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

[Autodidact]

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..

Your sources failed to support your assertion. Your assertion is false.

 

[Autodidact]

This will likely offend both homosexuals and hetrosexuals, but anal sex is unsafe as human excrement contains many harmful substances and should be avoided.

3rd world countries who do not have adequate sewage systems have high levels of disease...contaminated drinking waters kills millions every year and some people want to be intimate with anal sex???

I don't know whether I agree or not, don't know much about it, but at least this is grounded in something real. However, it's a position against anal sex, not against homosexuality. For example, many more heterosexuals practice anal sex than lesbians, among whom it is relatively rare.

 

[Autodidact]

Are you speaking for the "Staff"? I would hope not.. but if are you .. I'll not post on this thread anymore.

Because if you take away bigotry and psuedoscience you have nothing to contribute?

 

[Autodidact]

How about this:
It decreases the population growth thereby decreasing the amount of taxes a government can collect.
It also decreases the number of soldiers a country can draft into service.

Are you just sort of pointing to a possible argument, however bad, or are you advancing this argument sincerely?

 

[arthra]

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...

I can't really pose as an expert but I'm sure there may be some who have far more knowledge than I..

But I would say our sexual lives change over time.. Sex for a teen is diffrent from say sex for a thirty year old and so on.. and later in life..sex changes there of course.

But the theory of stages of sexuality was developed largely by Freud who identified these stages in psycho sexual development..

Psychosexual development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For Freud the fulfillment of sexual development was mature heterosexuality.. Homosexuality was considered a case of arrested development..
Freud: inventor of the modern mind - Google Books

So it isn't really "against" homosexuality as the topic of the thread would suggest but more like an explanation for homosexuality..all this is of course very complex and each person may have slight variations ...

Narcissism is also something noted that many people develop and it can also I think be related to a stage in personality development..

Narcissism and Self-Esteem Among Homosexual and Heterosexual Male Students - Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy


A lot of these articles require a fairly expensive membership to read .. and being retired I can't afford them but I would say most of these ideas or hypotheses come from clinical experience and are not easily say replicated in a statistical way..

 

[Autodidact]

condoms have only been around for the past few decades

Actually, they've been around for centuries, interestingly enough.

What did they do before then?

Who knows or cares, and what does it have to do with people's decisions today?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Assuming this is sincere, it's a strong argument against celibacy. It enforces a moral requirement to reproduce. Is that your position?

 

[arthra]

Your sources failed to support your assertion. Your assertion is false...

Because if you take away bigotry and psuedoscience you have nothing to contribute?

Thanks for your comments.. Yes I think I've got it.. "false assertions and psuedoscience" I'll add these to "bigotry" and "hogwash".. anymore?

 

[Storm]

arthra, the field of psychology has come a long, looooooooooooooong way since Freud. Why should I give his ideas regarding homosexuality anymore regard than those on female sexuality? Or the origin of religion?

Freud may have been a pioneer, but he was also a nutjob, to be generous.

 

[arthra]

Of course it's up to you..

I would suggest though reading some of the studies and seeing if any if it rings true.. I agree there have been changes in psychology and will continue to be new findings.. I'm not a psychologist either..

 

[Storm]

Of course it's up to you..

I would suggest though reading some of the studies and seeing if any if it rings true.. I agree there have been changes in psychology and will continue to be new findings.. I'm not a psychologist either..

In other words, you got nothin.

 

[Bismillah]

A greater risk of transmitting diseases.

From the American legislative perspective, giving homosexuals the right to marry would be still be excluding minorities. What about Polygamy and Polyandry? Why are these not as equally right as homosexuality? Accepting homosexual marriages are valid in America would require a dramatic reconstruction of the traditional views on relationships and legality of multiple relationships.

 

[MW0082]

A greater risk of transmitting diseases.

From the American legislative perspective, giving homosexuals the right to marry would be still be excluding minorities. What about Polygamy and Polyandry? Why are these not as equally right as homosexuality? Accepting homosexual marriages are valid in America would require a dramatic reconstruction of the traditional views on relationships and legality of multiple relationships.

Oh here is a reason because we hold marriage between two people not multiple people. There would need to be no reconstructing of any sorts.

How could you even have mutliple marriages? LOL really?

Furthermore how the hell do you figure more STD's?

 

[Bismillah]

Oh here is a reason because we hold marriage between two people not multiple people. There would need to be no reconstructing of any sorts.

Really? Ok tell me why homosexuals should be able to marry? I just want a list.

How could you even have mutliple marriages? LOL really?

Polygamy and Polyandry are and were practiced throughout the ages. What do you mean how? I can turn the question and say How could you even have homosexual marriages? LOL really?

Furthermore how the hell do you figure more STD's?

Firstly, you might want to revise your post and try to be a bit calmer. I'm not particularly endorsing these ideas since my own opinion is based on religion. Just participating in the discussion. Secondly, published facts from the CDC google it...

