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

[Faithfreedom]

I haven't had sex in over 3 years,

You poor thing. My condolences.

 

[Storm]

You poor thing. My condolences.

LOL, thank you.

 

[Father Heathen]

It decreases the population growth

Not by any significant measure, but even if it did how exactly is that a bad thing? Overpopulation is something we should be trying to avoid.

It also decreases the number of soldiers a country can draft into service.

Again, how is that a bad thing?

 

[Father Heathen]

condoms have only been around for the past few decades

Try 400 years. Also, homosexuals can have sex in other ways than just anal. There is also oral sex and frottage/tribadism.

 

[fantome profane]

condoms have only been around for the past few decades

You are quite wrong about that. The condom has been around for quite a long time

source
The condom is one of the oldest forms of contraception. Its history and use can be traced back thousands of years. It is believed that a form of modern-day condoms were used by the Egyptians as far back as 1,000 B.C.
The earliest evidence of condom use in Europe are scenes from cave paintings at Combarelles in France. Dated 100 to 200 AD.
The first known published description and trials regarding prophylactic condom use were recorded by the Italian Gabrielle Fallopius in the 1500's. He claimed to have invented a sheath made of linen and conducted trials amongst 1,100 men using the condom - none of who became infected with syphilis.
The origin of the word 'condom' is still unknown. Folklore attributes the invention to Dr. Condom or Conton, who was at the court of King Charles II in the 1600's. It is more likely, however, that the name derives from the Latin 'condus', meaning receptacle.
The condom, made of animal gut, became well known and increased in popularity in the 1700's. Literature of that time suggests that the condom's contraceptive (rather than just prophylactic) properties had already been realised. By 1766 many shops were producing handbills and advertisements.
Japanese are known to have used two types of condom. The 'Kawagata' or 'Kyotai' was made of thin leather and the 'Kabutogata' was made from tortoiseshell or horn.
Documentation also suggests that legendary 19th Century lover Casanova was a regular user of this type of contraception. He referred to condoms as 'Redingote Anglaise' (English Riding Coat).
The rubber condom was developed shortly after the creation of vulcanized rubber in the 1840's, by Goodyear and Hancock. Vulcanisation is the method or process of treating crude rubber with sulphur and subjecting it to intense heat. This process turns the rubber into a strong elastic material.
In the 1930's liquid latex manufacturing superseded crepe rubber. It is still the basis for manufacture today.
In the 1990's new technology considerably improved the condom and enabled the production of far more sophisticated versions.
and now in the new millenium the new condom revolution is making record waves in the history of the condom and the condoms future is looking brighter than ever.

 

[Pegg]

You are quite wrong about that. The condom has been around for quite a long time

well there ya go... i did not know that

ty for the information.

However, i think it needs to be shown that homosexuals always used them... and i think the aids epidemic among homosexual males would rule out the use of the condom as the norm.

 

[Faithfreedom]

Not by any significant measure, but even if it did how exactly is that a bad thing? Overpopulation is something we should be trying to avoid.



Again, how is that a bad thing?

Its a bad thing for countries like Singapore, West Germany, Islam, etc (in case i missed out something).
Like all first world countries, Singapore's population is decreasing. It now has in place policies to encourage having more babies. So homosexuality tends to put a dent in the government program. Ok, lesbians may get artificially inseminated but most don't. In West Germany, there is a growing trend even for heterosexual married couples to elect not to have children as they feel that its not right to put the babies to grow up through nannies. Both the couple are working and just do not have the time nor inclination for it. Homosexuality only makes the situation worse.
Prophet Mohammad needed lots and lots of soldiers to conquer the whole world. So he went one better by allowing up to 4 wives. Now muslims are proud of the fact that they have one of the fastest growing population. Hence their religion is the "fastest growing religion in the world". Thus they will fulfill Allah's greatest mandate ie to eradicate all other religions in the world until only islam is left.

 

[EverChanging]

Well, everyone needs money (except naked Sadhus of India, etc) even the government. One less baby is one less future taxable citizen and one less potential draftee to press into armed services to defend the country.

