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

[EverChanging]

A religious argument would be like, "Don't do that because Allah says not to".
To conquer the world by breeding prolifically to overwhelm and push out other groups is tactical warfare. Therefore i say that this strategy is secular and not religious.

Okay, great, homosexuality is bad because it helps slow down radical Muslims from conquering the world and dominating it. What a smart ******** argument.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, they might choose to have children. It does not follow that they will be cared for. For all you know, they might treat the child like they did the puppy that grew up. I am saying that there are possibilities. Gay and lesbian people are not immune to abusive tendencies. I should have made clear what I was referring to; I apologize.

Of course not, but don't you think a huge contributing factor to child abuse and neglect is people having children without having planned to do so? So much so that if all children were wanted children, child abuse would be a negligible problem?

 

[Storm]

Of course not, but don't you think a huge contributing factor to child abuse and neglect is people having children without having planned to do so? So much so that if all children were wanted children, child abuse would be a negligible problem?

I'd like to think so, but I really don't. But then, I'm biased.....

 

[Scott C.]

So are you suggesting homosexuals lack morals?




I completely disagree and find this line of reasoning illogical. One does not need to believe in a god for morals.

You completely misunderstood my post.

An atheist decides what is morally right and wrong based on his/her personal views of life, what behaviors they perceive to be helpful, hurtful, etc. I certainly recognize that this leads to moral behavior in many cases. This method also works for me to some extent. But, as one who believes in God and believes that God declares what is morally right and wrong, I look to God for those answers. For example, I believe that sex out of marriage is morally wrong because God has said that sexual relations are sacred and reserved for marriage. That ends the discussion for me. No amount of philosophy, arguments, rationalizations, or studies will persuade me that sex outside of marriage is morally right. So, my argument to an atheist that sex out of marriage is morlly wrong is based on my belief in God. I find that when I use this reasoning with an atheist, they reject my argument as absurd - since they don't believe there is a God, much less that he establishes moral law. So, while an atheist may try to be as moral as possible, based on his/her personal judgements, he will miss the boat in some cases. Moral issues that are rooted in the divine nature of man and our eternal destiny and purpose are lost on those who do not believe.

 

[Scott C.]

If you truly believe what you just said, then Slavery, the killing of sinners (Leviticus) and the oppression of women as well. When you take the position of God's law above all others... there is no half way or compromise.

In the Old Testament, God established strict laws with severe consequences for violation, including death. This is hard to comprehend, including for me. Yet, I do believe that God knew what he was doing and had moral purpose in all of his laws back then.

Today, God does not ask us to follow the Old Testament Law of Moses, so I don't have to deal with those issues.

God is always morally right and will not ask us to do anything that is morally wrong. Now, I realize very well that there are dangerous people who think that God has asked them to commit mass murder and they do so on the pretense that God is always morally right. They are deceived and derranged. God is not behind them.

Unfortunately, there have been a lot of evils performed throughout history in the name of God, including the name of Christianity. But, these are based on gross misinterpretations of scripture and/or perpetrated by those who only pretend to be religious for thier own selfish benefits.

 

[Scott C.]

I don't know about this.

If God is wise and his laws are good, then shouldn't we expect that they can be acknowledged as having merit even without accepting that they came from God?

The chasm would only be present on issues where God's law can't be justified by anything but God's authority, but if God's laws have practical purpose, I would think that this would be rare. No?

You raise a good point and I agree to some extent. I would say that some moral law can only be understood in the context of understanding our divine nature and eternal destiny (repeating some of what I said in another post). This is different from relying solely on the authority of God. In fact, I believe that God usually explains the reasons for his laws so they make sense to us. But, if we don't accept our spiritual nature, future life in eternity, the nature of families in heaven, etc., then the reasons that God gives will not make sense.

I will also add that the reason any of us desires to be moral is because of our God given instincts to do so. We sense the difference between right and wrong, feel bad when we do wrong, and good when we do good. We like to make others happy and enjoy seeing others comforted. These feelings are not limited to theists or atheists. Unbeknownst to the atheist, his moral drive comes from the God in whom he does not believe.

