NationStates Jolt Archive

There's a wonderfully extensive thread right now debating what makes homosexuality a sin in the Christian sense I assume. As a non-Christian, it all seems irrelevant to me. So, I'd like to hear what people think makes homosexuality wrong in a purely secular sense.

because penises go in vaginas?

note: i could care less im just trying to provide a stupid statement that will look intelligent by the time the people afraid of change get here

Chess Squares;
They can also go in blenders, I'm not sure that's entirely reasonable... ^_^

From a secular perspective why would homosexuality need to be right or wrong?
Secularists will either be hetero , homo , bi//confused or celibate; all of these states will be based on their sexual orientation rather than on what is right or wrong.

And I'd just like to say that I fully support a man's right to put his penis in a blender, so long as he warns me not to use said blender afterwards.

because penises go in vaginas?
Now, now, let's use the proper medical and Latin plurals: "penes" and "vaginæ".
Secularists will either be hetero , homo , bi//confused or celibate; all of these states will be based on their sexual orientation rather than on what is right or wrong.
I don't think celibacy is sexual orientation. It's mainly for people who can't get any. Or are incapable of copulation.

i dont think its bad.if they want to hug andkiss let them! :fluffle:

And I'd just like to say that I fully support a man's right to put his penis in a blender, so long as he warns me not to use said blender afterwards.
simple

Condom ... then you dont have to wory about little blendetts

Well, if people in Iraq or China want to allow homosexuality, fine. I have no problem with that.

The main problem is that since our government is becoming increasing centralized (a problem Bush, despite being a "conservative", has done nothing to stop - which caused me to vote for the Constitution party, even though I'm a "militant" atheist) if New York or another "Cultural Center" becomes accepting of homosexuality it will soon spread through the rest of the country.

I do not want it accepted in my area. Not because it's "just wrong", "immoral", etc., but because homosexuality represents an especially potent form of decadence: public. It's fine if you are human and celebrate reality but after a point individualism takes over - a fact I dislike becuase I am very, very opposed to individualism*1. As you can tell, I view homosexuality becoming publicly acceptable (in the form of gay marriage, civil unions, etc.) as a win for individualism.

Ideally a "liberal state" would be allowed to be acceptable of queers and a "conservative state" would, if it so choose, be able enforce it's anti-sodomy laws.

*1 - by individualism I mean both what Ayn Rand esposes and other ideologies that state: "telling another man what he can nor can not do is wrong".

simple

Condom ... then you dont have to wory about little blendetts


Man... I KNEW I shoulda used that condom before I blended mine. :headbang:

Well, if people in Iraq or China want to allow homosexuality, fine. I have no problem with that.

The main problem is that since our government is becoming increasing centralized (a problem Bush, despite being a "conservative", has done nothing to stop - which caused me to vote for the Constitution party, even though I'm a "militant" atheist) if New York or another "Cultural Center" becomes accepting of homosexuality it will soon spread through the rest of the country.

I do not want it accepted in my area. Not because it's "just wrong", "immoral", etc., but because homosexuality represents an especially potent form of decadence: public. It's fine if you are human and celebrate reality but after a point individualism takes over - a fact I dislike becuase I am very, very opposed to individualism*1. As you can tell, I view homosexuality becoming publicly acceptable (in the form of gay marriage, civil unions, etc.) as a win for individualism.

Ideally a "liberal state" would be allowed to be acceptable of queers and a "conservative state" would, if it so choose, be able enforce it's anti-sodomy laws.

*1 - by individualism I mean both what Ayn Rand esposes and other ideologies that state: "telling another man what he can nor can not do is wrong".

What a unfulfilling life you must lead.

How about Why Homosexuality should be considered good?


Becuase its human Population control, and you don't have to worry about your wife saying she has a headache.

This art of penis-blending sure reminds me of the very bunk Freudian idea of Vagina Dentata. :p

Now to the real issue...

The only mildly valid argument that I could see the anti-homosexuals might use is the prevalence of AIDS and such, but that occurs among heterosexuals, too.

