CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Because, according to what Christians believe in, if a homosexual person had kids, and did not have gay sex, then they would not have committed any gay related sins.
Just like how someone who enjoys lying would not be doomed from the start, provided that they don't act on said urges. This is why they aren't in a state of "spiritual suicide" simply because they prefer lying to telling the truth, just like the gays.
I assume you don't like all girls. Some get your attention the moment you see them, some walk right by you and you never notice. Some can get inside your heart and never go away. Others seem great, but once you get to know them you lose interest.
You didn't choose which girls inspire these feelings in you and which don't. You didn't choose to stay up all night thinking about one girl. You responded to stimulus. Something about their personality, the way they look, the things they like...something jumped out at you. You didn't choose to react that way, you just got caught up in it. That's how we find mates.
For some people, the things that want or need to feel romantically excited can only be provided by members of their own sex. It is how it is for them. Asking them to fight it is like asking you to ignore your feelings for the woman you love most because of one arbitrary aspect of her, one that does no harm, one that is NOBODY's business except yours and hers.
If THAT is somehow a spiritual way to live, I don't want a part of it.
I think you guys get it through there mom and girls get it through there dad. I don't know much of how it works, but what I do know is its not a choice. By confusion do you mean bi-curious?
If you think about it, you can never have your own child together, and so you are pretty much wiping your DNA out of existence...
First and foremost- what does passing along DNA have to do with spirituality? A child created from ones own dna is a material successor, in that the genes are passed along. Spiritual succession, though, would seem to involve passing along ones experience, beliefs, and ideals; this can be done just as well with an adopted child, or even an unrelated protege.
That aside, it also doesn't have to involve wiping out ones own DNA. There is always the possibility of sperm donors and surrogates. My wife is good friends with a lesbian couple that is raising two children, one carried by each of them, same sperm donor. They're both passing their genes along and raising them together, just neither child has BOTH of their genes. I'm certain there are homosexual male couples with an equivalent arrangement.
Yes and the physical realm is a part of the universe, you can't say the physical realm is not spiritual everything is.
This is the same kind of point people make when talking about natural vs. man-made, saying that man is a part of nature. This is the same kind of point people make when talking about animal vs. human, saying that humans are animals. It's a technicality that misses the real intent behind the word.
Common usage of the term natural is as opposed to created by man. When we talk about natural vs. artificial, we're generally referring to things that arose without human influence vs things that arose as a direct result of human efforts. Even if humans are considered part of nature, that distinction is still an important part of the meaning of the word 'natural' in common usage.
Common usage of the term animal is as opposed to human. When we talk about animals, we're generally referring to non-human members of the animal kingdom vs. members of homo sapiens. Even if humans are considered animals, that distinction is still an important part of the meaning of the word 'animal' in common usage.
Common usage of the term 'spiritual' is as opposed to the material. When we talk about the spiritual, we're generally referring to the abstract, metaphysical things vs. the material world. Even if the physical is considered to be itself spiritual, that distinction is still an important part of the meaning of the word 'spritual' in common usage.
And having a child who is not genetically equivalent to both parents would leave a confused child. That's just my opinion though.
I know several who were adopted as children who would disagree, and several people who were raised by both biological parents that despise said parents and held out a secret hope that they were adopted. I don't think dna has much of a factor on the matter, except insofar as the initial hormonal bonding that the mother feels towards the child due to pregnancy. DNA has almost nothing to do with a fathers ability to bond with his children, as can be seen when men are torn later in life when they find they are not the biological father of the child they love dearly.
One can absolutely state that the physical realm is not spiritual, particularly since there is zero evidence that spirituality is anything but a delusion.
Further, your opinion is purely prejudicial and utterly unfounded by any legitimate research.
particularly since there is zero evidence that spirituality is anything but a delusion. What about human conciousness? If you eliminate every part of a person's subconcious, there would still be a concious person inside. Maybe this bit or that bit, and no matter what a concious person is controlling the other half. Or maybe all of it, and a concious person is controlling nothing.
The perception of consciousness in no way precludes spirituality being a delusion. If your argument made any sense whatsoever, then delusion in general would not exist which is simply not the case.
P.S. There is also no evidence that consciousness itself translates into any degree of free will in governing our thoughts; a growing body of research indicates rather the opposite.
The perception of consciousness in no way precludes spirituality being a delusion. If your argument made any sense whatsoever, then delusion in general would not exist which is simply not the case. Of course delusion exists -- that doesn't say my argument don't make sense. People aren't necessarily guided by or guide themselves by reason, but they still make delusional choices. And as far as conciousness proving the spirit, re-read my argument.
