with respect, peace, love, and did not judge me.
    They are truly Christ-like.
    Now they will support your plight and if they do not support it they will not hinder it, or work against it.

    You have to learn from that movie "The Best of Enemies".
    If you think people are monsters then they will become monsters.
    But if you give a dog a good name, then they will live up to that name.

    Back to the example:
    If that cowboy instead goes in the saloon and commends the Bartender and tells him how wonderful of an establishment he built.
    His family no doubt is proud of him that he is the pillar in the whole town, that his kindness, generosity, and compassion will go out nationwide.
    You will be one of his biggest advocators making his establishment the destination of all your friends and family.
    He is more likely to give you a drink after that, no guarantee, but definitely more likely.

    Get all the characterizations of zeitgeist, draconian, prejudices, and bigots out of your head.
    If you think people are monsters then they will become monsters.
    I do not know who or what is hindering the last 13 states, but if you paint them as monsters they will become what you see them as.

    To change a state law requires Senators.
    Play the Walmart card.
    You need to find the senators that are opposed to the idea, and finance a campaign for someone who will support your idea.
    It is to my understanding that Homosexuals are some of the most powerful people in the USA.
    Talk to them and organize a plan to support every senator in those 13 states that are for LGBT marriages.
    Take the states to court villainize the problem not the players in the game.

    Hopefully, this will help you.

    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @Sand
    Hopefully, this will help you.

    Yes, it does, not that I need any help since my self-medication seems to be working just fine.

    So, rapists and serial killers are not monsters then eh? Let's just talk to them nicely, let them out of prison and stop putting names on them; they won't rape and murder any more and everything will be just peaches.

    Like heck, we will.....and neither will we let homophobes off the hook. 
    It is not the labelling of homophobia that is the problem, it is the problem itself.

    The world has spoken and those who continue to vilify minority groups will continue to be told and labelled by decent, law-abiding society.

    So far as being labelled because of belonging to a certain group goes, I am about to place a thread on that one. Man, if you like this thread, you are going to absolutely love the next one.
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    Why would you refer to LGBT as rapists and serial killers?

    Your labeling is the problem.
    Your lack of empathy toward others causes hardships on another's way of life.
    You have to learn to be more sympathetic toward the homosexual plight.
    I understand you may not care, but your labeling causes more pain.
    madeleine_
  • The word 'unnatural' is a vague term. It can mean many things, depending on the person who is using the term. If one were to ask a religious person what the word 'unnatural' means, he or she would probably say that it is the way of things approved by God. 
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @Sand
    Why would you refer to LGBT as rapists and serial killers?

    I wouldn't and never have done so. I think you may want to read my post again and comprehend what I was actually saying.
    I was refuting by illustrating your absurd theory that people are monsters if they are labelled so.
    It simply is not the case as per my examples of a serial killer or rapist.
    Similarly, talking "nicely" to homophobes and Churches is not going to change their stripes either...we have been there and done that..... tolerating their vilification and hatred for far too long.
    To correctly coin your terminology, the problem is "the players in the game". And that includes Churches who actively promote and incite vilification of minority groups.
    Society has spoken and made a stand against such behaviour. Homophobes and the institutions who harbour their ugly ideals have been named and shamed.
    They are now the outcast mismatches of society and deservedly so.
     
    Incidentally, let me just take a quick swipe at your remark about Churches being nonprofit entities.
    Like heck, they are...they are powerful because of the obscene amounts of wealth they have accumulated. Oh sure, they get "classified" as being non-profit charities (show me one Church that is genuinely charitable and not just putting on a show) but that will change with the already growing groundswell of political groups actively campaigning to have such institutions reclassified.
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    If you were to ask an Atheist what the word 'unnatural' means, they would probably say it is the way of things not approved by me.

    Happy_Killbot
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @Swolliw
    If you were to ask an Atheist what the word 'unnatural' means, they would probably say it is the way of things not approved by me.

    Tut tut, now. Let's not lose sight of the thread.
    We are talking about theists making the excuse that homosexuality is not natural in order to justify their homophobia, which is blatant hypocrisy since for example, Jesus was (allegedly) born to a married virgin.
    So the argument is defeated on three fronts:
    1) Hypocrisy...as just outlined.
    2) Incorrect since homosexuality is and has always been natural. Atheists did not define what is natural. So, unless theists come out and say what on earth they mean by natural......oh, wait a minute, yes, of course, it's unnatural if the Bible says it's an abomination...so it is the theists who are the ones who say "it is the way of things not approved by me (the Bible)". Self-righteous bunch of twats they are don't you think?
    3) So damned what if something is deemed to be unnatural. It's unnatural to wear clothes or drive cars. 

    By crikey, I think we have resolved the argument right here and now.
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @Sand

    ** If you were to ask an Atheist what the word 'unnatural' means, they would probably say it is the way of things not approved by me.**

    Not surprisingly another lazy sweeping generalistion from you all because you refuse to state what you mean by ‘natural’ 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch