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.
Indeed.
I said as much at the beginning of the thread when I said arguing against homosexuality is like arguing against breathing.
If one wishes to make arguments about what to do
with homosexuals or that it's not the best way to be then that's a different thread. And would probably be a rather disturbing one.
What is one possible argument against homosexuality?
You can't name even one, or so I suspect.
For the umpteenth time.
arthra put forth a valid line of argument against homosexuality. Namely that homosexuality was not a natural state of being like heterosexuality but was a psychological deviation from normal human sexual development. However, that line of argument is challenged with the fact that such a concept derives from one individuals opinion, Sigmund Freud, and the lack of empirical evidence to back up his assertion. Not too mention that Freud failed to adequately understand female sexuality as a whole.
If someone wishes to put forth the argument that homosexuality is a genetic defect then by all means they can. They just better be prepared to provide evidence.
If someone wants to argue the line of reasoning of choice involved in human sexuality and that homosexuality is merely a conscious decision or some such thing than they can do so as long as they provide evidence.
The threads not a farce. It's just very specific in that removing religious based arguments removed the faith based argument. People need to provide evidence.
As far as this hypothetical so called argument against homosexuality because human beings might be on the brink of extinction well then, for the sake of being crude (apologies to the homosexual community on this forum) a gay man or lesbian can take one for the team and mate with a heterosexual.
