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

[Faithfreedom]

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.

Sorry don't want to go into that - off topic.

As fact has it, a sizeable percentage of homosexuals (both men and women) do indeed have offspring.

Really? I didn't know that. In my part of the world, they don't.

I fail to see why they (or for that matter, heterosexuals) should purposely seek to, but the fact is that they do.

Because they are very responsible people.

And how do you feel about that?

Great! Planet Earth can only sustain a finite amount of people.

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

First I still am of the opinion that gays have very much less babies.
Ergo, it makes the situation worse. Eg. if West Germany has a population of say 100 million and 50% elect not to have babies. Then we will have the other 50%. If say 10% of the 100 million is gay. I do not think the 10% would have significant babies. So there will only be 100million minus 10 million gays = 90 million of which 50% elect not to have babies, giving us 90/2 = 45million potential baby producing parents. (relax mate, its all just my opinion)

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"?

What? Copy a stupid strategy? No way, man! I don't despise the "Muslim Strategy" but i am uncomfortable about it. On the other hand, as a tactician, i am forced to admire it. I admire anything that works - but it doesn't mean that i like it.
Counter measures against the "Muslim strategy" will be off-topic here, so i won't go into it.

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.

again my friend, i won't reply to this as it is off-topic. Suffice to say that i agree with you on these points.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Could hardly be any worse than it is now, we're incredibly overpopulated. If anything, it would probably be a good thing if all of Humanity turned gay for a few generations.

That could of been an alternative to China's one child policy. "This is a message from the Chairman to all my people of China, from this day forward you must all turn gay." :rainbow1:

 

[Faithfreedom]

Which quota? Where would this duty come from?

Governments plan/predict the population growth of their countries and if it shows signs of going off-course, they take certain measures to get it back on track. Immigrants will be last resort.

 

[Faithfreedom]

Does the population support such destructive policy?

I live in a muslim majority country. Does that answer your question?

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

I'm all for the population going down mate, but some people even uses that as a weapon. Please don't let me freak-out into the "Muslim Strategy" because it will be off-topic and i think RF members here have been tremendously patient with me. Thank-you.

 

[LuisDantas]

Governments plan/predict the population growth of their countries and if it shows signs of going off-course, they take certain measures to get it back on track. Immigrants will be last resort.

I'm not sure where you got that information from, but surely you can appreaciate how little support such policies deserve.

Here in my country, at least, demographic growth is one of the factors that raise politicians' pay, so they tend to encourage attracting more people to live in their areas, usually causing social problems while at it. The country's capital, Brasilia, is where I spent half my life, and it is now barely tolerable due to those policies.

With the exception of China, I don't think I have ever heard of any government authority with any significant interest in demographical responsibility. Well, there are some people in Chile and Argentina that seem to think that they need to multiply in order to prosper or something similar, but really, that is mostly nonsense.

BTW, what is wrong with immigrants anyway? Why should they be a last resort at all? It seems to me that they should be a first resort instead, in the interests of better social integration abroad.

 

[LuisDantas]

I live in a muslim majority country. Does that answer your question?

No, it doesn't.

 

[Kerr]

That could of been an alternative to China's one child policy. "This is a message from the Chairman to all my people of China, from this day forward you must all turn gay." :rainbow1:

I would just love to see how people would react to that !

 

[Faithfreedom]

surely you can appreaciate how little support such policies deserve.

Whether those policies to steer population growth one way or another, receives much or little support is secondary. Governments just wants their policies to work. And from the look of things around me, i would say that it does work.

With the exception of China, I don't think I have ever heard of any government authority with any significant interest in demographical responsibility.

Countries which wants the population to increase make it more conducive to have more children. Countries which wants less, just make the conditions more disadvantageous (like those that i've mentioned in my previous posts). In that way they are showing interest in their population growth. How much interested they are, i think would depend on how desperate the population condition is, in their countries.

BTW, what is wrong with immigrants anyway?

the kind that are able to integrate - no problem
the ones whose can't = loads of trouble (eg. France; latest is the hijab issue)

Why should they be a last resort at all? It seems to me that they should be a first resort instead, in the interests of better social integration abroad.

I would think that a country would want its population to grow (or shrink) at the rate it needs. The more immigrants they allow in, the more wealth opportunities lost for the citizens' children when they grow up.

 

[LuisDantas]

I thought we were talking about arguments agains homosexuality?

I would think that a country would want its population to grow (or shrink) at the rate it needs. The more immigrants they allow in, the more wealth opportunities lost for the citizens' children when they grow up.

