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

[jarofthoughts]

i came hear to debate religion, not ones sexual prefference. i will leave this thrread for the f*****s.

Bad grammar notwithstanding, you still appear to have some cognitive glitch concerning what different words mean.

Again from the Online Oxford Dictionary:
Debate: 'a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward'.

Notice the part about arguments?

I'll refer you back to my post about the difference between arguments and opinions and you will hopefully realize that if all you have is opinion you have no place in a debate of any kind.

 

[Autodidact]

gays were not meant too have babies...no???

Meant by whom? I don't follow your logic. Gay people are meant to do whatever they like. Again, speaking for myself, I have 3, of whom I gave birth to one. And they're all well raised and well taken care of, all loved and chosen, which cannot be said of all the children of heterosexuals. In fact, my youngest was not taken care of by her careless, irresponsible heterosexual parents, so the state allowed me to adopt her and provide what they were not able to.

If all children in the world were wanted, planned for and cared for like gay and lesbian parents do, the world would be a better place.

 

[Autodidact]

it's not AGAINST anything..just stating that gays cannot/were not made to produce babies....

You're quite mistaken. Approximately 1/3 of lesbians have children. The difference is, gay and lesbian people don't have children by accident. They have them because they decide to have them. And that's a good thing, don't you agree?

 

[Autodidact]

Religious truth is the best argument for all aspects of morality, including sexual morality.

On the contrary, it is the worst.

If there were no God and no moral law established by God, I suppose it would be up to mortals to decide what is right and what is wrong.

Which it is.

We could make the rules as we see fit, based on what we deem necessary to maintain a peaceful and happy society.

Wouldn't that be a good thing.

Rules regarding chastity probably would go out the window. After all, even many believers are throwing these out the window these days.

Except for those that make sense. For example, heterosexuals should not have unprotected sex unless they want to make a baby, and are prepared to care for the child, don't you agree?

But I believe in God and he sets the moral laws and I believe in following them. Again, there is no stronger argument for sexual morality than God's law.

So what you're saying is that except for your quaint purity taboos, there is no good moral argument against homosexuality? Is that right?

 

[Autodidact]

I was asked if I can make an argument against homosexuality without using religion. I cannot make a good argument without religion.

I appreciate your honesty. Bolded for emphasis.

 

[gnomon]

ok, give me some "facts" that say that homosexuality is either right or wrong so they can be used argumentavely

That's not the issue in this thread.

and it appears that those that support it are doing the same

Many people have completely misunderstood the intent. The debate is not about the rightness of homosexual sexual activity, marriage, etc. The OP asked for an argument against homosexuality that is not religious but much like the religious argument of it being unnatural or an immoral choice.

arthra is the only person to come into this thread and provide an argument along those lines. Anyone else who attempted such failed miserably.

it's not AGAINST anything..just stating that gays cannot/were not made to produce babies....

Again with this? There are plenty of homosexuals who are the biological parents of children out there. So you are wrong. Get over it already.

mw0082

the thread op ASKED for my input, so i gave it
FRANKLY, MY DEAR, I DONT GIVE A DAMN

And it sucked.

sorry that this thread doesnt go YOUR WAY (onesided). my opposition makes the debate the way it should be (two-sided)

You didn't understand the debate.

i came hear to debate religion, not ones sexual prefference. i will leave this thrread for the f*****s.

For that, at this time, you have made it all the better.

 

[BIG D]

Meant by whom? I don't follow your logic. Gay people are meant to do whatever they like. Again, speaking for myself, I have 3, of whom I gave birth to one. And they're all well raised and well taken care of, all loved and chosen, which cannot be said of all the children of heterosexuals. In fact, my youngest was not taken care of by her careless, irresponsible heterosexual parents, so the state allowed me to adopt her and provide what they were not able to.

If all children in the world were wanted, planned for and cared for like gay and lesbian parents do, the world would be a better place.

they[[2 gay people] cannot[have sex] and PHYSCIALLY produce a baby...so, PHYSICALLY, if you believe in god or not, a baby was MEANT to have a father and mother...if 2 females or 2 males were meant to have babies, how come they cannot produce them?

 

[gnomon]

they[[2 gay people] cannot[have sex] and PHYSCIALLY produce a baby...so, PHYSICALLY, if you believe in god or not, a baby was MEANT to have a father and mother...if 2 females or 2 males were meant to have babies, how come they cannot produce them?

This has absolutely nothing to do with a non-religious argument against homosexuality.

 

[BIG D]

You're quite mistaken. Approximately 1/3 of lesbians have children. The difference is, gay and lesbian people don't have children by accident. They have them because they decide to have them. And that's a good thing, don't you agree?

MISTAKEN??so you are saying 2 females[[together]] or 2 males can mate and produce a baby??

 

[Autodidact]

they[[2 gay people] cannot[have sex] and PHYSCIALLY produce a baby...so, PHYSICALLY, if you believe in god or not, a baby was MEANT to have a father and mother...if 2 females or 2 males were meant to have babies, how come they cannot produce them?

Babies are "meant to" have a biological mother and father, and they do--all of them. It does not follow that they have to be raised by their biological parents--millions are not. And I am living proof that lesbians can produce babies.

If your point is that gay sex is not reproductive, you're right, but that doesn't make it wrong. Quite the contrary, that's a good thing, because it means fewer unplanned for, unloved, not taken care of children in the world.

