If you take away religion, what arguments are there against homosexuality?

[jarofthoughts]

I’m not a homosexual myself, but I have friends who are, and in Norway it’s not an issue for most people. However, even a passing glance at the world in general will tell you that if anything Norway is an exception. Usually the arguments against homosexuality are based in religion, and true, if you are a follower of the literal teachings of the Quran or the Bible, then homosexuality is indeed a sin.
Now, I’m an atheist and I don’t buy arguments from religion on any level. You’ll have to do better than claim divine authority to convince me, and thus I was wondering if there are any non-religious arguments against homosexuality.

Seeing as I’m not completely dim-witted I have of course heard the most common ones and thus before I ask for your opinions I will do away with a couple that falls flat on their face immediately.

“Homosexuality is unnatural!”

This is complete hogwash. Close to 1500 different species have been observed partaking in homosexual behaviour and more than 500 of them have been confirmed in full. If anything homosexuality is very natural indeed.

“If everyone was gay the human race would die out!”

Also utter nonsense. First off, everyone isn’t gay, nor will they ever be. As of now homosexuals consists of between 5-10% of the population and this seems fairly constant. Also, at the moment we are more people on this planet than there has ever been and we’re not likely to run out any time soon. In fact, we have more of a problem with the fact that we’re so many than we have with a potential lack of humans, and in any case reproduction can easily take place without men and women having intercourse. So this isn’t a problem and will never be a problem.


So, apart from the ludicrous statements above, are there any arguments against homosexuality that doesn’t stem from religion?

 

[Aquitaine]

I’m not a homosexual myself, but I have friends who are, and in Norway it’s not an issue for most people. However, even a passing glance at the world in general will tell you that if anything Norway is an exception. Usually the arguments against homosexuality are based in religion, and true, if you are a follower of the literal teachings of the Quran or the Bible, then homosexuality is indeed a sin.

Now, I’m an atheist and I don’t buy arguments from religion on any level. You’ll have to do better than claim divine authority to convince me, and thus I was wondering if there are any non-religious arguments against homosexuality.

Seeing as I’m not completely dim-witted I have of course heard the most common ones and thus before I ask for your opinions I will do away with a couple that falls flat on their face immediately.

“Homosexuality is unnatural!”

This is complete hogwash. Close to 1500 different species have been observed partaking in homosexual behaviour and more than 500 of them have been confirmed in full. If anything homosexuality is very natural indeed.

“If everyone was gay the human race would die out!”

Also utter nonsense. First off, everyone isn’t gay, nor will they ever be. As of now homosexuals consists of between 5-10% of the population and this seems fairly constant. Also, at the moment we are more people on this planet than there has ever been and we’re not likely to run out any time soon. In fact, we have more of a problem with the fact that we’re so many than we have with a potential lack of humans, and in any case reproduction can easily take place without men and women having intercourse. So this isn’t a problem and will never be a problem.


So, apart from the ludicrous statements above, are there any arguments against homosexuality that doesn’t stem from religion?

Religion and Homophobia appear to be the only "justifications" used.

 

[Storm]

"It's icky!"

 

[Skwim]

"It's icky!"

So you're acquainted with it. What did you find most "icky" about it?

 

[Storm]

So you're acquainted with it. What did you find most "icky" about it?

Dude, look at my title. I used quote marks for a reason.

 

[TheKnight]

One could argue that relationship-wise it is a less than satisfactory condition. Relationships are good and healthy for the average human being. By nature of the fact that homosexuals are such a small percentage of society, the chances of them finding a partner who they are attracted to and able to have a happy relationship with are smaller than that of straight men and women.

Based on that one could argue that homosexuality is a state of being that is not optimal. Psychologically speaking, prolonged separation or denial (self imposed or otherwise) of a romantic/sexual relationship can be mentally damaging.

Homosexuals, based on the fact that they are a significantly smaller group, with no set controls over the societies into which they are born, are more likely to be dissatisfied or lacking in the area of relationships.

Love is, to many straight people even, a difficult thing to find. People are constantly searching for "Mr. or Mrs. Right". Presumably, this search is much more difficult for the homosexual (due to the difference in size), which means that they will more often be lacking in this area than their straight counter parts.

(It should be noted I don't necessarily believe these things, but it is the only secular argument against homosexuality (as a personality/character trait) that I could think of).

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Perhaps if every human turned purely homosexual for a couple of generations we would run into problems with human demographics.

 

[gnomon]

I’m not a homosexual myself, but I have friends who are, and in Norway it’s not an issue for most people. However, even a passing glance at the world in general will tell you that if anything Norway is an exception. Usually the arguments against homosexuality are based in religion, and true, if you are a follower of the literal teachings of the Quran or the Bible, then homosexuality is indeed a sin.
Now, I’m an atheist and I don’t buy arguments from religion on any level. You’ll have to do better than claim divine authority to convince me, and thus I was wondering if there are any non-religious arguments against homosexuality.

