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

[jonman122]

Just keep telling yourself that.


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


Oh, I get it.

so your saying for my argument to be against the usefulness of homosexuality, i have to make it say that homosexuality is bad?

my argument is that you can't pass down any of your genetic traits if you are having sex with someone who is the same gender. Can you argue against that? it's a valid argument against homosexuality, and it actually cannot be refuted.

so i can understand why you would choose to dismiss it so readily, but you can't deny that it's the truth.

 

[jarofthoughts]

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

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

I would accept it, and as has been mentioned above given the right circumstances the reproduction issue would count as an argument to a certain degree, but then that argument would be valid also against non-childbearing heterosexuals.

When I asked the question originally I wasn't expecting much since these debates often degenerate to the "I personally think it's wrong" level, which is not an argument at all. But I assure you, it is not a trick question and if someone can empirically show that homosexuality for some reason is detrimental to society or humanity or something... Then I will accept that argument as being valid. And then we might get an actual conversation going.

Just so you know my personal stance is that as long as we're talking about consensual adults I think it's none of my business what people do between the sheets, who they fall in love with or who they marry.

 

[gnomon]

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

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

Yes.

I'll admit that maybe I'm the one person who misread the OP but taking the phrase an argument against homosexuality is to make an argument against what we know homosexuality is. Not gay sex. Not just love between members of the same sex. The whole concept. And the against part is to show that homosexuality is not a choice. That was implied by removing the religious aspect of it because the primary religious argument is that homosexuality is not biologically determined.

That's why I kept repeating back to arthra's posts because he attempted to put forth the non-religious, psychological argument that homosexuality is a natural but detrimental state of being. An argument that homosexuals could indeed choose to not be that way, which implies the same for heterosexuals, would be an argument against homosexuality. For it would be an argument stating that human sexuality is merely a choice.

In other words, an argument against what we know what it is today.

Past arthra's arguments all we've seen are arguments as to which state of sexuality is better. From my understanding of the OP that is not the question.

I'll change my opinion in a heartbeat when the empirical data suggests that my currently held opinion is wrong on any subject.

I don't think the OP is a trick question. It's just that outside the realm of faith, whether one believes homosexuality is biologically determined or not, there are no good arguments against the existence of homosexuality as we understand today which is that it is a biologically determined state of being.

I would expand to include all of human sexuality and human sexual development.

Now if the OP meant arguments against homosexuality in the sense of whether or not society should accept homosexual relationships than I think we are all off track in the debate. But I don't think that was the intention since religious based arguments were specifically exempted and highlighted by the examples in the OP referencing design or natural state of existence.

 

[Storm]

my argument is that you can't pass down any of your genetic traits if you are having sex with someone who is the same gender. Can you argue against that? it's a valid argument against homosexuality, and it actually cannot be refuted.

Only it's not. You yourself noted that it's actually a good thing.

so i can understand why you would choose to dismiss it so readily, but you can't deny that it's the truth.

I deny that you have any idea what you're saying, since you continually contradict yourself.

 

[Midnight Pete]

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.

I get what you're saying, Jonmann. And I agree. I think the original biblical objection to homosexuality was that it was non-productive sex. And in the Bible days, procreation was integral to nation-building and there was no threat of overpopulation.

This ties in with why God was so mad at Onan for not impregnating his sister-in-law.

 

[jonman122]

When I asked the question originally I wasn't expecting much since these debates often degenerate to the "I personally think it's wrong" level, which is not an argument at all. But I assure you, it is not a trick question and if someone can empirically show that homosexuality for some reason is detrimental to society or humanity or something... Then I will accept that argument as being valid. And then we might get an actual conversation going.

.

there is no reason that homosexuality is detrimental to society or humanity at this time, the only time it would be bad is if our populations were near extinction because we'd get less breeding done to repopulate. So you won't find any good arguments like THAT in here. Makes me sad, good arguments are awesome i've thought through a few, but most are rather opinionated and that's not the kind of argument i want to use.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Good arguments are rather opinionated. Who knew?

 

[jonman122]

Only it's not. You yourself noted that it's actually a good thing.


I deny that you have any idea what you're saying, since you continually contradict yourself.

no, you arent understanding. i'll explain it in longer terms for you.

for a race to continue to evolve, it passes down traits right? Genetic traits, like better running skills through longer legs, more fat for living in the cold, things dependant on climate and geographical location. Now, if you got a group of 200 homosexuals together and threw them in siberia and told them to survive for 500 years in their isolated environment, they'd either have to become heterosexual or they would all die.

but at this present moment, we are not faced with such a dilemna. At this moment, if you chose 200 people at random you would get 90% heterosexuals and they would all be fat and covered in furs by the time you check back in 500 years.