P.S. There is also no evidence that consciousness itself translates into any degree of free will in governing our thoughts; a growing body of research indicates rather the opposite.
The research only proves that things influence people to do things; people still have a choice. Sometimes a possibily undesirable choice seems obvious for a lack of information
As with most functions of the brain, consciousness is not produced by one specific part but rather by a collection of brain networks. Do your own bloody research; I am really not interested in teaching you basic human neurobiology.
I did reread your argument. Multiple times. It still makes absolutely no sense. You appear to be claiming that since the conscious mind exists then the spirit does as well. Dispense with my argument paralleling spirituality with other delusions; since you cannot view your religious convictions as even potentially delusional you clearly missed the point of comparison.
Research indicates far more than that we are influenced by things. For example, research (1) indicates that our actions are already underway before we are aware of having made them, by as much as 10 seconds. Further, medical professionals regular target particular chemicals and brain structures to control human behavior. Particular behaviors have been pinpointed to specific genetic coding and brain locations. By contrast, I have seen zero evidence supporting the free will claim. Given your confidence, however, perhaps you would like to provide some? Failure to do so proves my point
The simple fact is this: you have no evidence for your beliefs, and what evidence exists contraindicates your beliefs.
----------
(1) Haynes, et al (2008) "Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain." Nature Neuroscience v. 11, pgs. 543 - 545
False. The premise of this debate is that homosexuality constitutes spiritual suicide. Observation of the lack of a spirit is one effective negation of that assertion.
You phrased the question as one of spiritual suicide, meaning self-destruction of one's spirit. You cannot legitimately fault anyone for arguing in accordance with the very language you used to establish the debate.
Furthermore: self-confidence, loving others, and connecting to the universe (whatever that means) are in no way contingent upon genetic propagation. Your argument utterly lacks any rationale.
I think you missed the part about artificial insemination. The way it's done primarily, is by taking the egg or sperm from one member of the relationship, and implanting it into a family member of the other. That's as close to both genes as they can get, which would still technically be passing on both of their dna.
So there are gay people j--cking off to strieght magazines in sperm banks? I never heard of faciliation for homosexual donors. And if there was some where and in some place, 99.9999% of gays have parents still which shows that 99.9999% of gays couldn't have inherented a gay gene if it requires the sexual reproduction of strieght people (which it should).
It's not, it's about connecting to the universe and you can't be connected to the universe if you don't have a physical means, and passing on your DNA is not so much yourself being connected to the universe as it is sharing life with someone
Your position is entirely inconsistent. If the physical is the spiritual, then everyone is spiritual by virtue of being physical. Make up your mind which way you're going to argue, please?
I think homosexuality is a choice, I believe we are born with no sexual preference and we will choose who we want to be. I chose to like girls, I experimented with bisexuality before. I choose girls because gay men are basically girls without a vagina and i'm pretty sure vaginas and penises evolved for each other...
Prove it, where is all this 'evidence.' I read the supposed evidence in my school psychology book and they out an out fabricated it. 3% of animals are not gay, no animals are really gay, they just hump what has a hole in it...
You do not think anything on that matter. That implies an actual process of thought and rationale, which you utterly lack. You are speaking from ignorant, unfounded beliefs that are contradicted by a not inconsiderable body of interdisciplinary research.
You did not chose to like girls. You did not chose to "experiment" with bisexuality either. Everything you have ever done and will do is determined not by your free will, but by a confluence of genetics and environmental conditioning.
I have heard that a million times, you should learn a new approach to discussing homosexuality as a choice. All of my rebuttals are a direct cause of experience in my life. Why should I believe anything else when it is outside of my own perception?
Why should I believe anything else when it is outside of my own perception?
Because your perception is an ignorant delusion disproved by actual research. If you are fine with that, then by all means do continue proclaiming and defending your ignorance. For my part, I will continue to hold my informed views until someone proffers a legitimate reason to alter my perspective.
It's really amazing that you know all the answers to how reality should be viewed and interpreted, where did you find all of these answers? And don't tell me science because I am just going to tell you that I believe spirituality is the experience of science so...
Your perception of reality is just as ignorant as mine, that was an ignorant statement within itself. No one knows the true nature of reality so why do you claim to know so much?
It's really amazing that you know all the answers to how reality should be viewed and interpreted, where did you find all of these answers?
I do not, I never did, and I never claimed to.