Seeing as I’m not completely dim-witted I have of course heard the most common ones and thus before I ask for your opinions I will do away with a couple that falls flat on their face immediately.

“Homosexuality is unnatural!”

This is complete hogwash. Close to 1500 different species have been observed partaking in homosexual behaviour and more than 500 of them have been confirmed in full. If anything homosexuality is very natural indeed.

“If everyone was gay the human race would die out!”

Also utter nonsense. First off, everyone isn’t gay, nor will they ever be. As of now homosexuals consists of between 5-10% of the population and this seems fairly constant. Also, at the moment we are more people on this planet than there has ever been and we’re not likely to run out any time soon. In fact, we have more of a problem with the fact that we’re so many than we have with a potential lack of humans, and in any case reproduction can easily take place without men and women having intercourse. So this isn’t a problem and will never be a problem.


So, apart from the ludicrous statements above, are there any arguments against homosexuality that doesn’t stem from religion?

There are not any.

Homosexuality exists. Take away religion and the only argument left is denial.

So people can use poorly formed rationalizations, aka religion, or denial to argue against homosexuality.

 

[Aquitaine]

Perhaps if every human turned purely homosexual for a couple of generations we would run into problems with human demographics.

Could hardly be any worse than it is now, we're incredibly overpopulated. If anything, it would probably be a good thing if all of Humanity turned gay for a few generations.

 

[arthra]

From a psychoanalytic perspective homosexuality is arrested development in terms of psycho sexual stages..

Along with that, narcissism seems to be associated with homosexuality..

 

[Dan4reason]

I’m not a homosexual myself, but I have friends who are, and in Norway it’s not an issue for most people. However, even a passing glance at the world in general will tell you that if anything Norway is an exception. Usually the arguments against homosexuality are based in religion, and true, if you are a follower of the literal teachings of the Quran or the Bible, then homosexuality is indeed a sin.
Now, I’m an atheist and I don’t buy arguments from religion on any level. You’ll have to do better than claim divine authority to convince me, and thus I was wondering if there are any non-religious arguments against homosexuality.

Seeing as I’m not completely dim-witted I have of course heard the most common ones and thus before I ask for your opinions I will do away with a couple that falls flat on their face immediately.

“Homosexuality is unnatural!”

This is complete hogwash. Close to 1500 different species have been observed partaking in homosexual behaviour and more than 500 of them have been confirmed in full. If anything homosexuality is very natural indeed.

“If everyone was gay the human race would die out!”

Also utter nonsense. First off, everyone isn’t gay, nor will they ever be. As of now homosexuals consists of between 5-10% of the population and this seems fairly constant. Also, at the moment we are more people on this planet than there has ever been and we’re not likely to run out any time soon. In fact, we have more of a problem with the fact that we’re so many than we have with a potential lack of humans, and in any case reproduction can easily take place without men and women having intercourse. So this isn’t a problem and will never be a problem.


So, apart from the ludicrous statements above, are there any arguments against homosexuality that doesn’t stem from religion?

You missed one. According to the ick argument, homosexuality is wrong because it is disgusting to heterosexuals. This is very simmilar to the argument presented by 5-year-old boys that kissing is "gross" and therefore should not be done.

 

[Storm]

From a psychoanalytic perspective homosexuality is arrested development in terms of psycho sexual stages..

Along with that, narcissism seems to be associated with homosexuality..

Sources, please.

 

[Father Heathen]

From a psychoanalytic perspective homosexuality is arrested development in terms of psycho sexual stages..

Along with that, narcissism seems to be associated with homosexuality..

So a secular argument against homosexuality would stem from pseudoscience and quackery, and generalizations/stereotypes?

 

[Penumbra]

One could argue that relationship-wise it is a less than satisfactory condition. Relationships are good and healthy for the average human being. By nature of the fact that homosexuals are such a small percentage of society, the chances of them finding a partner who they are attracted to and able to have a happy relationship with are smaller than that of straight men and women.

Based on that one could argue that homosexuality is a state of being that is not optimal. Psychologically speaking, prolonged separation or denial (self imposed or otherwise) of a romantic/sexual relationship can be mentally damaging.

Homosexuals, based on the fact that they are a significantly smaller group, with no set controls over the societies into which they are born, are more likely to be dissatisfied or lacking in the area of relationships.

Love is, to many straight people even, a difficult thing to find. People are constantly searching for "Mr. or Mrs. Right". Presumably, this search is much more difficult for the homosexual (due to the difference in size), which means that they will more often be lacking in this area than their straight counter parts.

(It should be noted I don't necessarily believe these things, but it is the only secular argument against homosexuality (as a personality/character trait) that I could think of).

Assuming that is true, which I don't necessarily think it is, is that really an argument against homosexuality? It seems to be more of a sympathetic acknowledgment towards them rather than an argument against them.

