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

[Nerthus]

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.

Perhaps, if that was the case, but it isn't. If sex was purely for procreation - then there was no need to make it feel good. People who know they cannot have children, still have the urge to have sex. Gay people still have the urge to have sex, knowing very well a baby will not be the result.

I think if after sex, the human male would die - then it could be argued that it is purely about producing children, but that doesn't happen and there has to a reason.

 

[jonman122]

Perhaps, if that was the case, but it isn't. If sex was purely for procreation - then there was no need to make it feel good. People who know they cannot have children, still have the urge to have sex. Gay people still have the urge to have sex, knowing very well a baby will not be the result.

I think if after sex, the human male would die - then it could be argued that it is purely about producing children, but that doesn't happen and there has to a reason.

having sex feels good because we have been formed by our evolution to have feelings of pleasure so we procreate more and spread easier, one of these reasons being we are very easy to kill, and everything can eat us for food if we are unarmed.

making sex feel good means people will have sex more often and will practice sex regardless of whether they are fertile or not. It is programmed in to your brain as an instinct, not just because you can reproduce. (meaning infertile people and even homosexuals will desire sex regardless of whether they can reproduce) If there was a 100% chance you would always reproduce no matter what, i'm sure it would be different.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I agree with your points Jonman122, and would like to add that I don't think most people are aware of just how "enslaved" we are to our genes, and as a result, instinctual behaviour. Of course, "enslaved" isn't really the right word to use because without those genes and behavioural traits we would not be human, but there can be no question that sex is a biological trick to make us reproduce through the release of pleasure drugs such dopamine and oxytocine.
Masturbation doesn't result in procreation either, but it still feels good, and from an evolutionary point of view the reason it feels good is because our genes "wants" us to procreate (notice: Our genes are not concious and do not have desires. I'm anthropomorphizing for the sake of explanation).

The ultimate example of the use of sex for something besides procreation are the Bonobo apes (a close relative of the common Chimpanzee). From wikipedia: 'Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society observed in captivity, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconciliation'.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Now think really hard Pete. Can you take a wild guess as to why that might be?

It's self-explanatory. Hetero is as hetero does.

 

[Nerthus]

The ultimate example of the use of sex for something besides procreation are the Bonobo apes (a close relative of the common Chimpanzee). From wikipedia: 'Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society observed in captivity, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconciliation'.

There's a lot about animals and sex for pleasure. Not that we can know exactly the reasons they have for it, but it has been said it isn't all about procreation.

 

[jonman122]

There's a lot about animals and sex for pleasure. Not that we can know exactly the reasons they have for it, but it has been said it isn't all about procreation.

whoever said that was wrong, it is all about procreation. It just doesn't seem like it, and they have sex for many other reasons, but all of those reasons boil down to making babies. Anyone who tells you otherwise is doing a lot of wishful thinking

 

[Revoltingest]

whoever said that was wrong, it is all about procreation. It just doesn't seem like it, and they have sex for many other reasons, but all of those reasons boil down to making babies. Anyone who tells you otherwise is doing a lot of wishful thinking

I wouldn't be so quick to be certain about that. Just because sex has reproductive origins, doesn't mean that evolution can't co-opt it for another purpose.
Just look at current thought about some of mankind's sluttier relatives.

Sex-crazed bonobos may be more like humans than thought

 

[Nerthus]

whoever said that was wrong, it is all about procreation. It just doesn't seem like it, and they have sex for many other reasons, but all of those reasons boil down to making babies. Anyone who tells you otherwise is doing a lot of wishful thinking

Not in my opinion. Even if urges are about procreation - as I don't want children yet have those urges, it means little to me.

 

[jonman122]

I wouldn't be so quick to be certain about that. Just because sex has reproductive origins, doesn't mean that evolution can't co-opt it for another purpose.
Just look at current thought about some of mankind's sluttier relatives.

Sex-crazed bonobos may be more like humans than thought

but why do they feel the urge to have sex in the first place? For diplomatic reasons, or just for fun? Where does that desire stem from?

 

[jonman122]

Not in my opinion. Even if urges are about procreation - as I don't want children yet have those urges, it means little to me.

I can't explain years of biology lessons to you, i tried my best though.

whether or not it means little to you, you are feeling those urges because you are genetically created to procreate with person of the opposite gender, from the same race as you. If you weren't, you would not have those feelings and you would not care for sex in the slightest.

it's not about what YOU want, it's about what your genetically designed to do. It's like if you made a program for a computer that automatically updated your virus scanner, but it was an AI and didn't want to at all. It will continue to update your virus scanner no matter what it thinks it has control of. It can't exactly rewrite it's own programming unless you have already programmed it to do so, and we are not programmed to be able to reprogram ourselves without the aid of millions of years of evolution.

 

[Revoltingest]

but why do they feel the urge to have sex in the first place? For diplomatic reasons, or just for fun? Where does that desire stem from?

As I said, the origins are reproductive, but sex can evolve to be or serve other things too, eg, recreation, diplomacy, business, tool of war.

 

[jonman122]

As I said, the origins are reproductive, but sex can evolve to be or serve other things too, eg, recreation, diplomacy, business, tool of war.

sure, sex can have many other good uses, but as soon as anyone says "it's not about reproduction" they're fooling themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

sure, sex can have many other good uses, but as soon as anyone says "it's not about reproduction" they're fooling themselves.

