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

[The_Evelyonian]

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

There aren't any.

 

[MW0082]

There aren't any.

Logical ones, yes you would be correct. However the issue is most people already have their views on homosexuality. We see how narrow minded they can be, so even without religion they know they would never accept homosexuality as natural and good......

 

[BIG D]

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.

I'm not trying to make an argument against HS.....if only a man and woman can have babies TOGETHER, my question is, why would evolution or god--take whatever side you want--NOT want the man AND woman to raise them???...I would think it would be 'nature's law' that the producers, raise the produce....lions don't raise elephants....zebras don't raise horses....lions don't raise cats....

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not trying to make an argument against HS.....if only a man and woman can have babies TOGETHER, my question is, why would evolution or god--take whatever side you want--NOT want the man AND woman to raise them???...I would think it would be 'nature's law' that the producers, raise the produce....lions don't raise elephants....zebras don't raise horses....lions don't raise cats....

It simply doesn't work that way in actual reality. Evolution does not "want" things to happen either way, and it is fairly obvious that God doesn't go out of his way to create or implement that kind of nature's law either.

For good or worse, animals don't always raise their own offspring:

Cuckoo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if anything, that is even more true of humans - even letting the matter of homosexuality entirely aside.

Heck, I wish there was a God and he did something at all to ensure that children get their due when it comes to being raised.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not trying to make an argument against HS.....if only a man and woman can have babies TOGETHER, my question is, why would evolution or god--take whatever side you want--NOT want the man AND woman to raise them???...I would think it would be 'nature's law' that the producers, raise the produce....lions don't raise elephants....zebras don't raise horses....lions don't raise cats....

Evolution doesn't want things. It's not a being. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the diversity of species on earth.

So basically what you're opposed to is adoption?

As I say, if you're interested in the evolutionary benefit of lesbianism, I'm happy to present my thoughts. It's a bit off topic, though, this one is more about morality, or at least benefit.

The point is, homosexuality is beneficial. It makes the world a better place.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm not trying to make an argument against HS.....if only a man and woman can have babies TOGETHER, my question is, why would evolution or god--take whatever side you want--NOT want the man AND woman to raise them???...I would think it would be 'nature's law' that the producers, raise the produce....lions don't raise elephants....zebras don't raise horses....lions don't raise cats....

See Luis and Auto's posts. They answered this for me. I knew this would be an illogical nature vs. nurture debate. Evolution doesn't choose/take sides. God is not important to this debate.

 

[croak]

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?

People might want to have children, but it doesn't follow that they won't be abusive. Look at the foster care system, for instance. The caregivers have planned to take care of children (by getting state certification), but it does not follow that going through that process means that they will be good parents. There are no simple answers to the issue of child abuse; I wish there were.

 

[Autodidact]

People might want to have children, but it doesn't follow that they won't be abusive. Look at the foster care system, for instance. The caregivers have planned to take care of children (by getting state certification), but it does not follow that going through that process means that they will be good parents. There are no simple answers to the issue of child abuse; I wish there were.

I think it improves the odds a lot, don't you?

 

[croak]

I think it improves the odds a lot, don't you?

To some forms of child abuse, sure, it might. But by itself... there are a lot of factors at play.

 

[Scott C.]

Pretty much. So rather than just state that atheists are missing the boat, what you mean is, "If God exists, and is the God I believe in, and I'm interpreting His rules correctly, then atheists are missing the boat," right?

Yes..

 

[EverChanging]

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

Then you acknowledge what a stupid argument it is.

 

[jonman122]

Ok, there are a few basic arguments against homosexuality. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad thing, it's just not exactly efficient.

1: homosexuals do NOT produce offspring (with their chosen partner), so they do not in any way further whatever race they belong to on an evolutionary basis.-- i am aware lesbians can produce offpsring through artificial insemination, but that still leaves out the other half of the homosexual community. The idea of sex is to procreate, if you can't procreate with your partner, you are making a bad decision on an evolutionary basis.