That is off-topic... and also a very good reason to encourage people to think twice before having children until and unless they have strong feelings on the matter and/or a good structure (both emotional, logistic and monetary) to raise them.

I really can't think of a halfway decent reason to favor "self-born" children over immigrants on "principle" alone.

 

[Faithfreedom]

No, it doesn't.

Most muslims believe that its their islamic duty to have as many children as possible.
(some muslims would disagree to this, but they are the minority).
That's why muslim majority countries have a higher birth rate.
They do not take into much consideration whether they are able to give their children a high quality life or not. They (the majority) do not believe in birth control.
They say Allah will provide. So the conditions in their country deteriorates. (This will happen to oil rich countries in the ME as well when the oil runs out.)

So what happens then? They migrate. Then they start it all over again in their host countries. Be humble when they are small in numbers. As their muslim population grows then start becoming more vocal. Demand more rights. Demand separate swimming pools, and irritating things like that. O...i better stop myself. I feel my rant coming on.

 

[Faithfreedom]

I thought the OP asked a very good question.
If i were a homosexual, i too would want to know what exactly i have to face and why.
Pre-warned is pre-armed (or something like that).
The world caters to the majority. That's a given. The minority gets side-lined. Sad but true.
In some parts of the world, the minority gets more rights. In very much others, less.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against homosexuals or any other kinds of sexual orientation.
Some of my friends are homosexuals. I was intrigue by the OP's question. Thought that i could contribute in ferreting out the objections. I am not debating. I do not have an urge to win arguments. If any here wants to win; i would let them. No problems.

 

[MW0082]

I suppose I've stirred up some hornets in the nest..

The question is what nonreligious "arguments" are there against homosexuality..

I'm not a psycho therapist either nor have I done any studies .. My only experiecne was from graduate school studying the area and from counseling people in the early seventies..

As far as sources on the internet these might be of interest:

http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=homosexuality+and+narcisim&fr=my-myy-s&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=homosexuality+and+narcisim&d=5010036540769576&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=6500aa9a,a14340b3&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=AC67_mfWhKUTRId5ZCfXBw--

http://www.enotes.com/psychoanalysis-encyclopedia/narcissism-an-introduction

http://www.enotalone.com/article/2618.html

I still think there are people unhappy about their sexuality.. and there are people who have decided that they cannot change or alter their orientation..well and good. There will probably always be people unhappy with themselves in some way or other..

What a bunch of outdated hogwash.......

The ONLY reason anyone would be unhappy by their sexual orientation, is due to the social stigma. It cause homosexuals to kill themselves, and gay men to marry and lead "normal" lives even though they are in hell. And always end up being true to themselves anyways and break a family up. Nojn of this would be needed if say people grew up and stopped hating what they don't know.

Any none religious reason is single stupidity in a minor amount of individuals who act like children......... Plain and simple.

 

[Faithfreedom]

I thought we were talking about arguments agains homosexuality?



That is off-topic... and also a very good reason to encourage people to think twice before having children until and unless they have strong feelings on the matter and/or a good structure (both emotional, logistic and monetary) to raise them.

I really can't think of a halfway decent reason to favor "self-born" children over immigrants on "principle" alone.

You know, at first i thought that a lot of your questions were off-topic and didn't want to answer them here. But then i realized that you are Staff. So i thought that you have some latitude, so i answered to the best of my ability. Then you go and pull the "off topic" thing on me. Hey man, that's my line!

 

[arthra]

What a bunch of outdated hogwash.......

The ONLY reason anyone would be unhappy by their sexual orientation, is due to the social stigma. It cause homosexuals to kill themselves, and gay men to marry and lead "normal" lives even though they are in hell. And always end up being true to themselves anyways and break a family up. Nojn of this would be needed if say people grew up and stopped hating what they don't know.

Any none religious reason is single stupidity in a minor amount of individuals who act like children......... Plain and simple.

Well my post has drawn a lot of heat and epithets on this thread I suppose .. everything from "hogwash" to bigotry and so on.. Social stigma could be a factor in created unhappiness and I agree with you as far as that goes and I support removing social stigma to the extent possible so people don't go and commit suicide..

The argument though runs something like this.. All of us pass through stages in life and we develope our orientations to things..not just sexual but others as well. Some of us can be unhappy about where we are and our identity and so on, that's a given for most of us.. We are too short..too tall and yes social stigma plays a part in that and self image as well.

