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

[Midnight Pete]

And these diseases can come from heterosexual sex as well....Nothing exclusive to gay sex.

Does that give them some added appeal, then? Rectal prolapse and genital warts? You can also get AIDS that way, but as you say it doesn't matter about sexuality or gender.

 

[BIG D]

Babies are "meant to" have a biological mother and father, and they do--all of them. It does not follow that they have to be raised by their biological parents--millions are not. And I am living proof that lesbians can produce babies.

If your point is that gay sex is not reproductive, you're right, but that doesn't make it wrong. Quite the contrary, that's a good thing, because it means fewer unplanned for, unloved, not taken care of children in the world.

if gays were not made/meant to be reproductive, it means--if you believe in god or not[[either way]]---they were not meant to raise children...why would evolution OR god make it that way????seems ridiculous...does it not seem logical that the MAKERS of children were meant to RAISE them, also???..I'm not saying all hetero parents are the best at it..

 

[jarofthoughts]

if gays were not made/meant to be reproductive, it means--if you believe in god or not[[either way]]---they were not meant to raise children...why would evolution OR god make it that way????seems ridiculous...does it not seem logical that the MAKERS of children were meant to RAISE them, also???..I'm not saying all hetero parents are the best at it..

Then how do you explain the 1500 (so far...) species of animals in which homosexual behaviour has been observed?

Also, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from being reproductive.

 

[Magic Man]

Sodomy does not appeal to heterosexuals. (The most obvious yet most overlooked.)

It seems you don't know much about other heterosexuals, then. But even if that was always true, why would that be an argument against homosexuality? Wouldn't that just be an argument against heterosexuals engaging in sodomy?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

if gays were not made/meant to be reproductive, it means--if you believe in god or not[[either way]]---they were not meant to raise children..

This sounds like a illogical (nature vs. nurture) argument. Humans have cats, dogs, birds and all sorts of animals as pets. We're not meant to produce them but we, most of the responsible ones, have no problem "raising" them and caring for them. So what's your point?

why would evolution OR god make it that way????seems ridiculous...does it not seem logical that the MAKERS of children were meant to RAISE them, also???..I'm not saying all hetero parents are the best at it..

You answered your own question. If heterosexual parents are meant to produce children then can't or won't care for them then what's wrong with a homosexual couple caring for them?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Right. God is the author of moral law in my view. If one does not believe in God or absolute law, as established by God, then any moral argument based on such a belief is nonsense to that non-believer.

So are you suggesting homosexuals lack morals?

But, to those who believe in God and his moral law, there is no more reliable, authoratative, or correct place to turn for moral direction.

I completely disagree and find this line of reasoning illogical. One does not need to believe in a god for morals.

 

[Autodidact]

if gays were not made/meant to be reproductive, it means--if you believe in god or not[[either way]]---they were not meant to raise children...why would evolution OR god make it that way????seems ridiculous...does it not seem logical that the MAKERS of children were meant to RAISE them, also???..I'm not saying all hetero parents are the best at it..

First, gay people and lesbians are made to reproduce if they so desire, just not by having gay sex. Second, whether or not gay men and lesbians reproduce, they are certainly meant to raise children if they choose to do so, including their own progeny, as well as children they adopt.

In all cases, their children are wanted, planned for and cared for, and that's a good thing. In this respect, gay people are morally superior to heterosexual people as a group.

As to why homosexuality has evolved, that's an interesting scientific question which I would be happy to discuss at length, but not related in any way to morality.

I don't know what you're driving at by "meant." "Meant" by whom? Nature "means" many things that we blithely disregard. For example, nature means near-sighted people to have trouble seeing things that close to them (or is it far away?) and we happily correct that with glasses.

You seem to be confusing our animal condition with morality--I can't imagine why. Do you think it's immoral to wear clothes or use computers?

 

[naikaidiver]

Right. God is the author of moral law in my view. If one does not believe in God or absolute law, as established by God, then any moral argument based on such a belief is nonsense to that non-believer. But, to those who believe in God and his moral law, there is no more reliable, authoratative, or correct place to turn for moral direction. Hence, the chasm between our points of view.

If you truly believe what you just said, then Slavery, the killing of sinners (Leviticus) and the oppression of women as well. When you take the position of God's law above all others... there is no half way or compromise.

 

[linwood]

If you truly believe what you just said, then Slavery, the killing of sinners (Leviticus) and the oppression of women as well. When you take the position of God's law above all others... there is no half way or compromise.

There is a lot of cherry picking still available to the theist though.