I personally think that sexual preference is none of the US government's business. After all, the term marriage has very clear religious undertones. By having a government endorse marriage, it is endorsing the religions that support marriage and violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

This is what I think should be the policy. The government should not issue marriage licenses, but rather it should only use the concept of a "civil union" for taxes, child custody, inheritance, etc. The government may issue these civil unions to any two people. Or, if the country prefers, the government may allow one person to have multiple civil unions, for a civil union does not necessarily mean sexual relations. (That's not-to-say that having multiple lovers is a social more, even though I follow the only-one-lover rule for myself.) If a homosexual couple can not get "married" in the religious sense, then they obviously belong to a religion that disagrees with their beliefs.

Let me know if my rational proposal needs clarifying.

Well, if people in Iraq or China want to allow homosexuality, fine. I have no problem with that.

I do not want it accepted in my area. Not because it's "just wrong", "immoral", etc., but because homosexuality represents an especially potent form of decadence: public. It's fine if you are human and celebrate reality but after a point individualism takes over - a fact I dislike becuase I am very, very opposed to individualism*1. As you can tell, I view homosexuality becoming publicly acceptable (in the form of gay marriage, civil unions, etc.) as a win for individualism.

Ideally a "liberal state" would be allowed to be acceptable of queers and a "conservative state" would, if it so choose, be able enforce it's anti-sodomy laws.

*1 - by individualism I mean both what Ayn Rand esposes and other ideologies that state: "telling another man what he can nor can not do is wrong".

So hypothetical homosexual "public decandence" is a threat to state, whereas the biggest heterosexual "public decadence" that is Mardi Gras (complete with drunkenness and both genders baring their chests for cheap plastic beads) is not? Please explain what you see as the difference between these two.

once again, I bring out the problem solver.

Homosexuality is wrong because I say it is. Why do I say it is? Because I am mean and I like to deprive those who are different from me of happiness.

SWASMGPM's (Straight, White, Anglo-Saxon, Mixed Germanic, Protestant, Male) Forever

Sadly enough I can probably say that mine is the most logical argument to be made for that point of view.

Wait, that's logical?

Wait, that's logical?

Logical? No. One of the most common arguments? Yes.

Well, if people in Iraq or China want to allow homosexuality, fine. I have no problem with that.

The main problem is that since our government is becoming increasing centralized (a problem Bush, despite being a "conservative", has done nothing to stop - which caused me to vote for the Constitution party, even though I'm a "militant" atheist) if New York or another "Cultural Center" becomes accepting of homosexuality it will soon spread through the rest of the country.

I do not want it accepted in my area. Not because it's "just wrong", "immoral", etc., but because homosexuality represents an especially potent form of decadence: public. It's fine if you are human and celebrate reality but after a point individualism takes over - a fact I dislike becuase I am very, very opposed to individualism*1. As you can tell, I view homosexuality becoming publicly acceptable (in the form of gay marriage, civil unions, etc.) as a win for individualism.

Ideally a "liberal state" would be allowed to be acceptable of queers and a "conservative state" would, if it so choose, be able enforce it's anti-sodomy laws.

*1 - by individualism I mean both what Ayn Rand esposes and other ideologies that state: "telling another man what he can nor can not do is wrong".

Interesting how someone who claims to have voted for a party that espouses the values of the Constitution could spit all over them in a post like this.

which caused me to vote for the Constitution party

Is it just me, or does the Constitution Party really protect the Bible more than the Constitution?

This is the statement on http://www.constitutionparty.com/mission_statement.php.

Constitution Party Mission Statement

The mission of the Constitution Party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.

Is it just me, or does the Constitution Party really protect the Bible more than the Constitution?

This is the statement on http://www.constitutionparty.com/mission_statement.php.

You kidding?

The fact that the Constituion party exists is frightening. They should just rename it the "FUCK America, this Bitch is Becoming a Theocracy, Dammit! Party"

I do not want it accepted in my area. Not because it's "just wrong", "immoral", etc., but because homosexuality represents an especially potent form of decadence: public.

What the hell are you talking about? What is public or decadant about homosexuality? In those terms it is exactly the same as herterosexuality. Both are capable of being displayed publically, neither one is more prone to do so. Gay people don't all of a sudden go,

"I'm going to sodomize a man in that public park now that homosexuality is accepted in New York!"

