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

[Storm]

jonman, could you restate your argument for me?

 

[jonman122]

jonman, could you restate your argument for me?

As human beings, we are naturally inclined to have sex with people of the opposite gender. <-- (this was dismissed in OP so i didnt go there so much.) But my argument was specifically against the evolutionary usefulness of homosexuality, due to the fact that 0% of same sex couples can have a successful childbirth by only having sex with their partner. That means any genetic traits that could be passed down by the parents are lost.

The counter argument was infertility in heterosexual couples, but thats rediculous because 92/100 heterosexual couples will have a successful chance of having a child (within a 2 year span, without external aid) while same sex couples doing the same thing have 0/100 chance of bearing children.

and then the other guy came in and said my argument from a biological standpoint was creationist and not relevent :\

 

[Storm]

As human beings, we are naturally inclined to have sex with people of the opposite gender.

Not all of us, obviously.

But my argument was specifically against the evolutionary usefulness of homosexuality, due to the fact that 0% of same sex couples can have a successful childbirth by only having sex with their partner. That means any genetic traits that could be passed down by the parents are lost.

This argument could just as easily be used "against" menopause, and I think the rebuttal is the same. There's more to natural selection than the individual. Having adults without children of their own to help care for the family offspring boosts their survival rate.

 

[jonman122]

Not all of us, obviously.


This argument could just as easily be used "against" menopause, and I think the rebuttal is the same. There's more to natural selection than the individual. Having adults without children of their own to help care for the family offspring boosts their survival rate.

that would be what the elderly or post-menopausal people who can no longer breed would be useful for though, they have no more need to breed and they can help people who are at the right age to breed do their daily tasks (food gathering, hygiene for the children). This also seems like you're viewing it from a tribal standpoint, as most families nowadays are isolated from other families and it wouldnt matter if there are single adults who could potentially help those families do normal tasks, no one would let a random person take care of their children nowadays.

that is, unless i totally missed the point. I'm pretty tired now though, i just got off my 5 day midnight shift work week so i'm ready for sleeeeeep, understanding stuff is coming hard all of a sudden.

edit: unless you meant WITHIN a family itself, but most adults without offspring won't stick around to help their parents take care of whatever siblings are left, they'll leave to go get married or find a partner to go live with instead

 

[gnomon]

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.

Feel free to go back and quote where I stated such a thing.

What you will actually read is that I stated that religious based arguments against homosexuality are design based arguments. That homosexuality is wrong because it goes against the design.

You are using an argument against homosexuality because it is not designed for procreation. They use God as the design maker. You are using natural selection as a design maker. You are inferring design based on the concept of sexual purpose.

Natural selection is a term used to refer to species. Frankly, your argument is one against birth control. If sex is for propagating the species than there should be no birth control and a lot more sex. Because, the more offspring one leaves the better chance of survival.

It's a ridiculous argument anyway.

Should gay people stop being gay because of natural selection? Should homosexuals stop falling in love, biologically natural phenomenon, with members of the same sex because of natural selection?

This is worse than the religious arguments.

 

[Storm]

that would be what the elderly or post-menopausal people who can no longer breed would be useful for though, they have no more need to breed and they can help people who are at the right age to breed do their daily tasks (food gathering, hygiene for the children). This also seems like you're viewing it from a tribal standpoint, as most families nowadays are isolated from other families and it wouldnt matter if there are single adults who could potentially help those families do normal tasks, no one would let a random person take care of their children nowadays.

that is, unless i totally missed the point. I'm pretty tired now though, i just got off my 5 day midnight shift work week so i'm ready for sleeeeeep, understanding stuff is coming hard all of a sudden.

edit: unless you meant WITHIN a family itself, but most adults without offspring won't stick around to help their parents take care of whatever siblings are left, they'll leave to go get married or find a partner to go live with instead

Hey, you're the one brought up evolution. We didn't evolve to live in cities, either.

 

[Storm]

It's a ridiculous argument anyway.

Should gay people stop being gay because of natural selection? Should homosexuals stop falling in love, biologically natural phenomenon, with members of the same sex because of natural selection?

This is worse than the religious arguments.

Agreed.

 

[jonman122]

Should gay people stop being gay because of natural selection? Should homosexuals stop falling in love, biologically natural phenomenon, with members of the same sex because of natural selection?

yeah i think you're mad.

i never said in there anywhere that they should stop doing what they do, i just said it isn't very efficient for evolving as a species. Does that mean homosexuals can't still practice homosexuality? No, of course they can do what they want, you guys are just becoming incredibly butthurt at the slightest mention of anything that isn't "homosexuals are the best and should be accepted in every way"

 

[Storm]

yeah i think you're mad.

i never said in there anywhere that they should stop doing what they do, i just said it isn't very efficient for evolving as a species. Does that mean homosexuals can't still practice homosexuality? No, of course they can do what they want, you guys are just becoming incredibly butthurt at the slightest mention of anything that isn't "homosexuals are the best and should be accepted in every way"

No, it's just a crappy argument.

