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

[jonman122]

i don't think an argument can be made against who a person is...

exactly, that's why i think Storm and Gnomon have unrealistic expectations for what the argument HAS to be, because it can't be an argument against the persons choice or else it wouldnt be logical or rational. So really, there is no argument to be had here. Just the small point i made, which really has nothing to do with choice it's just genetics. sooo :\

 

[Nerthus]

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.

They don't have to have sex.

 

[Midnight Pete]

They don't have to have sex.

I've been told --by homosexuals-- that they can and do make babies when they choose to. The men with the women, apparently. I've also heard of lesbian couples seeking out straight men for that same purpose. Imagine that, to be a surrogate impregnator for two women who do not require any further involevment from you.

 

[Nerthus]

I've been told --by homosexuals-- that they can and do make babies when they choose to. The men with the women, apparently. I've also heard of lesbian couples seeking out straight men for that same purpose. Imagine that, to be a surrogate impregnator for two women who do not require any further involevment from you.

Perhaps some do, but I haven't heard of people, or know anyone who has slept with the opposite sex to get pregnant.

I think people can switch off when it comes to things like that though - prostitutes for example, often say that they take themselves away from the experience to that they can cope - as do rape victims.

There are men out there who give their sperm for that very purpose, often not knowing who it's going to. Not all people feel the same about it, some are happy enough to help out others who really want a baby - like surrogate mothers carrying a baby for nine months for another couple.

 

[gnomon]

exactly, that's why i think Storm and Gnomon have unrealistic expectations for what the argument HAS to be, because it can't be an argument against the persons choice or else it wouldnt be logical or rational. So really, there is no argument to be had here. Just the small point i made, which really has nothing to do with choice it's just genetics. sooo :\

No.

Just a few decades ago more people than not would tell you that race is a biologically determined characteristic. Today, race is understood, from a scientific standpoint, to be bunk.

It's just with homosexuality the direction has been the opposite. What was once recognized as a psychological deviancy is no longer understood to be so.

I just understand the debate. Every point people think they have brought against homosexuality has had a caveat that was moving away point of the debate. Your entire genetic argument was conditioned upon the social standards we see today. A different society and it's moot.

Arguments against gay sex? Irrelevant.

Arguments that two same sex people do not reproduce? Who cares. The only thing that would stop one of them from engaging a partner for reproduction is a social argument. That is not an argument against homosexuality or even gay sex.

Arguments that two same sex people not repopulating the planet? See above. In lack of above go back to the OP. The human population is increasing exponentially. Yet homosexuality among humans does not appear to be. For all our understanding, and observations among other primates, homosexuality is just a common aspect of natural selection. Saying absolutely one way or the other is a faith based argument. Not an argument against homosexuality.

It's icky? That was actually one of the arguments. To each their own.

Move beyond the extremes of homosexuality and heterosexuality to include people who bond with members of both common sexes and then add in the existence of intersex individuals and any talk of arguing against any of it, even with religious arguments, becomes absurd.

I'm not being unrealistic. I'm doing exactly what any reasonable person would do. Not accept weak lines of argumentation, stick to the fundamental meaning of the terms in the debate and staying on topic.

I do realize that is not the norm in any forum, however.

Yes, I'm being cheeky.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No.

Just a few decades ago more people than not would tell you that race is a biologically determined characteristic. Today, race is understood, from a scientific standpoint, to be bunk.

It's just with homosexuality the direction has been the opposite. What was once recognized as a psychological deviancy is no longer understood to be so.

I just understand the debate. Every point people think they have brought against homosexuality has had a caveat that was moving away point of the debate. Your entire genetic argument was conditioned upon the social standards we see today. A different society and it's moot.

Arguments against gay sex? Irrelevant.

Arguments that two same sex people do not reproduce? Who cares. The only thing that would stop one of them from engaging a partner for reproduction is a social argument. That is not an argument against homosexuality or even gay sex.

Arguments that two same sex people not repopulating the planet? See above. In lack of above go back to the OP. The human population is increasing exponentially. Yet homosexuality among humans does not appear to be. For all our understanding, and observations among other primates, homosexuality is just a common aspect of natural selection. Saying absolutely one way or the other is a faith based argument. Not an argument against homosexuality.

It's icky? That was actually one of the arguments. To each their own.

Move beyond the extremes of homosexuality and heterosexuality to include people who bond with members of both common sexes and then add in the existence of intersex individuals and any talk of arguing against any of it, even with religious arguments, becomes absurd.

I'm not being unrealistic. I'm doing exactly what any reasonable person would do. Not accept weak lines of argumentation, stick to the fundamental meaning of the terms in the debate and staying on topic.