 

[Autodidact]

MISTAKEN??so you are saying 2 females[[together]] or 2 males can mate and produce a baby??

No, I'm saying that you're mistaken when you say that gays cannot produce babies. They certainly can, just not by having gay sex. They have to make an affirmative decision to reproduce, which is a good thing.

 

[Twister]

hmm, i find it a bit inappropriate to ask , but its a non religious question so, here goes. Do excuse if its not suitable or anything, i apolojize beforehand.

Why do(or would) lesbians require a male symbol to have pleasure with, and while with each other if a woman was (supposed) to derive pleasure from only the basic female form of a woman ? why do they assimilate to a male/female couple in order to have some balance and the physical stuff in their relation? If being homo was natural, why need a male symbol? it should be sufficient without it.

IMO , In most lesbian couples there is a woman who is a dominant, powerful figure (like a man e.g, ellen De'generes) and there's this really sweet and meek womanly kind who is the other partner, why do they follow the pattern of the male -female relationship if their's was an original unadulterated, underived version of the basic male-female relationship?

 

[Kerr]

gays were not meant too have babies...no???

Are you saying sterile people shouldn´t be allowed to adopt kids, since they where clearly not meant to have them?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

hmm, i find it a bit inappropriate to ask , but its a non religious question so, here goes. Do excuse if its not suitable or anything, i apolojize beforehand.

Why do(or would) lesbians require a male symbol to have pleasure with, and while with each other if a woman was (supposed) to derive pleasure from only the basic female form of a woman ? why do they assimilate to a male/female couple in order to have some balance and the physical stuff in their relation? If being homo was natural, why need a male symbol? it should be sufficient without it.

Ever stop to think that it's because it "feels" good?...It gives one "pleasure"....Why do women in heterosexual relationships use (adult toys) by themselves as well as with their partner?....Because they like the way it feels......:run:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Are you saying sterile people shouldn´t be allowed to adopt kids, since they where clearly not meant to have them?

:yes:
....:clap....


Good question......!!!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you saying sterile people shouldn´t be allowed to adopt kids, since they where clearly not meant to have them?

It seems like he's more saying that people shouldn't be allowed to adopt, period, since the only "proper" arrangement is where the biological parents raise the child.

 

[Orias]

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?

Well first of all, it defeats the purpose of pooing (from a male stance). And it takes the noise away from your farts (I have no idea if that is good or bad).

Otherwise there really is none.

People say it is un-natural but then if that were the case it wouldn't even exist.

Just face it, theres nothing wrong with it. If people don't like it, get over it, because most likely, it does not affect them.

I mean, its not like it is contagious, a gay couple raising a child will not make their child gay. It is really completely irrelevant to anything.

Like your not allowed to be in the Navy if your gay. I fail to see the correlation between how being gay affects how you bomb a target.

Again, the relevance to any circumstancial subject is none, since sexuality is just that and deals with just that, sexuality, not scientology, deathology, herbology etc. etc.

Its just stupid!!!!

 

[Nerthus]

In my opinion what makes a parent, is love. I'd rather see a child raised by two men/ women knowing they were loved and cared for, than by two biological parents who haven't a clue in how to look after a child.

 

[jarofthoughts]

hmm, i find it a bit inappropriate to ask , but its a non religious question so, here goes. Do excuse if its not suitable or anything, i apolojize beforehand.

Why do(or would) lesbians require a male symbol to have pleasure with, and while with each other if a woman was (supposed) to derive pleasure from only the basic female form of a woman ? why do they assimilate to a male/female couple in order to have some balance and the physical stuff in their relation? If being homo was natural, why need a male symbol? it should be sufficient without it.

IMO , In most lesbian couples there is a woman who is a dominant, powerful figure (like a man e.g, ellen De'generes) and there's this really sweet and meek womanly kind who is the other partner, why do they follow the pattern of the male -female relationship if their's was an original unadulterated, underived version of the basic male-female relationship?

Sex and sexuality involves a lot more than just "physical bits".
Sure, the "physical bits" count for a lot, but I find that if a girl lacks a brain and a spine (mentally, not physically, although that would probably be off-putting as well), that is much more of a turn-off than whether or not she is physically my "type". I'm sure it's the same for homosexuals.

For instance, one of the sexiest women I've met is 15 years my senior, and while she is in no way bad looking she isn't the kind of woman I'd usually go for. But when I talked with her a bit and found out that she is a professor of neuropsychology that was a huge turn on.

Yeah, I'm a nerd. And I find intelligence sexy.

 

[Autodidact]

hmm, i find it a bit inappropriate to ask , but its a non religious question so, here goes. Do excuse if its not suitable or anything, i apolojize beforehand.

Why do(or would) lesbians require a male symbol to have pleasure with, and while with each other if a woman was (supposed) to derive pleasure from only the basic female form of a woman ?

We don't.

why do they assimilate to a male/female couple in order to have some balance and the physical stuff in their relation?

We don't.

If being homo was natural, why need a male symbol? it should be sufficient without it.

It is.

IMO , In most lesbian couples there is a woman who is a dominant, powerful figure (like a man e.g, ellen De'generes) and there's this really sweet and meek womanly kind who is the other partner, why do they follow the pattern of the male -female relationship if their's was an original unadulterated, underived version of the basic male-female relationship?

How many lesbian couples do you know? I know hundreds, and do NOT see this pattern.