 

[jonman122]

No, it's just a crappy argument.

did it say in the OP "no crappy but valid arguments, please just arguments that are super awesome and debunk homosexuality entirely."

right now, there really is no problem with homosexuality. Our race has a fairly stable population (it's increasing dramatically and really that's not good, i wouldn't be surprised to see the number of homosexual people increase due to this) so any argument that could be used against homosexuality is pretty much invalid at the moment. It's a pretty positive thing, as long as they aren't hitting on me.

but that doesn't mean my argument has absolutely no merrit. It's an argument from logic, so..

 

[Midnight Pete]

Feel free to go back and quote where I stated such a thing.

What you will actually read is that I stated that religious based arguments against homosexuality are design based arguments. That homosexuality is wrong because it goes against the design.

You are using an argument against homosexuality because it is not designed for procreation. They use God as the design maker. You are using natural selection as a design maker. You are inferring design based on the concept of sexual purpose.

Natural selection is a term used to refer to species. Frankly, your argument is one against birth control. If sex is for propagating the species than there should be no birth control and a lot more sex. Because, the more offspring one leaves the better chance of survival.

It's a ridiculous argument anyway.

Should gay people stop being gay because of natural selection? Should homosexuals stop falling in love, biologically natural phenomenon, with members of the same sex because of natural selection?

This is worse than the religious arguments.

If a valid argument against homosexuality existed, would you admit that it did?

It's just that the OP seems like a trick-question.

 

[Storm]

did it say in the OP "no crappy but valid arguments, please just arguments that are super awesome and debunk homosexuality entirely."

right now, there really is no problem with homosexuality. Our race has a fairly stable population (it's increasing dramatically and really that's not good, i wouldn't be surprised to see the number of homosexual people increase due to this) so any argument that could be used against homosexuality is pretty much invalid at the moment. It's a pretty positive thing, as long as they aren't hitting on me.

Well, for someone who claims to have no problem with himosexuality, you sure seem "butthurt" that your admittedly crappy argument didn't impress anyone.

 

[Storm]

If a valid argument against homosexuality existed, would you admit that it did?

It's just that the OP seems like a trick-question.

Sure. Same as square circles.

 

[gnomon]

yeah i think you're mad.

i never said in there anywhere that they should stop doing what they do, i just said it isn't very efficient for evolving as a species. Does that mean homosexuals can't still practice homosexuality? No, of course they can do what they want, you guys are just becoming incredibly butthurt at the slightest mention of anything that isn't "homosexuals are the best and should be accepted in every way"

Whose mad?

I bolded the last part of your post because I want to highlight the debate is not about who is better at producing offspring.

 

[jonman122]

Well, for someone who claims to have no problem with himosexuality, you sure seem "butthurt" that your admittedly crappy argument didn't impress anyone.

i had like 5 people agree with me, go read previous posts for when i first posted my argument. I impressed quite a few people with my logic, soooo... yeah.

 

[Storm]

i had like 5 people agree with me, go read previous posts for when i first posted my argument. I impressed quite a few people with my logic, soooo... yeah.

Does that make the argument better?

 

[jonman122]

Whose mad?

I bolded the last part of your post because I want to highlight the debate is not about who is better at producing offspring.

it's about any argument against homosexuality, and that is one. Did he specify a certain type of argument that had to be used against homosexuality? noo he did not, get your premise right.

 

[jonman122]

Does that make the argument better?

my argument is fine, it is logical and backed by evidence. My argument does not state that homosexuality is bad for the human race however, i even just said in the last few posts how homosexuality is helping humanity by keeping breeding down a bit. You guys are trying to argue against something that you really don't seem to be getting.

 

[Midnight Pete]

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

Seriously, what kind a debate can we have if it's a gay person asking that question?

The OP should have read:

If you take away religion, what arguments are there against homosexuality ... that I will admit to?

 

[Storm]

my argument is fine, it is logical and backed by evidence.

Just keep telling yourself that.

My argument does not state that homosexuality is bad for the human race however, i even just said in the last few posts how homosexuality is helping humanity by keeping breeding down a bit.

Well, then it's not really an argument against homosexuality, is it?

You guys are trying to argue against something that you really don't seem to be getting.

Oh, I get it.