 

[Midnight Pete]

There is a lot of cherry picking still available to the theist though.

What's better than cherry picking is the New Covenant.

 

[croak]

In all cases, their children are wanted, planned for and cared for, and that's a good thing. In this respect, gay people are morally superior to heterosexual people as a group.

While that may be the case for the most part, I don't think you can say it always is.

Otherwise I agree with everything else you stated.

 

[linwood]

What's better than cherry picking is the New Covenant.

I`m pretty sure the New Covenant is a license for cherry picking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right. God is the author of moral law in my view. If one does not believe in God or absolute law, as established by God, then any moral argument based on such a belief is nonsense to that non-believer. But, to those who believe in God and his moral law, there is no more reliable, authoratative, or correct place to turn for moral direction. Hence, the chasm between our points of view.

I don't know about this.

If God is wise and his laws are good, then shouldn't we expect that they can be acknowledged as having merit even without accepting that they came from God?

The chasm would only be present on issues where God's law can't be justified by anything but God's authority, but if God's laws have practical purpose, I would think that this would be rare. No?

 

[BIG D]

This sounds like a illogical (nature vs. nurture) argument. Humans have cats, dogs, birds and all sorts of animals as pets. We're not meant to produce them but we, most of the responsible ones, have no problem "raising" them and caring for them. So what's your point?


You answered your own question. If heterosexual parents are meant to produce children then can't or won't care for them then what's wrong with a homosexual couple caring for them?

your analogy of birds/animals to human babies makes no sense at all, does it???your saying animals are JUST LIKE humans...bad analogy, no?...gays CANNOT naturally have babies...so,my point is, they were not made/''evolutionized''/ created/etc to have babies, therefore they were not made/created/etc to raise them NATURALLY, or NATURALLY raise them...

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder what Obama's arguments against it are.....
Obama Lawyers Back Military Gay Ban at Supreme Court - Bloomberg

 

[averageJOE]

your analogy of birds/animals to human babies makes no sense at all, does it???your saying animals are JUST LIKE humans...bad analogy, no?...gays CANNOT naturally have babies...so,my point is, they were not made/''evolutionized''/ created/etc to have babies, therefore they were not made/created/etc to raise them NATURALLY, or NATURALLY raise them...

Explain how gay men and women cannot have babies naturally. My mother-in-law is lesbian and she had her children naturally, meaning she got pregnant and had vaginal births.

What about a heterosexual woman giving birth via cesarean? There is absolutly nothing natural about cesareans. What about heterosexual couples who adopt? According to your view, there is nothing natural about that either.

 

[Autodidact]

While that may be the case for the most part, I don't think you can say it always is.

Otherwise I agree with everything else you stated.

Yes, I think you can say that 99.9% of the time, gay and lesbian people don't have children without making an affirmative decision to do so. That's because, as D has helpfully pointed out, gay sex is not reproductive. So accidental pregnancy is almost unheard of, except in the case of rape. (coerced heterosexuality)

 

[Autodidact]

your analogy of birds/animals to human babies makes no sense at all, does it???your saying animals are JUST LIKE humans...bad analogy, no?...gays CANNOT naturally have babies...so,my point is, they were not made/''evolutionized''/ created/etc to have babies, therefore they were not made/created/etc to raise them NATURALLY, or NATURALLY raise them...

You're a bit slow to learn. Yes, gay people can have babies perfectly naturally--just not by having gay sex. In gay people, sex and reproduction are no longer linked.

In any case, what on earth does having babies "naturally" have to do with morality?

 

[croak]

Yes, I think you can say that 99.9% of the time, gay and lesbian people don't have children without making an affirmative decision to do so. That's because, as D has helpfully pointed out, gay sex is not reproductive. So accidental pregnancy is almost unheard of, except in the case of rape. (coerced heterosexuality)

Well, they might choose to have children. It does not follow that they will be cared for. For all you know, they might treat the child like they did the puppy that grew up. I am saying that there are possibilities. Gay and lesbian people are not immune to abusive tendencies. I should have made clear what I was referring to; I apologize.

 

[EverChanging]

Does that give them some added appeal, then? Rectal prolapse and genital warts? You can also get AIDS that way, but as you say it doesn't matter about sexuality or gender.

You're changing the subject. These diseases come through heterosexual and homosexual sex. Therefore, it is not an argument against homosexuality and has nothing to do with the OP, probably because you can't come up with an argument. You may as well argue that all heterosexual sex is bad because there is risk of STDs.