Should be homosexuality considered as a sin?
Yes
Side Score: 176
|
 |
No
Side Score: 197
|
 |
 |
|
Loud, I am sorry, but you need to make a choice. You think it's probably a sin and yet you don't think it's wrong? Could you be any more contradictory? Is homosexuality a sin? The Bible clearly shows that God sees it as a sin. I am straight, yet I know many people who are homosexual. I don't cast any blame or judgment on them. I know it is wrong, but I am not responsible for the souls of anyone other than myself and my children. Someone's sexual preference is a matter between them, their partner, and God. Posted 211 days ago
"Sin is a term used mainly in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation." - Wikipedia Just because I think its a sin doesn't mean I subscribe to the religion whose context describes the act. BOOYA! Posted 211 days ago
Calebsdaddy, I respect the position of your argument, however I must disagree with the assumption is is based on, as is evidenced by the second and third sentences; the former being a question and the latter being the answer I have a problem with. Whether or not something is right or wrong has no bearing on whether or not something can be considered a sin. I make no claims as to who or what entity passes decisions pertaining to the qualifications of the attributable sinliness/godhoodery of any action or state of being.
Supporting Evidence:
Does a thing being "right" or "wrong" have anything to do with it being considered a sin?
(www.createdebate.com)
Posted 211 days ago
calebsdaddy, it's evident that Loud has made a choice, and it's the same one as myself. Homosexuality IS considered a sin, because the bible SAYS it is a sin. However, SHOULD it be a sin? That depends on how you define sin. sin1 (sĭn) pronunciation n. 1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate. 2. Theology. 1. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God. 2. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience. 3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong. Going by the first definition, then yes, it should be a sin. However, being as I am not religious, and don't affiliate with Christianity in any way, I am more apt to define sin as the third definition: Something regarded as being...wrong. In that case, no, it should NOT be a sin. Posted 176 days ago
Interestin point Loud... According to religion...it is a sin...so my answer is YES. But, religion and sin, are irrelavent concepts until you can prove religion to be true beyond any doubt, which is impossible by its own definition. Religion is faith. Thus meaning any argument religion has in regards to what is right and wrong in our society is not relevant and irrational. However, to add yet another circular argument... In reality, you can argue that because of their numbers amongst popular belief, that religion FORCES relevance. But, if we are talking rationally and philosophically...religion is a virus on a productive and foward moving society. Posted 214 days ago
Our societies morals and values, whether people like it or not, have been defined largely by a single religion, Christianity. By saying that what religion says in terms of morality is irrelevant and irrational you ignore this fact and thus I would challenge you to provide a source of modern morality that is completely separate from religion. Posted 214 days ago
I have to disagree with you on this one. While it is true that some of our moral and values have been mimicked from religion, they come from ideas way before mono-theism. Back in Greek times where the Idea of democracy was originally formed. Furthermore, morals and values, even within our society range from the community you are in. The values that are important for a church community in Kansas who believe in creationism are very different from the morals and values of a gay community in San Francisco or even a primarily Hindu town like Edison, NJ. Fortunately, our society is structured around laws that are fair for ALL, not just one group. THIS is what our society is based on....having a clause in the constitution for FREEDOM of religion is a far cry from a nation being based on Christianity. Iran is a Islamic fundamentalist nation. THIS is an example of a government being run by religious morals and values solely. For example, if you cheat on your husband in Iran, you are stoned. That doesn't happen here. And if you say because in christianity, people aren't stoned for that...haha...I implore you to read the old testament...people were stoned for MUCH less than that. Don't forget, Islam is based from the same Abrahamic god that Christianity is...as well Judiasm. Posted 214 days ago
The Greek word for "sin" used in the new testament is hymartia, meaning, "to miss the mark." If this is the definition meant by the question, as it should be in any religious context (for God is the one who defines sin and its counterpart, perfection), then absolutely and by all means. Homosexuality goes against the very thread of our being, against the way we were created. It does not only miss "the mark" of perfection to which all human beings should strive, but it seems not to even shoot the arrow. Posted 214 days ago
I dont believe the absence of procreation makes homosexuality "against the very thread " of anything. In the wild you will see animals exhibiting homosexual behavior - are they choosing to sin against their nature? Couldn't one argue that because some people have sexual impulses for the same sex, as well as the ability to sexually function with the same sex (albeit without procreation), a sign that perhaps homosexuality was intended by our creator? Posted 208 days ago
Basically sin means something that is wrong, so... If the ENTIRE Human race became devout homosexuals at this very moment, then the Human race would cease to exist within one hundred years. So, that means homosexuality is contrary to the survival of the species and thereby wrong behaviour. Posted 214 days ago
Ok, so if every Human in the world decided to have sex, but not procreate, that is wrong, too? It would have the exact same results. Not only that, many homosexuals choose to be artificially inseminated or have surrogate mothers, which does allow the human race to survive. Being homosexual has nothing to do with having children or not. I enjoy sex quite a bit, but you betcha I'm not having any damn kids!!! Posted 207 days ago
Awesome point HGrey! Markwho...I hope you don't honestly think the human race is going to fold because of the small population of homosexuals...furthermore, just because one is homosexuals doesn't mean a person is stupid. Even if the world would somehow magically become 100% gay, threating our existance, doesn't mean that people wouldn't get the bright idea of having sex with the opposite sex, in order to keep the species alive. It's not like you become gay and cross gender sexual intercourse becomes impossible! Posted 210 days ago
If the entire human race became homosexual, women could still have babies. Read the book The Female Man by Joanna Russ. I think you'll see that women don't need men. Me, I like men, but I'd get by with friendly pleasure in a world where there were no testosterone-overwhelmed humans. ;) Posted 203 days ago
|
