The Issue of Homosexuality

[Rainbow Mage]

Note- This is a political thread not a religious thread.

The question- Who does homosexuality hurt or in what way is it damaging to society that it should be determined as criminal or not by the government?

What grounds do politicians that oppose homosexuality have to justify using the legislative process to persecute gay people?

Remember- not a religious thread. What social problems do opponents of homosexuality feel that being gay creates?

 

[Levite]

Note- This is a political thread not a religious thread.

The question- Who does homosexuality hurt or in what way is it damaging to society that it should be determined as criminal or not by the government?

What grounds do politicians that oppose homosexuality have to justify using the legislative process to persecute gay people?

Remember- not a religious thread. What social problems do opponents of homosexuality feel that being gay creates?

In a secular society, there can be no justification for homophobia of any kind. In a pluralistic or tolerant society, there is little enough justification for personal homophobia, and none for institutionalized homophobia.

The only arguments for institutionalizing or officially tolerating homophobia arise from religious fundamentalism mixing itself into politics.

 

[bobhikes]

If homosexuality is only selected by genes and can not be influenced by actions there is no issue.

If homosexuality can be influenced by actions then it can create a great harm to the younger generations.

I am not qualified to make that decision so I error toward caution.

 

[Penumbra]

In a secular society, there can be no justification for homophobia of any kind. In a pluralistic or tolerant society, there is little enough justification for personal homophobia, and none for institutionalized homophobia.

The only arguments for institutionalizing or officially tolerating homophobia arise from religious fundamentalism mixing itself into politics.

^This.

 

[Storm]

If homosexuality is only selected by genes and can not be influenced by actions there is no issue.

If homosexuality can be influenced by actions then it can create a great harm to the younger generations.

Such as?

I am not qualified to make that decision so I error toward caution.

Caution would be not trampling civil rights, don't you think?

 

[Tarheeler]

I agree with Levite.

If we are going to insist on a secular government that is based on equality and freedom, then there is no choice but to support same-sex marriage at the same level as heterosexual marriage.

And in this type of society, while people should always be free to exercise their personal beliefs, they should also strongly advocate for equal rights for all groups.

My rabbi is actually an excellent example of this; during the recent campaign for "Amendment One", which creates a constitutional ban to gay marriage in NC, he came out very strongly against the amendment and in support of legalizing gay marriage even though he personally sees it as not quite right.

 

[fallingblood]

Note- This is a political thread not a religious thread.

The question- Who does homosexuality hurt or in what way is it damaging to society that it should be determined as criminal or not by the government?

What grounds do politicians that oppose homosexuality have to justify using the legislative process to persecute gay people?

Remember- not a religious thread. What social problems do opponents of homosexuality feel that being gay creates?

The grounds is usually a religious one. The fall back is that the Bible condemns it, so it must be the truth. There are many problems with that, but it is convincing for many.

The other grounds is that it is dangerous. As in it can cause others to seek the same depraved actions which would one day lead to the dying off of the population. Or it would spread sexual diseases, and increase promiscuity. A little research shows how ridiculous such ideas are, but it doesn't stop some from believing it.

That or at the basic, they are in the minority so anyone different can't be squashed.

Either way though, the justification isn't one based out of research and logic. It is based out of prejudice, so they can really defend it in any illogical way they want as they already hold the belief.

 

[Gharib]

In a secular society, there can be no justification for homophobia of any kind. In a pluralistic or tolerant society, there is little enough justification for personal homophobia, and none for institutionalized homophobia.

The only arguments for institutionalizing or officially tolerating homophobia arise from religious fundamentalism mixing itself into politics.

I disagree with this statement.

There are many secular states which do not recognize same sex marriage. Denial of same sex couple rights is homophobia.

 

[DreadFish]

The reason is an obvious one. I heard a politician clearly note that, if we start to let people marry people of the same sex, next we'll have to let people marry animals too! Then, inanimate objects!

If that's not a logical reason for secular banning of homosexual marriage, then I've never heard one.

 

[Levite]

There are many secular states which do not recognize same sex marriage. Denial of same sex couple rights is homophobia.

Yes, and my point is that there is no justification for it. Not that it never occurs in secular states, but that when it does occur in secular states, it is inherently and insupportably unjust.

 

[T-Dawg]

The reason is an obvious one. I heard a politician clearly note that, if we start to let people marry people of the same sex, next we'll have to let people marry animals too! Then, inanimate objects!

If that's not a logical reason for secular banning of homosexual marriage, then I've never heard one.

Not only are the three positions (marrying the same gender, marrying animals, and marrying inanimate objects) not connected in that way, the things you mentioned homosexuality as leading to aren't even wrong...

 

[Alceste]

The reason is an obvious one. I heard a politician clearly note that, if we start to let people marry people of the same sex, next we'll have to let people marry animals too! Then, inanimate objects!