The worst you are going to see is an occasional kiss, but thats no more decadent than anything I see straight couples do everyday.


BTW: Your argument falls flat in this country considering the fact that it was built on individualism. Unless of course the western half of the US spontaneously populated itself, but that sounds like it would have been immensely decadent. :p

You kidding?

The fact that the Constituion party exists is frightening. They should just rename it the "FUCK America, this Bitch is Becoming a Theocracy, Dammit! Party"

:cool: HA! too true...

Notice how the religious folk still have not really been able to defend their case in this thread yet. I think we have won our case. :)

What the hell are you talking about? What is public or decadant about homosexuality? In those terms it is exactly the same as herterosexuality. Both are capable of being displayed publically, neither one is more prone to do so. Gay people don't all of a sudden go,

"I'm going to sodomize a man in that public park now that homosexuality is accepted in New York!"

The worst you are going to see is an occasional kiss, but thats no more decadent than anything I see straight couples do everyday.


BTW: Your argument falls flat in this country considering the fact that it was built on individualism. Unless of course the western half of the US spontaneously populated itself, but that sounds like it would have been immensely decadent. :p
You know the good old comparison to rabits ... hetrosexuals thoes horn dogs breading like vermin

You know the good old comparison to rabits ... hetrosexuals thoes horn dogs breading like vermin

Wait...I thought it was wrong because they can't breed...*head explodey*

You know the good old comparison to rabits ... hetrosexuals thoes horn dogs breading like vermin
LOL really, we should discourage hertosexuality. Its leading to massive overpopulation. Queer up the world a little and we would help alleviate world and food power shortages. :p

How about Why Homosexuality should be considered good?


Becuase its human Population control, and you don't have to worry about your wife saying she has a headache.

Your husband could have a headache just as easily.

I would like to know why Transexuals & Homosexuals are considered the same? Just Curious

Your husband could have a headache just as easily.
He won't, trust me. Even if he has one, he won't say anything.

I would like to know why Transexuals & Homosexuals are considered the same? Just Curious
They aren't considered the same, just under the same tent. Any gains made for gay rights tend to help the trans too.

Your husband could have a headache just as easily.

Best quote on the topic :D:

"Most of the people I know who are married don't really want to be married anyway. And I always hear that the part of being married where you "do it" a lot fades after you get married, so what's the big deal? It's still gonna amount to two human beings sitting on a couch watching "The Apprentice," being secretly resentful of each other. I have decided to marry a lesbian."

The Constitution Party, Tolona, espouses the very same aspects of the Bush administration that you abhor. It touts self-sufficiency and personal liberty, but the government would do everything in its power to legislate archconservative Christianity into the lives of every citizen in America. An atheist voting for the Constitution Party is like Ayn Rand voting for the Communist Party. The Libertarian Party more closely exemplifies your ideals - small government without the intrusion of religion. I assure you that Peroutka or any other Constitution Party candidate would not respect the unwritten principle of separating church from state.

Now to the question of homosexuality. My father is non-religious and opposed to gay marriage because he was raised in a traditional, conservative environment. Homosexuality feels very wrong for him, but he can't differentiate that from the personal freedom from others. Another argument he makes is that homosexuals are incapable of producing children, making it "wrong" from a biological standpoint. However, that only raises the question of whether we should deny marriage to couples in which one or both members are sterile. Also, AIDS can just as easily be proliferated by heterosexual couples as homosexual ones.

Finally, I believe the point of this thread is to present logical, secular arguments against homosexuality. It is all well and good if you are not opposed to gay marriage, but this thread is not the place to simply say "I'm cool with it." If you must, play devil's advocate as I have.

Come on, people... Don't you have any other secular arguments against homosexuality? No? Wow... I didn't think we'd win this so easily. :D

On a personal level, I am not bothered by homosexuality, and see no real "right"/"wrong" or "moral"/"immoral" about it... It's not for me, but I don't really care if it's someone else's lifestyle (notice I didn't say "choice"...since I don't believe that homosexuality is a choice)

However, on a "natural" level, homosexuality is "wrong"... Well, to put it more correctly, it is abnormal...