Totally lame argument. One less baby is also one less person to drain natural resources and money, not that there is population growth due to immigration. Overpopulation has become a threat to the environment and the existence of this planet. It may be possible to support the number of people we have with better conservation of our resources, but seeing as how that is not the case, we need to stop breeding like rabbits. Otherwise, we're killing others and ourselves by contributing to the problem. I will probably never procreate because of this reason.

Its a bad thing for countries like Singapore, West Germany, Islam, etc (in case i missed out something).
Like all first world countries, Singapore's population is decreasing. It now has in place policies to encourage having more babies. So homosexuality tends to put a dent in the government program. Ok, lesbians may get artificially inseminated but most don't. In West Germany, there is a growing trend even for heterosexual married couples to elect not to have children as they feel that its not right to put the babies to grow up through nannies. Both the couple are working and just do not have the time nor inclination for it. Homosexuality only makes the situation worse.
Prophet Mohammad needed lots and lots of soldiers to conquer the whole world. So he went one better by allowing up to 4 wives. Now muslims are proud of the fact that they have one of the fastest growing population. Hence their religion is the "fastest growing religion in the world". Thus they will fulfill Allah's greatest mandate ie to eradicate all other religions in the world until only islam is left.

None of this makes homosexuality itself wrong. By your logic, homosexuality would actually be ethical in an overpopulated country. In an underpopulated country, by your argument, the choice by heterosexuals not to procreate is just as bad, especially if they're wasting all that sperm in condoms....

Your comments about Islam are heinous. Do you think overpopulating our world even more to destroy all other religions and cultures is a valid argument against homosexuality? I assume you're just BS'ing here.

 

[Father Heathen]

Its a bad thing for countries like Singapore, West Germany, Islam, etc (in case i missed out something).
Like all first world countries, Singapore's population is decreasing. It now has in place policies to encourage having more babies. So homosexuality tends to put a dent in the government program. Ok, lesbians may get artificially inseminated but most don't. In West Germany, there is a growing trend even for heterosexual married couples to elect not to have children as they feel that its not right to put the babies to grow up through nannies. Both the couple are working and just do not have the time nor inclination for it. Homosexuality only makes the situation worse.
Prophet Mohammad needed lots and lots of soldiers to conquer the whole world. So he went one better by allowing up to 4 wives. Now muslims are proud of the fact that they have one of the fastest growing population. Hence their religion is the "fastest growing religion in the world". Thus they will fulfill Allah's greatest mandate ie to eradicate all other religions in the world until only islam is left.

I find the idea that we're supposed to engage in some sort of breeding race extremely disturbing.

 

[EverChanging]

I find the idea that we're supposed to engage in some sort of breeding race extremely disturbing.

Tell me about it...

 

[Faithfreedom]

One less baby is also one less person to drain natural resources and money,

True

there is population growth due to immigration.

True, but muslim immigrants do not integrate. Are these the ones you want?

Overpopulation has become a threat to the environment and the existence of this planet. It may be possible to support the number of people we have with better conservation of our resources, but seeing as how that is not the case, we need to stop breeding like rabbits. Otherwise, we're killing others and ourselves by contributing to the problem.

True

I will probably never procreate because of this reason.

When you fall in love, you will.

None of this makes homosexuality itself wrong.

I did not say that it was wrong. The OP asked for arguments against. I'm just giving possible grounds for arguments as to why it may be considered undesirable/bad (not wrong, mind you). If i were the president of Singapore, I sure would want the citizens to make more babies instead of having to resort to immigrants. Soldiers who grew up in their own country tend to be more loyal and fight better. Homosexuals produces much less babies than heteros. Ergo, homosexuality is bad (for business, that is - less products/units).

By your logic, homosexuality would actually be ethical in an overpopulated country.

Bingo!

In an underpopulated country, by your argument, the choice by heterosexuals not to procreate is just as bad, especially if they're wasting all that sperm in condoms....

Bingo!

Your comments about Islam are heinous.

Yes, but they are true and the truth is ugly (i don't waste time and energy on PC)

Do you think overpopulating our world even more to destroy all other religions and cultures is a valid argument against homosexuality?

Personally, i hold that it is not a valid argument against homosexuality.
In reality, that is what is actually happening; muslims have the highest growth rate. And that's the tactic they are using. So that is one of the hidden reasons why they are against homosexuality.

I assume you're just BS'ing here.

