• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

jonman122

jonman122

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


I dismiss most stupid arguments easily.
Click to expand...

you're sounding an awful lot like gloone, that christian fellow who is righteously defending himself against any logical argument that can be formed by dismissing the evidence.

i think i know why you're upset though, and i'll leave you to your biased opinion.
 
jonman122

jonman122

Active Member
jarofthoughts said:
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'. :D
Click to expand...

and this is for you guys who keep referring back to the OP. reason: THAT is the OP talking there.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So many posts....so little time. Has anyone presented a cogent non-religious argument against homosexuality yet?
 
gnomon

gnomon

Well-Known Member
jonman122 said:
<--- 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.
Click to expand...

Not that it was religious.

That it was inferring the same thing as the religious arguments do which is design. There are actually many non-traditional religious people who consider themselves atheist that do believe in a design and that human beings may fall adhere to a design. Not that I've heard them in regards to human sexuality. There are pantheists and buddhists who may very well believe that.

Anyway, I was referring to the arguments similar to yours and which were posted earlier in this thread stating that, due to the common biological structure of human beings, we are meant to be heterosexual. Meant implies some design or supernatural force guiding us. There is no empirical evidence pointing to a universal rulebook on the way things are meant to be.

I am trying to get the debate back specifically regarding homosexuality. Not homosexual sex. Homosexuality refers to more than just sex. And as of yet, no one has put an argument against homosexuality.
 
Midnight Pete

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
Storm, even if homosexuality does not cause sterility it might as well cause sterility because of the non-reproductive homosex. Gay men are not going around impregnating women anyway. And if a gay man and a lesbian have sex to make a baby, are they not automatically heterosexual? Are they not de facto heterosexuals?
 
Storm

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Midnight Pete said:
Storm, even if homosexuality does not cause sterility it might as well cause sterility because of the non-reproductive homosex. Gay men are not going around impregnating women anyway. And if a gay man and a lesbian have sex to make a baby, are they not automatically heterosexual? Are they not de facto heterosexuals?
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
gnomon

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest said:
So many posts....so little time. Has anyone presented a cogent non-religious argument against homosexuality yet?
Click to expand...

No.

But we have some arguments against birth control, abortion, adoption, hypothetical situations if the human population is nearly wiped out, gay sex, calling a homosexual a heterosexual (rather than bisexual) if in a hypothetical save the human race scenario a a homosexual has sex with a heterosexual......

But as of yet, no one has been able to put forth an argument against the existence of homosexuality or address the whole of what being a homosexual is. Lot's of talk about sex, though.
 
jonman122

jonman122

Active Member
well because there is nothing wrong with it, it's just something that people do. It's just like being heterosexual, except with someone of the same gender. There is literally no argument against homosexuality, and really this is starting to look more like it's just a feel-good thread for people that are homosexual to realize that there is nothing wrong with being that way (because there isn't.) But really, there is nothing to debate and no one will be able to argue against something that is impossible to argue against.
 
Nerthus

Nerthus

Wanderlust
Midnight Pete said:
Storm, even if homosexuality does not cause sterility it might as well cause sterility because of the non-reproductive homosex. Gay men are not going around impregnating women anyway. And if a gay man and a lesbian have sex to make a baby, are they not automatically heterosexual? Are they not de facto heterosexuals?
Click to expand...

Your definition of heterosexual is having a baby with a member of the opposite sex? Attraction and love play no part?
 
Storm

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Except that, with modern medicine, two people can "make a baby" without so much as kissing.
 
jonman122

jonman122

Active Member
Revoltingest said:
So many posts....so little time. Has anyone presented a cogent non-religious argument against homosexuality yet?
Click to expand...

they can't, it's all opinion based arguments. It's someone elses life, and no one else has control over your life. How can anyone tell you what you do is wrong as long as its not infringing on the rights of other people? (say, being a cannibal.) What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business, and no one can make a rational, unopinionated argument against that.
 
Midnight Pete

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
Nerthus said:
Your definition of heterosexual is having a baby with a member of the opposite sex? Attraction and love play no part?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say baby-making is the definition of heterosexuality but rather the main purpose for it. Attraction and love play a part, of course. A big part. What I don't understand is how a man and woman who are both gay could physically accomplish heterosexual intercourse.

It would be like me putting it upon myself to have gay sex with another dude while maintaining my arousal by thinking of a woman. There's no way I could do that even if my life depended on it. I would not be able to achieve arousal in the first place. And if I somehow managed it, if I somehow functioned sexually with another man, it would probably cause me such psyhic trauma that I would need counselling.


Hmmm, maybe this should be moved to the Sex DIR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top