You are dictating what is stupid, and what things shouldn't happen, you're not leaving many options here. To that question I'd respond with another question, which is: Why would you ask that? I can think of many reasons why Nathan asked the question. It's just a question my friend, no need to get deffensive here.
Besides, you're going off-topic here; You're questioning the intelectual grade of the question, rather than answering.
The thing is, I'm not saying he's not allowed to ask the question. I'm saying the question is stupid AND that it doesn't warrant a debate.
There's a difference between asking a question and getting and answer as compared to debating something.
Definition of Debate:
1.
argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.
A debate implies that there's an argument. What I'm saying is, there is no argument. Or at least, there shouldn't be. You should have a debate about illegal immigration cause there's two legitimate sides to it. Or you could have a debate about how to run an country, cause there are many plausible points of view there. Asking "Is homosexuality unnatural?" Doesn't warrant a debate, but instead just a response of "Yes, it is." the first response in this thread answered it in a way that is irrefutable (which is why no one has said the first response is wrong, because it isn't.)
For example, you SHOULDN'T have to debate whether or not shooting yourself in the head will kill you. That's not something that is lines for a debate, it's a question; ie: "Will you die if you shoot yourself in the head?" - you can answer it "More than likely, yeah." In this context, he asked if homosexuality is unnatural, and that is answered in a basic way (see: first response). And that's it. There. No debate. A question and an answer.
Of course it's unnatural. Have you ever heard of two men creating a baby through nothing more than biology? How about two women? Just because a pattern exists in nature doesn't mean that's how things are supposed to be. Murder also exists in nature, and yet we as a species seem to universally be against that.
Why do people need to have kids to be in love? You can be in love with someone without having to have kids with them. If someone feels a
natural urge to love someone, that's
natural. People fall in love even though they may be sterile, should that matter?
Also, we're not arguing whether you're for it or against it, we're arguing that it's natural. Murder IS natural. But we aren't for it. We ARE for homosexuality, and it IS natural. Both murder and homosexuality are natural. The question isn't whether you're for it or against it. It happens in nature, and thus - it is natural.
First, I should mention that calling anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong in any way a "homophobe" is not only extremely rude but also the wrong term. I, for one, do not fear homosexuals or homosexuality in any way, but I still consider it to be what it is: unnatural and wrong. If you're going to debate something, you should at least be open to discussing it civilly with those, like me, who believe it should be stamped out.
Homophobic doesn't imply that you're going to see a homosexual person and cower in fear at their sight. It implies that you don't like seeing them together, it bothers you personally. It's like Xenophobia; if someone is Xenophobic, they're not going to go and hide and cower in fear if they see a foreign person/someone not like them, but they will be vehemently against them because they don't like them. Either way, if you think it is 'wrong', then you ARE a bigot, no matter how much you hate that label. A bigot is someone who is intolerant to those they don't like for a dumb reason. You don't tolerate gay people, I assume, from your post as you want it to be "stamped out", so you ARE a bigot. Whether or not that's a bad thing is completely up to you. Some people embrace being called a bigot. If you don't think it's ok for two people to be in love because you don't agree with it, that DOES make you a bigot, by definition, because you are intolerant towards them.
Second, one's worldview (basic presuppositions that are necessary to interpret and interact with reality) will be a huge factor in what you believe about homosexuality, as well as many, many other things. Please bear that in mind.
The same thing can be said for someone who thinks black people shouldn't have equal rights. Or that we should kill all the Jews. That doesn't make any of those views any less crazy or stupid. If someone genuinely believes that, they aren't to be taken seriously. Obviously we shouldn't kill all the Jews, and obviously we shouldn't "stamp out homosexuality." You CAN say "I personally don't like it. But people can do what they want." - you'd still be wrong, but you are entitled to believe what you want. You could also say "I support gays but I don't like seeing two men kiss." That's perfectly fine. But when you say you want to 'stamp out homosexuality', that makes me put you on the same side as people who are openly racist and want to kill a whole group.