2: according to research by these people -- Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey -- children were more likely to depart from their traditional gender roles. AKA, boys were more likely to grow up to be nurturing and non-aggressive, and females were more likely to grow up the opposite. They made it clear that they believe "a difference is not necessarily a deficit" but that is only an opinion.

kind of funny the first page of posts didn't have my first point, not that i have anything against homosexuality, i have a few homosexual friends and they're great, but these are just facts. No offspring = no evolution.

really i only read the first page because i didnt want to go through 34 pages of reading, so i don't know if my points were already made aha

but there seems to be no psychological downside to having LGBT parents. It's pretty much even with having regular parents.

 

[Nerthus]

Ok, there are a few basic arguments against homosexuality. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad thing, it's just not exactly efficient.

1: homosexuals do NOT produce offspring, so they do not in any way further whatever race they belong to on an evolutionary basis.

2: according to research by these people -- Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey -- children were more likely to depart from their traditional gender roles. AKA, boys were more likely to grow up to be nurturing and non-aggressive, and females were more likely to grow up the opposite. They made it clear that they believe "a difference is not necessarily a deficit" but that is only an opinion.

but there seems to be no psychological downside to having LGBT parents. It's pretty much even with having regular parents.

The first point can relate to heterosexuals also, so I don't see it as an argument against homosexuality. A point which has actually been brought up in this thread.

The second point - perhaps, although again it can apply to everyone. Not everyone will follow traditional gender roles.

I do agree with your last point though

 

[jonman122]

The first point can relate to heterosexuals also, so I don't see it as an argument against homosexuality. A point which has actually been brought up in this thread.

how does it apply to heterosexuals, that statement contains 0 logic :\

 

[Nerthus]

how does it apply to heterosexuals, that statement contains 0 logic :\

Being straight doesn't mean you can have children.

Or are you saying that anyone who is infertile should remain single or be with a partner who is also infertile, so as not to disadvantage the human race?

 

[jonman122]

Being straight doesn't mean you can have children.

Or are you saying that anyone who is infertile should remain single or be with a partner who is also infertile, so as not to disadvantage the human race?

people who are 100% infertile are also not able to reproduce, this is obvious. the number of people who are heterosexual and produce offspring with their own partners vs the number of homosexual couples who produce offspring from their partners, is amazingly one sided.

100% of homosexuals cannot reproduce with their partner, and heterosexuals with infertility problems can get their infertility fixed. Not all cases can be solved, but most can. 92/100 couples who have regular intercourse, infertile or not, will produce offspring unnaided within approx. 2 years.

 

[Nerthus]

people who are 100% infertile are also not able to reproduce, this is obvious. the number of people who are heterosexual and produce offspring with their own partners vs the number of homosexual couples who produce offspring from their partners, is amazingly one sided.

100% of homosexuals cannot reproduce with their partner, and heterosexuals with infertility problems can get their infertility fixed. Not all cases can be solved, but most can. 92/100 couples who have regular intercourse, infertile or not, will produce offspring unnaided within approx. 2 years.

Yes, the numbers will of course be higher, but it still exists within the straight community.

Also, with the amount of people on this planet, I don't think that being gay will cause us to die out. the amount of children without families is crazy, so I am a big believer in adoption. And, as gay couples have means of having children, it isn't really a major issue.

 

[jonman122]

Yes, the numbers will of course be higher, but it still exists within the straight community.

Also, with the amount of people on this planet, I don't think that being gay will cause us to die out. the amount of children without families is crazy, so I am a big believer in adoption. And, as gay couples have means of having children, it isn't really a major issue.

never said it was a major issue, just that its a fact. Nor did i say the human race would die out due to it, because due to the amount of still heterosexual couples, that argument would be rediculous.

but major or not, from an evolutionary standpoint, it's still not very effective.

it almost seems like most of the people here don't understand why people have the urge to have sex with one another :\

 

[Nerthus]

it almost seems like most of the people here don't understand why people have the urge to have sex with one another :\

To have children?

I don't want children, yet still have the urge to have sex every now and again. If that's the reason, then it's a very unconscious urge for me.

 

[jonman122]

To have children?

I don't want children, yet still have the urge to have sex every now and again. If that's the reason, then it's a very unconscious urge for me.

if sex was the most incredibly painful experience that you could ever have in your entire life, would you still have that urge do you think? That is the urge to produce children, whether or not you consciously want them.

edit: as an example, i'll use honey bees. when they have sex, the males die. They do not practice homosexuality.