From some perspectives, it truly isn't about reproduction.
Was someone over-generalizing about reproductive irrelevance?

 

[Nerthus]

I can't explain years of biology lessons to you, i tried my best though.

You don't need to explain Biology to me, I've studied it long enough thanks.

you are genetically created to procreate with person of the opposite gender, from the same race as you.

So, you're saying homosexuality isn't natural? It was never meant to be that way?

it's not about what YOU want, it's about what your genetically designed to do.

Again, even if that is what sex is about - I am not having sex for that reason. Whether or not I was designed that way, I am not doing it for that reason.

I don't see why you can't understand that. If sex is only about reproduction - and nothing else, then I wouldn't be having it.



Besides, this thread isn't asking for a scientific explanation of why we have sex.

 

[BIG D]

sure, sex can have many other good uses, but as soon as anyone says "it's not about reproduction" they're fooling themselves.

I completely agree

 

[Faithfreedom]

Then you acknowledge what a stupid argument it is.

What is so stupid about it?
Muslims make up a lot of the world's population.
If homosexual muslims do not play their part well, their birth rate will not be optimal. Also the export of muslim migrants to developed country will be less. The amount of social security that they can draw and remit back to their homeland will also be less. Their plans for world domination will be delayed.

 

[gnomon]

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.

Not an argument against homosexuality. Stating that people are genetically inclined to reproduce is a gross oversimplification of biology and psychology.

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.

Not an argument against homosexuality.

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.

Because the first point is not an argument against homosexuality. It's not even a valid argument in the framework of evolution.

The OP asked for arguments against homosexuality.

Since arthra was pounced on, irrationally, by members of this forum for actually doing what the OP asked, and being the only able to do so, I'll repeat his debunked argument.

The Freudian argument is that homosexuality is a deviation from a naturally designed course of sexual development. The problem with that line of reasoning is that it lacked any empirical data to support it and was solely based on the opinions of Sigmund Freud. Who, let's face it, is given far more credit than he deserves in the field of psychoanalysis which walks the line between science and pseudoscience anyway. There have been other non-religious arguments based on psychology taking the same route. That, in essence, homosexuals are merely heterosexuals acting out in deviant ways.

Those are arguments against homosexuality because, like the religious arguments which call homosexuality unnatural or a choice, they all essentially state that natural states of sexuality outside of heterosexuality do not exist.

But they do. Homosexuality, bisexuality, male, female, intersex........they all exist and to date no mechanism of choice has been shown to be involved in determining any of these. Also, being a homosexual just isn't about the sex. If heterosexuality were just about sex than rape wouldn't be illegal, it would be a sport.

So there are no arguments against homosexuality. Hell, since sexual dimorphism in humans is now known not to be an absolute "way of things" any argument against a group because they cannot sexually reproduce is not an argument against the existence or natural development of the group.

It's merely an argument that a specific group cannot sexually reproduce and nothing more.

The moment a non-religious person starts using the terms meant, genetically designed for purpose or anything similar you might as well be talking religion.

 

[jonman122]

Not an argument against homosexuality. Stating that people are genetically inclined to reproduce is a gross oversimplification of biology and psychology.

i don't see how you don't understand why this is an argument against a certain aspect of homosexuality.. It's an argument against it's evolutionary usefulness. Apparently you didn't get that? Are you looking for specifically debunkable arguments, instead of factual ones?

u mad?

 

[gnomon]

i don't see how you don't understand why this is an argument against a certain aspect of homosexuality.. It's an argument against it's evolutionary usefulness. Apprently you didn't get that? Are you looking for specifically debunkable arguments, instead of factual ones?

u mad?

No.

I read the OP.

The OP asked for non-religious arguments against homosexuality. What are the religious arguments against homosexuality? Design based arguments. That line of argumentation was removed from the debate.

So what's left? The only thing left are those arguments relying upon psychology. That argument was brought up quickly in this thread and slammed down for being bigoted. So instead, everyone either started using the part A goes into slot B argument, which is a design based argument, or going after one aspect, namely male on male sex and their perception of it, which is not an argument against homosexuality. It's an argument against male on male sex.

I'm merely trying to get the thread back on topic which is what arguments are there against homosexuality without using religion. That only leaves finding some way to show that homosexuality is a choice and that individuals should not choose to be homosexual.

No, I am not moving goalposts around to make a point outside the scope of the debate. I think everyone else who has made an attempt achieved just fine over the last 30+ pages.

 

[jonman122]

Natural selection making us the way we are is a religious argument? I really don't see where you're getting this from. Did you actually read what i posted, and did you notice the big Atheist thing beside my picture? My argument is NOT a religious argument.

i could say "schematic" instead if that would be a better word, but if you cut a human in half things are generally placed in the same areas, and i'm going to use the word design to make things easier to explain.

not all design is religious, natural selection is not religious, if we were all homosexual the human race would have died out millenia ago so i'd say natural selection has played a decent roll in making sure we didnt all end up this way, wouldnt you agree?

however homosexuality does seem to be useful during times when overpopulation occurs, maybe thats what the gay gene is for? slow down overpopulation? who knows.