I do realize that is not the norm in any forum, however.

Yes, I'm being cheeky.

:clap

 

[waitasec]

i think gnomon finished it... brilliant post captain

 

[Storm]

It's icky? That was actually one of the arguments. To each their own.

That was me. I was summing up.

 

[Midnight Pete]

This entire thread has been a farce.

 

[jonman122]

This entire thread has been a farce.

No, the OP had a genuine interest in finding out what arguments would be brought up. These people however had no interest in that, as we found when the OP agreed about my argument but they refuted it to no end. Very irrational and unproductive, they narrowed the scope of the argument (much as many of the religious people here do when defending their religion) and attempted to debate by, rather than bringing up counter arguments, just said "nope thats wrong" when what was said was a known fact.

I found it mildly entertaining.

 

[Midnight Pete]

The OP would basically slap down anything that anyone had to say. It's easy to say, "There is no argument against such-and-such" when you won't allow any to exist.

As I said, a farce.

 

[darkendless]

The OP would basically slap down anything that anyone had to say. It's easy to say, "There is no argument against such-and-such" when you won't allow any to exist.

As I said, a farce.

Why would religion be a valid arguement?

 

[jarofthoughts]

The OP would basically slap down anything that anyone had to say. It's easy to say, "There is no argument against such-and-such" when you won't allow any to exist.

As I said, a farce.

I refer you to the two posts I made below:

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'.

...which was an honest attempt to get the conversation going some place, and:

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.

...which shows that I have no intention of slapping down genuine arguments made on a sound empirical basis.

People need to realise that their opinion does not equal an argument. An argument needs to be based on facts or at least asserted from facts, and facts again needs to be based in empiricism. This is why religious "arguments" for or against anything always falls flat on their faces. They have nothing but conjecture and opinion. If you find that harsh, well, tough on you, but if you wish to improve your knowledge and skill in this area I suggest studying some basic argumentative techniques. There are, in fact, rules that determine what is and isn't an argument, and in turn, what is considered a fallacy.

Logic is not arbitrary.

 

[Midnight Pete]

People need to realise that their opinion does not equal an argument. An argument needs to be based on facts or at least asserted from facts, and facts again needs to be based in empiricism. This is why religious "arguments" for or against anything always falls flat on their faces. They have nothing but conjecture and opinion. If you find that harsh, well, tough on you, but if you wish to improve your knowledge and skill in this area I suggest studying some basic argumentative techniques. There are, in fact, rules that determine what is and isn't an argument, and in turn, what is considered a fallacy.

What is one possible argument against homosexuality?

You can't name even one, or so I suspect.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

It's my strong impression that there is an evolutionary advantage to lesbianism, which I will be happy to set out if you are interested.

In any case, you can't go from nature to morality. We even have a term for that-- the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[jarofthoughts]

What is one possible argument against homosexuality?

You can't name even one, or so I suspect.

As mentioned earlier in this tread one possible argument against the sexual reproduction part of homosexuality is that if the human race at any point was close to extinction and no artificial means of insemination was available then heterosexuality would be the better option for increasing the population.

There. I named one.

 

[McBell]

What is one possible argument against homosexuality?

"I do not like it."

Now perhaps you would be so kind as to present a legitimate legal argument against homosexuality?

 

[Midnight Pete]

As mentioned earlier in this tread one possible argument against the sexual reproduction part of homosexuality is that if the human race at any point was close to extinction and no artificial means of insemination was available then heterosexuality would be the better option for increasing the population.

There. I named one.

No, there's something opiniated about that one, too. Judges, what do you think?

 

[Midnight Pete]

"I do not like it."

Now perhaps you would be so kind as to present a legitimate legal argument against homosexuality?

Within the context of this "debate", homosexuality cannot be argued against. Not socially, not legally, not religiously, not biologically, not personally, not psychologically. And it seems we've just added the law to this list of impossibilities. Thank you, Mestemia.

 

[blackout]

As mentioned earlier in this tread one possible argument against the sexual reproduction part of homosexuality is that if the human race at any point was close to extinction and no artificial means of insemination was available then heterosexuality would be the better option for increasing the population.

There. I named one.

Well really now,
Homosexuals could STILL have their chosen same sex partners,
and for the sake of "continuing the race"
pair off with a "mating partner" of the opposite sex
at the right time of the month
in hopes of bringing forth a child.
OTHER family models as well are entirely possible.
Yes, and even all under the same roof.
I could imagine a whole handful,
right off the top of my head.

We are very short sighted as it is
regarding family possibilities.