 

[Autodidact]

You completely misunderstood my post.

An atheist decides what is morally right and wrong based on his/her personal views of life, what behaviors they perceive to be helpful, hurtful, etc. I certainly recognize that this leads to moral behavior in many cases. This method also works for me to some extent. But, as one who believes in God and believes that God declares what is morally right and wrong, I look to God for those answers. For example, I believe that sex out of marriage is morally wrong because God has said that sexual relations are sacred and reserved for marriage. That ends the discussion for me. No amount of philosophy, arguments, rationalizations, or studies will persuade me that sex outside of marriage is morally right. So, my argument to an atheist that sex out of marriage is morlly wrong is based on my belief in God. I find that when I use this reasoning with an atheist, they reject my argument as absurd - since they don't believe there is a God, much less that he establishes moral law.

All of this is correct.

So, while an atheist may try to be as moral as possible, based on his/her personal judgements, he will miss the boat in some cases.

But this doesn't follow. Your morals are arbitrary, have no reasoning behind them, and are based on your interpretation of God's will as contained in your holy books, while the atheist's is based on moral reasoning. It doesn't follow that the atheist "misses the boat" in any way, unless you can somehow show that your arbitrary, book-based morality is somehow better. For example, you could try to demonstrate the slavery and genocide are moral.

Moral issues that are rooted in the divine nature of man and our eternal destiny and purpose are lost on those who do not believe.

Just in case there is such a thing. If not, and I'm confident you cannot demonstrate there is, then you're the one who has missed the boat, correct?

 

[Autodidact]

In the Old Testament, God established strict laws with severe consequences for violation, including death. This is hard to comprehend, including for me. Yet, I do believe that God knew what he was doing and had moral purpose in all of his laws back then.

Today, God does not ask us to follow the Old Testament Law of Moses, so I don't have to deal with those issues.

God is always morally right and will not ask us to do anything that is morally wrong. Now, I realize very well that there are dangerous people who think that God has asked them to commit mass murder and they do so on the pretense that God is always morally right. They are deceived and derranged. God is not behind them.

What about the Israelites who correctly believed that God asked them to commit mass murder?

Unfortunately, there have been a lot of evils performed throughout history in the name of God, including the name of Christianity. But, these are based on gross misinterpretations of scripture and/or perpetrated by those who only pretend to be religious for thier own selfish benefits.

You realize that your first and last paragraphs contradict each other, right?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

your analogy of birds/animals to human babies makes no sense at all, does it???your saying animals are JUST LIKE humans...bad analogy, no?...gays CANNOT naturally have babies...so,my point is, they were not made/''evolutionized''/ created/etc to have babies, therefore they were not made/created/etc to raise them NATURALLY, or NATURALLY raise them...

It made perfect sense because if you had left off the last part here ("NATURALLY raise then")...You would be partially correct. In the biological sense homosexuals are not a different species so they can have children just not together (in the sense of procreating with one another).

They can and do possess the ability to raise children. There are plenty of gay/lesbian families around the world. That is a fact. With all this jawjacking of yours you've failed to produce an argument against homosexuality other than one that possibly stems from a religions view or a possible phobia.

Oh, and as far as animals...we are really not that different.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You raise a good point and I agree to some extent. I would say that some moral law can only be understood in the context of understanding our divine nature and eternal destiny (repeating some of what I said in another post). This is different from relying solely on the authority of God. In fact, I believe that God usually explains the reasons for his laws so they make sense to us. But, if we don't accept our spiritual nature, future life in eternity, the nature of families in heaven, etc., then the reasons that God gives will not make sense.

I will also add that the reason any of us desires to be moral is because of our God given instincts to do so. We sense the difference between right and wrong, feel bad when we do wrong, and good when we do good. We like to make others happy and enjoy seeing others comforted. These feelings are not limited to theists or atheists. Unbeknownst to the atheist, his moral drive comes from the God in whom he does not believe.

See Auto's response.

 

[Scott C.]