I am deadly serious.

 

[Faithfreedom]

I find the idea that we're supposed to engage in some sort of breeding race extremely disturbing.

We are suppose to engage in the opposite. And that is in fact what is happening in the rest of the world except muslim majority countries (and third world/poor countries)

 

[EverChanging]

True, but muslim immigrants do not integrate. Are these the ones you want?

This is a stereotype. Many Muslims do integrate and live peacefully in our society. I've known some. Not to mention that this has nothing to do with the OP or homosexuality; it has more to do with your prejudice.

When you fall in love, you will.

Besides the fact that you aren't omniscient, and I don't believe in fortune tellers, I'm gay and may very well decide not to procreate. Many heterosexual couples make the same decision. Again, I know some.

As for underpopulated countries, even by your logic, homosexuality itself should not be condemned as bad. Homosexuals are perfectly capable of procreating while also remaining in a homosexual relationship or having gay sex. There is nothing bad about homosexuality in and of itself; homosexuals only make up about 5-10% of the population anyway. If a country is underpopulated, heterosexuals, being the most numerous and most obvious candidates for procreating, hold the greatest responsibility.

In reality, that is what is actually happening; muslims have the highest growth rate. And that's the tactic they are using. So that is one of the hidden reasons why they are against homosexuality.

If you have a problem with radical Islam, perhaps you shouldn't make an argument against homosexuality on the grounds that it hurts their cause. Again, it seems that you're bringing up this unrelated subject by stereotyping Muslims, as when you make the blanket assertion that no Muslims integrate into our society, which is obviously false.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, everyone needs money (except naked Sadhus of India, etc) even the government. One less baby is one less future taxable citizen and one less potential draftee to press into armed services to defend the country.

Sorry, but that is just silly. If one has to resort to freaking need to raise taxes and freaking need to draft soldiers in order to raise arguments towards non-spontaneous breeding, it seems to me that they're conceding the argument. You might as well claim that we need people in order to diminish the odds of dying due to stray bullet shots.

Never mind that overpopulation is perhaps the decisive cause of all three problems you are suggesting to "solve" by forcing children on people who don't even want to have them - expensive governments that rarely make good use of their money, demographic pressures and other social problems that make armed forces a damn need to begin with, and street violence.

For that matter, the notion that people should offer reasons not to have children instead of only having them when they do indeed willing and able to have them is puzzling at best. Particularly when the world faces exactly the situation that recommends a serious effort to avoid overpopulation, including such overwhelming spread of social and psychological problems that we don't even think much of becoming essentially legalized junkies that value marriage certificates over actual happy, functional families anymore.

 

[Faithfreedom]

This is a stereotype.

Yes, it certainly looks that way. But when you have learnt more about islam, one day you will know what i mean.

Many Muslims do integrate and live peacefully in our society. I've known some.

I am surrounded by them. Many are my friends and colleagues. I know their make-up, their mentality, their spirit.

Not to mention that this has nothing to do with the OP or homosexuality;

Sorry my bad. I thought you wanted to know what are all the pertinent issues involved. Its not so simple as "Its a sin against god."

it has more to do with your prejudice.

Really? Well, carry-on closing your eyes and one day you'll be in for a rude awakening.

Besides the fact that you aren't omniscient, and I don't believe in fortune tellers, I'm gay and may very well decide not to procreate. Many heterosexual couples make the same decision. Again, I know some.

Oops sorry, i didn't know that when i made my prediction.

As for underpopulated countries, even by your logic, homosexuality itself should not be condemned as bad. Homosexuals are perfectly capable of procreating while also remaining in a homosexual relationship or having gay sex.

Chances are, they will be failing to fulfill their quota of babies.

There is nothing bad about homosexuality in and of itself;

True

homosexuals only make up about 5-10% of the population anyway. If a country is underpopulated, heterosexuals, being the most numerous and most obvious candidates for procreating, hold the greatest responsibility.

True, but every bit of help is appreciated

If you have a problem with radical Islam, perhaps you shouldn't make an argument against homosexuality on the grounds that it hurts their cause.