Finally, when debating something like this, you have to be sure to separate love and lust. Homosexuality in all of its forms is born of love of self and lust. Real love means doing what's best for others, and homosexuality goes against that. One piece of evidence for this is the fact that the practice of homosexuality includes
leading your partner toward suicide,
feeding your partner poop, and
making your partner die faster.
Actually, you can't say what 'real love' is. Lust isn't the same thing as love. It's completely possible for two people to get married and NEVER have sex (it's a bit irrational, but it's a possibility.)
Definition of love:
an intense feeling of deep affection.
A man CAN feel an intense, deep affection towards another man. It doesn't mean that they're going to do what you imagine gay men do, it just means they're in love and they are allowed to be in love. Also, 'shoving poop down someone's throat' is not only a dumb argument, but it's also not true. You don't have to be gay to do that. There are plenty of straight couples who do things you'd find nasty, that doesn't make them wrong. You can't control peoples' sex lives. What would you say about two gay men who are in love and when they have sex, they stick to oral sex and then end it at that? Would you still say "EW LOOK AT THIS GROSS THING THEY'RE DOING, WE HAVE TO STOP THIS!"? That's not an argument. You don't dictate what two consenting adults can do to each other in their bedroom. Not only that, but that isn't a reason to get rid of homosexuality.
It is interesting that all of the evidence points to homosexuality being bad, and yet people advocate for it with the same religious zeal as ISIS suicide bombers. Therefore, questioning the intellectual grade of the question is not only allowed, but required. After all, isn't believing 1+1=7 just as stupid as condoning the abuse of someone whom you claim to love?
Actually no, none of the evidence points to it being bad. If someone has mental issues, they need to be helped. Whether they're straight, gay, lesbian, etc. doesn't matter. If someone wants to commit suicide, it's for many different reasons. It's not like every single gay person is killing themselves - or even the majority of them for that matter.
Funny you mention ISIS considering they probably agree with you on this.
What do you mean by condoning the abuse of someone whom you claim to love? Are you suggesting that being in a homosexual relationship is abusing yourself? What do you say to those couples who are in a homosexual relationship and are 100% happy? Would you say they're being abused too?
It simply comes down to "I don't like it, so I don't want to see it." - in which case, you could say the same thing about a lot of things. For example, you could say "I don't like people with redhair. People with red hair statistically kill themselves more. We need to ban people with red hair." with the same amount of merit.
If there is a social stigma about something, perhaps that should be researched. Why do we have a social stigma about child marriage, for example, even though it's legal with parental consent? Why do we have a social stigma about religious indoctrination? Why do we have a social stigma about slavery? Why do we have a social stigma about genocide? I'm sure you'd all consider all of these things evil, and therefore be supportive of the social stigma against them all, but why?
What do you base your morality on, exactly?
Because we have legitimate reasons to not support those things outside of "my religion says so." Just because two things have a social stigma doesn't mean they are the same at all. For example, being in an interracial marriage had a stigma a few decades ago. Are you against that? Do you compare that to murder? They both have stigmas, right?
I base my morality on letting others enjoy their freedoms without intruding on others' freedoms. Seems a lot more rational to me than basing my morals off a book that condones slavery, murder, rape, genocide, homophobia, sexism, and putting your imaginary friends first (Abraham was gonna kill his son because god told him to? Even if god existed, that's a stupid thing to do under any circumstances).
That's so cute! Here, let me ask you something. What's two plus two? I have a condition, though: you're not allowed to say "four." It's too religious for me. You also aren't allowed to answer with anything that represents "four," such as a mixed number, decimal, or what "four" is spoken or written as in any other language. You're not allowed to raise your fingers or toes, and you're not allowed to use any form of sign language or gesture to give the answer "four."
Five Minus One.
By the way, it's funny that you refer to me as "God's right hand." That would be Jesus Christ, not me, and getting into a debate as to whether Christianity is or is not correct will end in your loss.
Oh. This honestly explains everything.
I have a question for this by the way. If you're super against homosexuality because of your religion, are you equally against eating crab? Or women having the same rights as men? Or slavery? Or condemning your neighbor because they work on the sabbath day? Or hell, even being greedy? I always see religious nutjobs being super anti-homosexuality but never anti-greed, despite greed being featured far more prominently in the bible.