All of this is correct. But this doesn't follow. Your morals are arbitrary, have no reasoning behind them, and are based on your interpretation of God's will as contained in your holy books, while the atheist's is based on moral reasoning. It doesn't follow that the atheist "misses the boat" in any way, unless you can somehow show that your arbitrary, book-based morality is somehow better. For example, you could try to demonstrate the slavery and genocide are moral. Just in case there is such a thing. If not, and I'm confident you cannot demonstrate there is, then you're the one who has missed the boat, correct?

Your position makes sense if there is no God. Mine makes sense if there is.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I will also add that the reason any of us desires to be moral is because of our God given instincts to do so. We sense the difference between right and wrong, feel bad when we do wrong, and good when we do good. We like to make others happy and enjoy seeing others comforted. These feelings are not limited to theists or atheists. Unbeknownst to the atheist, his moral drive comes from the God in whom he does not believe.

Do you agree that morals basically comes down to having a social codex together with altruism?

Do Gorillas have morals?
Do Vampire Bats have morals?

And if they do, do they have a "divine nature" as well?

 

[EverChanging]

Your position makes sense if there is no God. Mine makes sense if there is.

Or there might be a god who is amoral or immoral. Not that you've presented any evidence for such a being.

 

[Faithfreedom]

Okay, great, homosexuality is bad because it helps slow down radical Muslims from conquering the world and dominating it. What a smart ******** argument.

No, homosexual muslims are great from my stand point because it slows down their take over plan. Its just bad from their stand point.

 

[Kerr]

your analogy of birds/animals to human babies makes no sense at all, does it???your saying animals are JUST LIKE humans...bad analogy, no?...gays CANNOT naturally have babies...so,my point is, they were not made/''evolutionized''/ created/etc to have babies, therefore they were not made/created/etc to raise them NATURALLY, or NATURALLY raise them...

Ok... if a man has a wife and a kid, she dies and he falls in love with another man, then I take it the child should be taken away from him, even if he is the biological father? And you have yet to answer my question if sterile people should be allowed to adopt.

 

[blackout]

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

The only other usual argument.

"People should be the way I think they should be".

(Which is pretty much the very same thing as
"People should be the way (my) god thinks they should be",
but in a different wrapping paper theme. )

 

[Gauss]

Ie the simple physics test of trying to push two north sides against eachother or two south sides for that matter..... You can do it but must use alot of force and nature does not like it at all.

Try sending negative electrons to a negative pole, does not work..

How much common sense does it take to know that homosexuality is against the laws of this universe? Not much. Negative-positive-Yin-Yang - the natural way, follow the nature.

However, people are free to do what they want while they live as human beings here. I do not condemn them at all.

From a higher perspective one can see that such acts accumulate karma(debts).

And karma is very painful to pay off in afterlife I believe.

 

[Emerald]

In general,I support homosexuality---without being a gay---but I'm against it when the couple are thinking about adopting children---cause I think that there's indeed somewhere a law that permits that...
People are not ready for homosexuality so the children will be judged fir something that is not their decision..

 

[Muffled]

OFten the atheist takes the purely scientific view which is largely utilitaarian. Biologically homosexuality has no function in the life cycle so it is basicly a waste of societies energies. Of course this mechanical view of sex isn't much fun. Communistic atheism in the former Soviet Union tended to reflect those views with the most dour repressive feeling on earth. come to think of it the birthrate went down as well even though the USSR made it a public duty to procreate. Take the fun out of sex and a happy future from prospective children and a low birth rate is the result.

 

[LuisDantas]

Gauss, I don't think there is any evidence of homosexuality going any natural laws.

You may draw a parallel between genders and electric polarities, but such a parallel goes only so far. People aren't automatically drawn towards each other or repelled just because they have "opposite" or "identical" genders, for instance. That is very much an oversimplification of reality. People's genders are defined in at least three related yet clearly separate ways - genetic, hormonal and psychological. Not one of those three is nearly as cut-and-dried as eletromagnetic polarities are. And even when they are, homoaffective attractions is still a very real possibility.

That it happens at all is in and of itself proof that it doesn't go against the "laws of this universe", don't you agree?