If that's not a logical reason for secular banning of homosexual marriage, then I've never heard one.

Now that you mention it, this is a pretty good argument against heterosexual marriage too!

 

[T-Dawg]

Now that you mention it, this is a pretty good argument against heterosexual marriage too!

Exactly! If we allow heterosexuals to marry, then we have to allow marriage, and if we allow marriage, we will have to allow private property!

(Ok, that's not the greatest example of a sarcastic statement based off of the previous one... these three actually flow logically... :/)

 

[Gharib]

Yes, and my point is that there is no justification for it. Not that it never occurs in secular states, but that when it does occur in secular states, it is inherently and insupportably unjust.

Why does there have to be any justification?

Asking for justification misses the whole point of their rejection/disapproval to it.

I have mentioned this example before, but it's not those who reject homosexuality that are phobic, it's those who are homosexual that are phobic.

There is no cure for AIDS yet as we all know, so now is it justified to call those who don't have AIDS and who view it as a disease 'Aidophobic' or do we call those who have AIDS sick and sufferers of a disease?

Note, I am purely arguing from a non-religious standpoint.

 

[Alceste]

Why does there have to be any justification?

Asking for justification misses the whole point of their rejection/disapproval to it.

I have mentioned this example before, but it's not those who reject homosexuality that are phobic, it's those who are homosexual that are phobic.

There is no cure for AIDS yet as we all know, so now is it justified to call those who don't have AIDS and who view it as a disease 'Aidophobic' or do we call those who have AIDS sick and sufferers of a disease?

Note, I am purely arguing from a non-religious standpoint.

I'm afraid non-religious people don't start ranting about AIDS as soon as someone mentions same sex marriage, so you do in fact seem to be arguing from a religious perspective.

There's no evidence-based reason to consider homosexuality a disease.

 

[Draka]

Why does there have to be any justification?

Asking for justification misses the whole point of their rejection/disapproval to it.

I have mentioned this example before, but it's not those who reject homosexuality that are phobic, it's those who are homosexual that are phobic.

There is no cure for AIDS yet as we all know, so now is it justified to call those who don't have AIDS and who view it as a disease 'Aidophobic' or do we call those who have AIDS sick and sufferers of a disease?

Note, I am purely arguing from a non-religious standpoint.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Trying to find out why a secular country rejects/disapproves of homosexuality/same-sex marriage is exactly WHY one would ask for their justification for their stance. Also, just what are those who are homosexual in fear of? You say they are "phobic" and not the ones who have issues with homosexuality. Explain that because it doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Gharib]

I'm afraid non-religious people don't start ranting about AIDS as soon as someone mentions same sex marriage, so you do in fact seem to be arguing from a religious perspective.

There's no evidence-based reason to consider homosexuality a disease.

I'm not linking the 2, the fact that secular societies do not recognize same sex rights for homosexuals is sufficient evidence that people see it as something wrong, not necessarily a disease or a cancer or whatever.

Why the need to merge my examples into meaning the same thing?

 

[Gharib]

This makes no sense whatsoever. Trying to find out why a secular country rejects/disapproves of homosexuality/same-sex marriage is exactly WHY one would ask for their justification for their stance. Also, just what are those who are homosexual in fear of? You say they are "phobic" and not the ones who have issues with homosexuality. Explain that because it doesn't make sense at all.

Exactly why I gave the AIDS example. It is unfortunate for those who have it, however, those of us who don't go out there to get AIDS don't need to justify our choice in not doing so. We consider it wrong.

So in the same way, if there was nothing wrong with homosexuality, for whatever reason, secular states/countries would recognize same sex rights for homosexuals.

Homosexuals are phobic in the exact opposite way that heterosexuals are considered phobic.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not linking the 2, the fact that secular societies do not recognize same sex rights for homosexuals is sufficient evidence that people see it as something wrong, not necessarily a disease or a cancer or whatever.

Why the need to merge my examples into meaning the same thing?

Same sex marriage is legal in my country. Is that enough evidence to persuade you that there's nothing wrong with it?

Didn't think so.

 

[Alceste]

Exactly why I gave the AIDS example. It is unfortunate for those who have it, however, those of us who don't go out there to get AIDS don't need to justify our choice in not doing so. We consider it wrong.

So in the same way, if there was nothing wrong with homosexuality, for whatever reason, secular states/countries would recognize same sex rights for homosexuals.

Homosexuals are phobic in the exact opposite way that heterosexuals are considered phobic.

Still doesn't make any sense. The suffix -phobic means fear and loathing of whatever precedes it. Homophobic= fear and loathing of homosexuals, IOW, what you as a Religious person feel toward gay marriage. If you want to call someone phobic it doesn't make any sense unless you can explain what they fear and loathe.