 

[Midnight Pete]

He's right. It doesn't matter how good of a parent you are if you can't pass down your genes to your offspring. And if a gay man and a lesbian woman choose to make a baby together, what is the point in their being homosexual?

 

[gnomon]

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.

“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.

I read the OP.

I also understand the different meanings between homosexual sex, homosexual relationships and homosexuality.

I've stuck to the term homosexuality rather than creating specific instances and referring to different terms.

Now if jarofthoughts wishes to modify the intent of the OP to talk about relationships than we could take the debate into a different direction. Homosexuality is one extreme of a continuum of human sexuality and I've been sticking to the proper meaning of the term.

As far as your allegation that I dismissed you as a creationist please feel free to quote where I said such a thing.

my argument is that you can't pass down any of your genetic traits if you are having sex with someone who is the same gender. Can you argue against that? it's a valid argument against homosexuality, and it actually cannot be refuted.

Quite true. As long as people want to pass on their genes. Last I heard, no non-spiritual atheist believes that people must pass on their genes or that natural selection implies that we have to. And since natural selection is a process that acts on species the relevant importance of this to a very small percentage of the overall population of the species, which is still capable of reproduction if necessary, isn't valid.

See the OP.

 

[Nerthus]

. And if a gay man and a lesbian woman choose to make a baby together, what is the point in their being homosexual?

Really?!

 

[Storm]

no, you arent understanding. i'll explain it in longer terms for you.

I am understanding, that's your problem You're presenting what you admit is a good thing as an argument against homosexuality, and you can't even grasp it. Herp a derp a derrrrrrr indeed.

He's right. It doesn't matter how good of a parent you are if you can't pass down your genes to your offspring.

Tell that to the abused kids rescued into loving homes.

And if a gay man and a lesbian woman choose to make a baby together, what is the point in their being homosexual?

Point? What's the point of being black, or left-handed?

 

[gnomon]

Really?!

I don't think, or rather I hope, that they are not dismissing the whole of what homosexuals feel towards their loved ones. Sure seems like it though, doesn't it.

 

[Midnight Pete]

I don't think, or rather I hope, that they are not dismissing the whole of what homosexuals feel towards their loved ones. Sure seems like it though, doesn't it.

I am not dismissing anything about what homosexuals feel for their loved ones. I'm pretty sure their capacity to love and be loved isn't any different from that of straight people.

 

[jonman122]

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.

<--- got this up for you, seems like you're saying that my argument was religious and that you're trying to get the thread back on track.

 

[waitasec]

I don't think, or rather I hope, that they are not dismissing the whole of what homosexuals feel towards their loved ones. Sure seems like it though, doesn't it.

i think you are absolutely right...
they are dismissing the essence of homosexuality
life isn't sustained in a controlled environment, it's about chaos

 

[jonman122]

I am understanding, that's your problem You're presenting what you admit is a good thing as an argument against homosexuality, and you can't even grasp it. Herp a derp a derrrrrrr indeed.

instead if logically debating my argument, you're doing what most christians do and dismissing it and dismissing my ability to comprehend. You didnt notice that my argument can't be disproved and it's just a scientific fact that any moron could figure out?

i didn't say it was the biggest and best argument against homosexuality, but it is there. They cannot pass on their genes, and that is bad. You want your kid to look kind of like you? you want to carry on your family name? well, too bad, you aren't sleeping with someone from another gender.

seriously how hard is that to grasp for you? it's mind boggling that you dismiss this stuff so easily.

but i digress, since it's a point that literally can't be debated, its really just moot now.

 

[Midnight Pete]

<--- got this up for you, seems like you're saying that my argument was religious and that you're trying to get the thread back on track.

If there is a valid argument argument against homosexuality, you'll never find it. And if you do find it, an RF user (who just happens to be homosexual) will refute it.

 

[Storm]

They cannot pass on their genes, and that is bad.

1) Yes, they can. Nothing about homosexuality causes sterility.
2( Even if it were true, that doesn't make it bad.

seriously how hard is that to grasp for you? it's mind boggling that you dismiss this stuff so easily.

I dismiss most stupid arguments easily.

 

[Storm]

Oh, and jonman? I DID logically debate your argument. You responded by ranting about how I was "butthurt."