 

[LuisDantas]

A greater risk of transmitting diseases.

That may or may not be true, but it is not an argument against homosexuality. Or even against homosexual physical love. It may recommend greater health care for homosexuals, however.

From the American legislative perspective, giving homosexuals the right to marry would be still be excluding minorities.

I'm not sure how exactly Muslims few about Law, having the concept of Sharia Law as a reference. But I feel safe to say that imperfect, incomplete laws are par of course here in "the West". It is not that big a deal. Improving laws is normal and expected. To recognize same sex unions and other homosexual rights does not imply that polyamour is either valid or invalid. It neither hinders nor particularly helps that other matter.

What about Polygamy and Polyandry? Why are these not as equally right as homosexuality?

Maybe they are, I am not about to deny that. I will however say that there is no particular reason to wait until a consensus is reached before doing what we can to give homosexuals their due acceptance.

And from a practical standpoint, same sex marriages and love lifes are easier to manage and to compare with "traditional" love lifes, since after all they are still basically about couples as opposed to greater groups. It is a matter of ease of recognition, not of inate rights.

Accepting homosexual marriages are valid in America would require a dramatic reconstruction of the traditional views on relationships and legality of multiple relationships.

Not really, Abibi. One does not need to have a complete list of people needing greater rights in order to begin to correct unfair situations.

 

[MW0082]

Really? Ok tell me why homosexuals should be able to marry? I just want a list.

1) it's fair, we should have the right to secure our finances and future as well.
2) it will help with all the children int he world who need a loving home with two parents to raise and support them.
3) it will help take away the ridiculous stigma that comes with being gay.
4) it's really no ones busniess if two men or two women get married...

Polygamy and Polyandry are and were practiced throughout the ages. What do you mean how? I can turn the question and say How could you even have homosexual marriages? LOL really?

I didn't say they weren't, but in AMERICA marriage is a contract between two people not many. And it should stay that way....

Firstly, you might want to revise your post and try to be a bit calmer. I'm not particularly endorsing these ideas since my own opinion is based on religion. Just participating in the discussion. Secondly, published facts from the CDC google it...

I will not be calmer, you may want to get your information correct and not be a bigot. I looked on that site, saw nothign about higher STD's among gays. infact STD's are higher among BLACKS!!!! Maybe they shouldn't get married...

Oh wait that is a flawed premise considering people who get married have sex with each other. So wouldn't it go down, considering they have one partner now???

 

[Autodidact]

A greater risk of transmitting diseases.

Which, of course, makes lesbians better than heterosexuals, since heterosexuality has a greater risk of transmitting diseases than lesbianism.

From the American legislative perspective, giving homosexuals the right to marry would be still be excluding minorities. What about Polygamy and Polyandry? Why are these not as equally right as homosexuality? Accepting homosexual marriages are valid in America would require a dramatic reconstruction of the traditional views on relationships and legality of multiple relationships.

But you would be in favor of this, wouldn't you? Don't you want polygamy to be legal?

 

[Autodidact]

Really? Ok tell me why homosexuals should be able to marry? I just want a list.
.

The same reasons as heterosexuals.

btw, this question is OT.

 

[LuisDantas]

Really? Ok tell me why homosexuals should be able to marry? I just want a list.

1) Because homosexual love is just as real and as meaningful as heterosexual love, and deserves recognition and legal support just as much.

2) Because marriage is a legal institution that is needed to support such things as family access rights, medical decisions, and sharing of financial resources.

3) Because denying recognition of homosexual marriages is ultimately nothing more than the exercise of prejudice.

4) Because marriages are, after all, a very personal matter, and there is no good reason to deny them to couples that are willing to have them and have a certain degree of mental and emotional health. Unless, of course, they have incompatible duties already.

 

[Bismillah]

1) it's fair, we should have the right to secure our finances and future as well.
2) it will help with all the children int he world who need a loving home with two parents to raise and support them.
3) it will help take away the ridiculous stigma that comes with being gay.
4) it's really no ones busniess if two men or two women get married...

Isn't it ironic how all these constituents that push for a legalization of homosexual marriages also apply to polygamy and polyandry? Pushing one aspect of the agenda is biased then. Like I said it would require a complete reconstruction and revision of the traditional American view of marriage.

I didn't say they weren't, but in AMERICA marriage is a contract between two people not many. And it should stay that way....

"I didn't say they weren't, but in AMERICA marriage is a contract between two straight people"

I will not be calmer, you may want to get your information correct and not be a bigot. I looked on that site, saw nothign about higher STD's among gays. infact STD's are higher among BLACKS!!!! Maybe they shouldn't get married...

I don't care if you want to be perceived as childish if you can't compose your dialogue calmly. The first few websites that pop up list a higher occurrence of STDs among the male homosexual population. Also by your own logic you are also a bigot.
I would like to follow up with what makes it wrong for a old man to marry a young child?