After all, the ultimate goal of all life is one thing: to procreate... Anything and everything else a living thing does is only secondary to this goal of passing on their genetic material... Simply put, life exists solely to make more life...

And as such, things like pair bonding, love, and ultimately, sex, are all merely means to this end... They serve no other purpose (again, on a "natural" sense)... We humans have gone beyond our natural limits and have added all kinds of artificial extras onto our underlying nature, so to us, pairing and sex and such all have a higher meaning than simple procreation, but in reality, that's all it really is meant for...

Anyways, from this perspective, homosexuality is "wrong" because it involves sex that can never result in procreation (which, again, is the sole purpose for sex)... If you engage in an act that has only one purpose, but that purpose cannot be fulfilled, then you are abnormally engaging in that act...

So while I don't find anything wrong with it (to each his or her own), it isn't a "natural" or "normal" thing...

On a personal level, I am not bothered by homosexuality, and see no real "right"/"wrong" or "moral"/"immoral" about it... It's not for me, but I don't really care if it's someone else's lifestyle (notice I didn't say "choice"...since I don't believe that homosexuality is a choice)

However, on a "natural" level, homosexuality is "wrong"... Well, to put it more correctly, it is abnormal...

After all, the ultimate goal of all life is one thing: to procreate... Anything and everything else a living thing does is only secondary to this goal of passing on their genetic material... Simply put, life exists solely to make more life...

And as such, things like pair bonding, love, and ultimately, sex, are all merely means to this end... They serve no other purpose (again, on a "natural" sense)... We humans have gone beyond our natural limits and have added all kinds of artificial extras onto our underlying nature, so to us, pairing and sex and such all have a higher meaning than simple procreation, but in reality, that's all it really is meant for...

Anyways, from this perspective, homosexuality is "wrong" because it involves sex that can never result in procreation (which, again, is the sole purpose for sex)... If you engage in an act that has only one purpose, but that purpose cannot be fulfilled, then you are abnormally engaging in that act...

So while I don't find anything wrong with it (to each his or her own), it isn't a "natural" or "normal" thing...

That runs off the belief that sex is only for procreation.

You must have one hell of a boring sex life.

You must have one hell of a boring sex life.

The thought had occurred...

NEWS FLASH!!!you all have dicks and viginas for a reason you knowundefined :fluffle:

NEWS FLASH!!!you all have dicks and viginas for a reason you knowundefined :fluffle:
HOLY FUCKING SHIT, I have a dick AND a vagina?!

**checks**

Waiiiiiit...you LIAR!

Wait...I thought it was wrong because they can't breed...*head explodey*
lol you were eather joking or misread my quote :) hetro!

I will forever reffer to them as rabbits

HOLY FUCKING SHIT, I have a dick AND a vagina?!

**checks**

Waiiiiiit...you LIAR!


checks too **
dirty filthy liar ... gets me all excited for nothing

On a personal level, I am not bothered by homosexuality, and see no real "right"/"wrong" or "moral"/"immoral" about it... It's not for me, but I don't really care if it's someone else's lifestyle (notice I didn't say "choice"...since I don't believe that homosexuality is a choice)

However, on a "natural" level, homosexuality is "wrong"... Well, to put it more correctly, it is abnormal...

After all, the ultimate goal of all life is one thing: to procreate... Anything and everything else a living thing does is only secondary to this goal of passing on their genetic material... Simply put, life exists solely to make more life...

And as such, things like pair bonding, love, and ultimately, sex, are all merely means to this end... They serve no other purpose (again, on a "natural" sense)... We humans have gone beyond our natural limits and have added all kinds of artificial extras onto our underlying nature, so to us, pairing and sex and such all have a higher meaning than simple procreation, but in reality, that's all it really is meant for...

Anyways, from this perspective, homosexuality is "wrong" because it involves sex that can never result in procreation (which, again, is the sole purpose for sex)... If you engage in an act that has only one purpose, but that purpose cannot be fulfilled, then you are abnormally engaging in that act...

So while I don't find anything wrong with it (to each his or her own), it isn't a "natural" or "normal" thing...