And don't tell me science because I am just going to tell you that I believe spirituality is the experience of science so...
Actual science. Not some abstract "experience of science" that utterly lacks any and all standards of proof, peer review, repeatability, etc.
Your perception of reality is just as ignorant as mine, that was an ignorant statement within itself. No one knows the true nature of reality so why do you claim to know so much?
No, actually, it is not. I do not claim to know anything with certainty, but I do draw my conclusions based upon what is most probable given actual evidence. Your beliefs are just assumptions, made without and even against what the evidence suggests most probable.
Our subconcious map guides us, but we ultimately decide what we do. And we also make our subconcious map as we live and learn. So everything really is a choice, some choices might just be made with limited information.
Nice regurgitation of the free will narrative. Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence that free will actually exists as anything more than a delusion. In fact, research increasingly indicates that our thoughts and behavior are predetermined by forces outside our control (i.e. genetics and environmental conditioning).
Of course people are compelled by forces beyond their control -- then they make decisions. And if they have limited information, then they are more likely to make certain decisions.
I reiterate: nice regurgitation of the free will narrative. Now, how about some evidence to support your claim. No? I am done here. Unless you provide actual, legitimate research to support your baseless assertion you can expect no further reply from me here or elsewhere on the subject.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it I asked a specific question, how can you be connected to the universe when everything you do goes against what spirituality entails?
Well this is just my belief, since we are debating something that can't quite be proven I'll just throw my theory out there. (Which will not be logical so don't try to understand it rationally, anyone) In marriage, which to me is the highest form of spirituality, you have basically a plug for the wall, 2 prongs and a grounding prong. That equates to the husband/father, the wife/mother, and the child.
That's what I believe and yeah I know marriage is practically non existent, but I think thats whats one thing wrong with the world
According to Christianity, yes. But I have learned that there isn't too much wrong with being gay. People can just develope extremely odd differences. Gays are like freaks of nature, but what they do behind close doors is their business.
According to some Christianity. Plenty of Christians have absolutely no issue with homosexuality, viewing it as neither sinful nor unnatural. There is nothing objectively "wrong" with being gay, nor is there anything particularly "freakish" about homosexuality (it is as naturally occurring as being red headed or left handed). What homosexuals do in privacy or in public is legitimately none of your concern so long as it is not negatively harming you. Mind, ones personal discomfort due to their own ignorance does not constitute being harmed. Other people are not at fault for the ignorance of those around them.
Of course, other honest Christians would disagree. The problem with religious belief is that it is entirely subjective, which means neither you nor any other Christian can actually claim absolute and singular understanding of what it constitutes.
P.S. Way to ignore the entire rest of my analysis. Quite telling, that.
You cannot prove that my understanding of Christianity is not absolutely true either. According to the christianity which believes it is just fine, it should also be just fine to steal or murder because they manifest their beliefs on God telling people to not judge (and therefore to say homosexuality is a-ok according to that interpretation of non-judgment).
You cannot prove that my understanding of Christianity is not absolutely true either.
Nor do I need to. My point was that there is no "honest" Christianity. That point stands. As do all of my other points you have still failed to address.
According to the christianity which believes it is just fine, it should also be just fine to steal or murder because they manifest their beliefs on God telling people to not judge (and therefore to say homosexuality is a-ok according to that interpretation of non-judgment).
So what? This is entirely non-responsive to every point I have made in this thread.
Nor do I need to. My point was that there is no "honest" Christianity. That point stands. As do all of my other points you have still failed to address. Interpretations can be grossly incorrect, and therefore there can be a true interpretation and a false interpretation.
Still missing the point. You have no evidence to prove your interpretation of the Bible superior to that of any other Christian. Citing the Bible on this one does not work, because another person can interpret it differently... which is precisely my point.
All you supposed intellectuals here lack something totally vital to good intellect and that is common sense. Your going through a web of thought in your head and weaving crazy theories to answer simple questions. I have nothing more to say in this debate... Not everything is relative, some things are definite and common sense. If one says its OK to be gay because "don't judge," then they say its OK to commit any biblical sin because "don't judge," right? But anybody with common sense knows that the Bible is does not say its just fine to sin. And therefore, no one who honestly interprets the bible can say its just fine for people to be gay.
I never claimed to be an intellectual, nor were any of my arguments against you particularly complicated. In fact, they were rather rudimentary given your apparent incapacity for critical thought. Your inability to conceive of relative realities is not in and of itself evidence against them; it only speaks to how closed your mind is. Glad you are done here, since I certainly am.