Many illegal immigrants DO pay taxes, they pay into Social Security if they are working under a false SS number (and living in Arizona I can tell you a good percentage do just that)

They also pay sales tax, housing tax, etc. Only the undocumented cash workers dont pay income tax, and Id wager that an equal number of non-immigrants do exactly the same. Everyone pays the government in the end, one way or another.

No. What two consenting adult human beings do together is none of my business, as long as it harms none. Years ago it was considered an abomination for a person of one race to marry another, and I look at our current view of homosexuality in much the same, antiquated, backwards way. Our grandchildren will be ashamed of us for being so ignorant and afraid of other people. To each his or her own.

I'd say to be a moral person you must do no harm in your actions, first and foremost. It may be beneficial for the collective to kill `1 to save 100, but for the individual Id say it'd be an immoral act.

That is just a personal belief, however, and I wouldn't try to push it on anyone else or judge them for their actions.

But for me, personally, the order is as such:

Do no harm

Prevent harm when possible

Promote good (happiness, healthiness, etc)

So I wouldnt say the ends justify the means. However, someone else may believe they should:

Prevent as much harm as possible

Do no harm

Promote good

In which case they would justify the means with the ends.

It is easier to agree with what you are saying in regards to the original question; however, I did not see the original wording so I was responding based on the current phrasing, my mistake. There is still much room in the oringinal question as well, if you use the definitons of sin I have provided in my other posts instead of the truncated one you were looking at. I suppose we will not know the intent of the questioner until he/she explicitly states it.

I think I see what your saying, but you presuppose the notion that man always does whats best for him, which I dont believe is the case.

For example, the government of Greece was a partial democracy, and afterwards the whole of Europe went under monarchistic rule (the dark ages) This shows a nonlinear progression of government types, a "devolution" if you will from democracy (commonly considered a better form of government) to monarchy (commonly considered an inferior or unfair form of government)

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, I think, but not the idea that what we have at any given time is the best we know of. In fact, there are some who believe tribal government (i.e. the government and economic systems of the Native Americans or African tribes) is the best sort of government: Collective property, social punishment for crime (exile or banishment) and rule by the elders.

Agreed. Pure capitalism is basically corporate rule or oligarchy, and pure communism is generally in practice a dictatorship (although PURE communism in theory would not be). Personal liberty can be best achieved from a common starting point provided by the collective, and allowing for the individual to earn as much "property" or "wealth" as they see fit.

Webster:

Main Entry:

1sin Listen to the pronunciation of 1sin

Pronunciation:

\ˈsin\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is — more at is

Date:

before 12th century

1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible c: an often serious shortcoming : fault2 a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

You showed only part of the definition of sin. Once again, I quote:

3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.

A question that simply asks whether or not the Bible lists homosexuality as a sin is a RESEARCH question, not a DEBATE, in my opinion. The answer is as simple as opening the book of Genesis. Certainly not worthy of any discussion. However, if one considers the 3rd definition of "sin", he could debate whether or not he considers homosexuality a "reprehensible action."

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on the meaning of sin and ask the poster to rephrase the question once more with more clear wording.

Whose "official" definition is that?

You left out the 3rd definition, whether by accident or by design I do not know:

3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.

Here is websters:

Main Entry:

1sin Listen to the pronunciation of 1sin

Pronunciation:

\ˈsin\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is — more at is

Date:

before 12th century

1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible c: an often serious shortcoming : fault2 a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

Plenty of room in this definition to interpret the question as " Should homosexuality be considered (against moral law) or (highly reprehensible) or (a serious shortcoming or fault)?

Once again I suppose we should ask the OP to clarify the question instead of arguing with each other over which definition of "SIN" we like best.

I favored your arguement because I agree that the question was ill-posed; however, I think the "should" in the question makes the questioner's intent pretty clear, even though the word "sin" muddles up the debate. "Sin" is commonly used in reference to religion, but it is also commonly used in reference to any immoral or "wrong" act. Dictionary.com includes this definition:

3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.

I would argue that this definition matches the spirit of the question, wouldnt you?