• 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?

McBell

Unbound
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.
You have been given two arguments against homosexuality that do not involve religion.

Storm even presented the "ick" argument early in the thread.

Personally, I disagree with them, but they are still arguments against homosexuality that do not involve religion.

Me personally, I am much more interested in hearing a legitimate legal argument against homosexuality that does not also apply to heterosexuality.


However, seems to me that you are much more interested in playing the martyr.
 

EverChanging

Well-Known Member
We are very short sighted as it is
regarding family possibilities.
Homophobes tend for forget that the nuclear family is not "natural." There are many other types of family structures...the nuclear family is rather modern. Children in other cultures are often raised by many people, not just a "mommy" and "daddy."
 

McBell

Unbound
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. :rolleyes:
I could imagine a whole handful,
right off the top of my head.

We are very short sighted as it is
regarding family possibilities.
Are you seriously under the impression that people have to have sex in order to get pregnant?
 

blackout

Violet.
Homophobes tend for forget that the nuclear family is not "natural." There are many other types of family structures...the nuclear family is rather modern. Children in other cultures are often raised by many people, not just a "mommy" and "daddy."

As well, this "nuclear family" model
keeps us all... nicely seperated...
for economic and tax purposes.:rolleyes:
(that benefit who? exactly?)

Legal restrictions make it
MUCH harder for people
to WORK Together.
(as a larger family unit)
Our society is DESIGNED
to discourage people
from working together
as larger family units.
You know what they say
"together we stand,
divided we fall".
People would rather lose their homes,
their CHILDRENS' homes,
than create a new family model.

And people's minds are very moldable...
this is the "way it is"
so
this is the "way it's supposed to be". :shrug:
People can't see... imagine...
legitimize....
beyond what they are surrounded by...
beyond what they are entrenched in.
 
Last edited:

blackout

Violet.
Are you seriously under the impression that people have to have sex in order to get pregnant?

I was responding to this....

Originally Posted by jarofthoughts
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. ;)

as you will clearly see,
if you look back at my post.

After all the time I've been on this forum,
do you really think I'm a total moron Mestemia?

Whatever.
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
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. :rolleyes:
I could imagine a whole handful,
right off the top of my head.

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

I do not in any way disagree with you. :)

I was merely responding, as you can see, to the claim that I could not mention a POSSIBLE argument against homosexuality, which I did. It is not an argument that would hold stick unless those very specific conditions were met, but I was trying to show that it is not a logical impossibility to present an argument against homosexuality.
 

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
In all the thousands of years before artificial insemenation existed, people had sex to get pregnant. A man and a woman, making the beast with two backs. Wrap your mind around that one if you can.
 

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
some people cannot understand that the discoveries of science is part of our evolutionary process...

Just because artificial insemenation is possible does not mean it is prefereable to procreative sex. The idea of procreative sex between a man and a woman must really bother you.
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
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.

So that one wasn't accepted, either. You start out saying it was valid and then finish by saying it in fact not valid. It's okay. I don't care anymore.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
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. ;)

This assumes only homosexuals will be the only humans on the planet. I think even in a near extinction scenario we could still have heterosexuals on the planet.
 

EverChanging

Well-Known Member
So that one wasn't accepted, either. You start out saying it was valid and then finish by saying it in fact not valid. It's okay. I don't care anymore.

No, she said it was the type of argument the OP asked for, but it has no supportive evidence.
 
Top