I do have a problem with islam (i don't want to drag this thread by going into radical or not) but that doesn't mean that i cannot think rationally. The OP wanted non religious reasons grounds objecting to homosexuality. I'm giving islam's non-religious hidden political agenda; other than its stated religious one. This is something muslims will never tell you. I just thought that it was a valid reason, looking at it from their stand-point.

Again, it seems that you're bringing up this unrelated subject by stereotyping Muslims, as when you make the blanket assertion that no Muslims integrate into our society, which is obviously false.

You obviously have no idea what a real muslim is. But never mind. Let skip this chapter and move on.

 

[Faithfreedom]

Sorry, but that is just silly. If one has to resort to freaking need to raise taxes and freaking need to draft soldiers in order to raise arguments towards non-spontaneous breeding, it seems to me that they'r conceding the argument. You might as well claim that we need people in order to diminish the odds of dying due to stray bullet shots.

My government gives tax breaks for having more children; for having wife/s, etc

With all this encouragement even the "non-spontaneous" breeder becomes enthusiastic.

Singapore used to have a policy of 2 kids per family.
(That was before they found that their population was going down).
Towards that end, that government made it more costly to have more than 2. More taxes for the third and more child, less educational opportunities, less priority in government housing, etc. In such an environment, even spontaneous breeding is very much dampened.

 

[Faithfreedom]

Never mind that overpopulation is perhaps the decisive cause of all three problems you are suggesting to "solve" by forcing children on people who don't even want to have them - expensive governments that rarely make good use of their money, demographic pressures and other social problems that make armed forces a damn need to begin with, and street violence.

For that matter, the notion that people should offer reasons not to have children instead of only having them when they do indeed willing and able to have them is puzzling at best. Particularly when the world faces exactly the situation that recommends a serious effort to avoid overpopulation, including such overwhelming spread of social and psychological problems that we don't even think much of becoming essentially legalized junkies that value marriage certificates over actual happy, functional families anymore.

Sorry mate, i was just giving non-religious grounds for possible opposition towards homosexuality. I do not want to go into spin-offs from those grounds.

 

[LuisDantas]

Its a bad thing for countries like Singapore, West Germany, Islam, etc (in case i missed out something).
Like all first world countries, Singapore's population is decreasing. It now has in place policies to encourage having more babies. So homosexuality tends to put a dent in the government program.

And why exactly should people avoid putting dents in government programs? Governments aren't always all-knowing, all-wise, all-benevolent, to say the least.

Ok, lesbians may get artificially inseminated but most don't.

As fact has it, a sizeable percentage of homosexuals (both men and women) do indeed have offspring. I fail to see why they (or for that matter, heterosexuals) should purposely seek to, but the fact is that they do.

In West Germany, there is a growing trend even for heterosexual married couples to elect not to have children as they feel that its not right to put the babies to grow up through nannies.

And how do you feel about that?

Both the couple are working and just do not have the time nor inclination for it. Homosexuality only makes the situation worse.

How so? Why is the situation bad in your opinion?

Prophet Mohammad needed lots and lots of soldiers to conquer the whole world. So he went one better by allowing up to 4 wives. Now muslims are proud of the fact that they have one of the fastest growing population. Hence their religion is the "fastest growing religion in the world". Thus they will fulfill Allah's greatest mandate ie to eradicate all other religions in the world until only islam is left.

Leaving aside the stereotyping and prejudice for a moment, are you seriously saying that you despise the "Muslim Strategy", and therefore propose that the best course of action is to emulate it? Didn't you just complain that they "don't integrate"?

Surely one can find better solutions than to engage in a silly, destructive demographic race that 1) can't be won and 2) is immoral AND self-destructive to begin with anyway.

 

[LuisDantas]

Chances are, they will be failing to fulfill their quota of babies.

Which quota? Where would this duty come from?

 

[LuisDantas]

My government gives tax breaks for having more children; for having wife/s, etc

With all this encouragement even the "non-spontaneous" breeder becomes enthusiastic.

Does the population support such destructive policy?

Singapore used to have a policy of 2 kids per family.
(That was before they found that their population was going down).
Towards that end, that government made it more costly to have more than 2. More taxes for the third and more child, less educational opportunities, less priority in government housing, etc. In such an environment, even spontaneous breeding is very much dampened.

So? Is it really a bad thing if population goes down? How so, and why?