If I assume all that is 100% true, what conclusions do I draw from it? Should I vote against gay marriage due to those statements? If anything, my vote would only be making an acknowledged difficult situation more difficult.

This same logic applies to blind people or people with an IQ of over 150. One could conceivably argue that it would be statistically more difficult for people in those categories to find a good match in a mate (which I'm not actually arguing, just putting forth as an example). Would that necessarily be an argument against blind people or geniuses? Not really.

A statistical argument relating to the idea that homosexuals are not in an optimal position is not really much of an argument against them.

 

[Penumbra]

From a psychoanalytic perspective homosexuality is arrested development in terms of psycho sexual stages..

Along with that, narcissism seems to be associated with homosexuality..

I'm going to echo other posters and ask for a source of for information. Mostly it just seems to be stereotypes and bigotry, and I'm disappointed.

As for narcissism, I've never observed a higher instance of narcissism in homosexuals than any other group. In fact, several studies show that suicide risk and depression occurrence are higher among homosexuals. I'd wager it's due to the culture they're in.

The relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: results of a population-based study.
Homosexuals' Negative Feelings About Sexuality Predict Poor Mental And Sexual Health

 

[TheKnight]

Assuming that is true, which I don't necessarily think it is, is that really an argument against homosexuality? It seems to be more of a sympathetic acknowledgment towards them rather than an argument against them.

It is an argument against having the condition. It would/should cause one to view them, as you said, with sympathy. But it also should produce a negative view of the condition itself because of its undesirability.

If I assume all that is 100% true, what conclusions do I draw from it? Should I vote against gay marriage due to those statements? If anything, my vote would only be making an acknowledged difficult situation more difficult.

Why do you need to make any conclusion from it? The only conclusion you could make logically is that its not something that you would want someone to have to deal with or go through.

Obviously, there are people who do, so you would have sympathy towards them and try to help them.

This same logic applies to blind people or people with an IQ of over 150. One could conceivably argue that it would be statistically more difficult for people in those categories to find a good match in a mate (which I'm not actually arguing, just putting forth as an example). Would that necessarily be an argument against blind people or geniuses? Not really.

A statistical argument relating to the idea that homosexuals are not in an optimal position is not really much of an argument against them.

I wasn't arguing against them. The OP didn't ask for that. It asked for an argument against homosexuality itself. Which is a condition/state of being. Not a person.

Just like you could make an argument against blindness or extreme intelligence.

 

[gnomon]

From a psychoanalytic perspective homosexuality is arrested development in terms of psycho sexual stages..

There is no empirical scientific basis for this concept. It's social science flim-flam along the lines of Freud. The assertion of psychosexual development is an assertion of faith and might as well be put in the same category as religion or rationalized nonsense. Seriously, the only justification for psychosexual development is because Freud said so.

Along with that, narcissism seems to be associated with homosexuality..

There is no evidence for such a thing.

However, that is a good attempt at a non-religious argument against homosexuality but as I said in my earlier post, there is no rational argument against homosexuality.

The truth is that the entire concept of an argument "against" homosexuality is no more reasonable than an argument "against" breathing, puppies or clouds.

 

[ninerbuff]

The only one I could think of is that runway models are gangly and anorexic looking because a gay male designer says they are too fat...........

 

[arthra]

I suppose I've stirred up some hornets in the nest..

The question is what nonreligious "arguments" are there against homosexuality..

I'm not a psycho therapist either nor have I done any studies .. My only experiecne was from graduate school studying the area and from counseling people in the early seventies..

As far as sources on the internet these might be of interest:

http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=homosexuality+and+narcisim&fr=my-myy-s&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=homosexuality+and+narcisim&d=5010036540769576&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=6500aa9a,a14340b3&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=AC67_mfWhKUTRId5ZCfXBw--

http://www.enotes.com/psychoanalysis-encyclopedia/narcissism-an-introduction

http://www.enotalone.com/article/2618.html

I still think there are people unhappy about their sexuality.. and there are people who have decided that they cannot change or alter their orientation..well and good. There will probably always be people unhappy with themselves in some way or other..

 

[Storm]

I suppose I've stirred up some hornets in the nest..

The question is what nonreligious "arguments" are there against homosexuality..

I'm not a psycho therapist either nor have I done any studies .. My only experiecne was from graduate school studying the area and from counseling people in the early seventies..

As far as sources on the internet these might be of interest:

http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=homosexuality+and+narcisim&fr=my-myy-s&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=homosexuality+and+narcisim&d=5010036540769576&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=6500aa9a,a14340b3&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=AC67_mfWhKUTRId5ZCfXBw--

http://www.enotes.com/psychoanalysis-encyclopedia/narcissism-an-introduction

http://www.enotalone.com/article/2618.html

I still think there are people unhappy about their sexuality.. and there are people who have decided that they cannot change or alter their orientation..well and good. There will probably always be people unhappy with themselves in some way or other..

So, you have nothing but outdated pseudoscience and bigotry. Yeah, that's about what I expected.