Years ago I found that some people had very cold unforgiving parents that really influenced their development and choices in life.. Yes I suppose that was a "social stigma" of sorts but really this happened to a young woman who had a very cold and remote father and so she had trouble relating to men later on.. She came to our clinic and wanted help.. so over time I came to know her better.. I don't know that she really changed her orientation at all..but it helped her understand some of the reasons for it.

We are all in this ship of life together..make the best of it!

 

[LuisDantas]

You know, at first i thought that a lot of your questions were off-topic and didn't want to answer them here. But then i realized that you are Staff. So i thought that you have some latitude, so i answered to the best of my ability. Then you go and pull the "off topic" thing on me. Hey man, that's my line!

Sorry that you feel that way, but really, I don't see how that would be your line any more than it is mine.

 

[MW0082]

Well my post has drawn a lot of heat and epithets on this thread I suppose .. everything from "hogwash" to bigotry and so on.. Social stigma could be a factor in created unhappiness and I agree with you as far as that goes and I support removing social stigma to the extent possible so people don't go and commit suicide..

The argument though runs something like this.. All of us pass through stages in life and we develope our orientations to things..not just sexual but others as well. Some of us can be unhappy about where we are and our identity and so on, that's a given for most of us.. We are too short..too tall and yes social stigma plays a part in that and self image as well.

Years ago I found that some people had very cold unforgiving parents that really influenced their development and choices in life.. Yes I suppose that was a "social stigma" of sorts but really this happened to a young woman who had a very cold and remote father and so she had trouble relating to men later on.. She came to our clinic and wanted help.. so over time I came to know her better.. I don't know that she really changed her orientation at all..but it helped her understand some of the reasons for it.

We are all in this ship of life together..make the best of it!

Sexual orientation is devolped really early on, I can remember knowing when I was as young as five. however I had no idea what gay was, just knew that I was not like the other boys I saw around the neighborhood and school....

I find it implausible that anyones sexual orentiation changes as they progress throught life. They may become more accepting of their sexual desires, but I am gonna have to ask for a source for "sexual stages" that change oreintation...

 

[Storm]

I find it implausible that anyones sexual orentiation changes as they progress throught life. They may become more accepting of their sexual desires, but I am gonna have to ask for a source for "sexual stages" that change oreintation...

It reminds me of Freud's idiocy regarding female sexuality.... You know, how a "healthy" woman abandons her clit after realizing she's been "castrated."

 

[Autodidact]

One could argue that relationship-wise it is a less than satisfactory condition. Relationships are good and healthy for the average human being. By nature of the fact that homosexuals are such a small percentage of society, the chances of them finding a partner who they are attracted to and able to have a happy relationship with are smaller than that of straight men and women.

Your math is off. There are fewer potential partners, but also fewer people seeking partners, so the chances of finding one are exactly the same.

Based on that one could argue that homosexuality is a state of being that is not optimal. Psychologically speaking, prolonged separation or denial (self imposed or otherwise) of a romantic/sexual relationship can be mentally damaging.

Seems like you're arguing against celibacy, not homosexuality.

I've been a lesbian all my adult life. I'm 55. I have never not been in an intimate relationship.

Homosexuals, based on the fact that they are a significantly smaller group, with no set controls over the societies into which they are born, are more likely to be dissatisfied or lacking in the area of relationships.

I don't even know what you're trying to get at here with "no set controls." Do you have any research to indicate that homosexuals are more likely to be dissatisfied or lacking in their relationships, or did you just pull that out of your pants?

Love is, to many straight people even, a difficult thing to find. People are constantly searching for "Mr. or Mrs. Right". Presumably, this search is much more difficult for the homosexual (due to the difference in size), which means that they will more often be lacking in this area than their straight counter parts.

You presumed wrong.

(It should be noted I don't necessarily believe these things, but it is the only secular argument against homosexuality (as a personality/character trait) that I could think of).

O.K. I guess there isn't one then, as your math is wrong from the get-go.

 

[Duck]

i'd be interested to know how many homosexuals do not have sex

im not sure what you mean here...can you elaborate?

I think you proceed from the assumption that the only way that gay men have sex is via anal intercourse. While no doubt enjoyed by a large number of gay men, penetrative anal sex isn't necessary for a gay male relationship (or are you one of those folks who don't count it as sex unless there has been penetration?).

 

[Autodidact]

From a psychoanalytic perspective homosexuality is arrested development in terms of psycho sexual stages..

Says who? Not the psychoanalysts.

Along with that, narcissism seems to be associated with homosexuality..

Says who? Not the psychiatrists.