Your post is intellectual and fair, but deeply flawed. The ultimate point of life is the continuation of the species. This is done by passing on genetic material, however passing on genetic material does not necessarily mean having children. Ensuring that children are raised in a loving family (Which studies show can have a two same sex parents with no ill effect) also passes on genetic material.

In nature exclusively homosexual couples have been observed to take on orphaned infants and raise them, or aid others with offspring. In the same way it has been pretty well concluded that orphaned children are much better off in a same sex families than in some government run foster care system.

Instead of just adding another baby to the mix homosexuality tends to take care of the ones already here.

After all, the ultimate goal of all life is one thing: to procreate...


Then we revert to Promenea's rebuttal to that argument, stated a few posts above; If the only purpose of sex is procreation, why doesn't the State prevent unions to those individuals that are sterile?

Then we revert to Promenea's rebuttal to that argument, stated a few posts above; If the only purpose of sex is procreation, why doesn't the State prevent unions to those individuals that are sterile?

...or to my post, where I point out that marriage does not mean legal sexual relations. Unmarried couples can have sex as long as they give consent. The court has seen rape cases between married couples before.

snip



After all, the ultimate goal of all life is one thing: to procreate... Anything and everything else a living thing does is only secondary to this goal of passing on their genetic material

better quit school so you can fuck more ... wasted time


Anyways, from this perspective, homosexuality is "wrong" because it involves sex that can never result in procreation (which, again, is the sole purpose for sex)... If you engage in an act that has only one purpose, but that purpose cannot be fulfilled, then you are abnormally engaging in that act...

So while I don't find anything wrong with it (to each his or her own), it isn't a "natural" or "normal" thing...

tired old arguement so I am going to say it simpily

homosexuality exists in nature
therefore it is natural

end of discussion
go argue with the dictionary

They aren't considered the same, just under the same tent. Any gains made for gay rights tend to help the trans too.

Only because someone decided both groups belonged together. I've spoken
to members of both groups and they even have seen hatred between
members of their two groups. Some even have said that for one to have gain
rights the other will lose rights.

Originally Posted by SSGX
After all, the ultimate goal of all life is one thing: to procreate...

I guess thats why abortion is so widely accepted....huh?

Remember how I worded things up there...

The sole purpose of sex on a natural level is to procreate... From the standpoint of "mother nature", sex is not meant for recreation, emotional connections, or anything else other than making babies... Heck, forms of sexual reproduction occur in nature that don't even involve contact... "Sex" (the word used on a purely academic sense... meaning that it involves the joining of reproductive cells from two members of the species) in those instances can only be for the act of procreation...

So, again, from a natural standpoint, homosexuality isn't right... It's going against the purpose of life itself (well, it's not really doing much to stop or hinder procreation as a whole, since it'll occur with heterosexual members of the species regardless, but it does reduce the available "resources", so to speak)...

But, from a human standpoint, there's nothing really wrong with it... Again, like I mentioned above, we humans have tacked on all of this artificial garbage to sex... Love, marriage, etc... None of it is natural... It's all a construct of our "superior" intellects... At the core, we're nothing but animals, and we should be following the "laws" of nature... However, we do not... We've pushed ourselves above those laws...

And sex as a recreation is unnatural... I didn't say I found anything wrong with that (so don't worry about my sex life ;) ), but in the grand scheme of life, we've made all of that up on our own... It doesn't really belong...

So while homosexuality is "wrong" in terms of mother nature, homosexuality is just fine in human terms... It's not causing any harm if a man loves another man or a woman loves another woman...

And for the argument that raising children is the equivalent of making them, I disagree... If raising children were an equally important aspect of it, then all animals would do it that way... But many of them do not... Plenty of the creatures in this world simply make the babies, and leave them to fend for themselves... Even the ones that do raise children only do so for a limited time, until those children are capable of surviving on their own...

So yes, on a species by species basis, it might be an important aspect of ensuring that a next generation will go on... But on the overall scale, it takes a major backseat to actually creating that next generation...

And to UpwardThrust specifically, you've missed my point entirely if you think I'm trying to say that I personally only view sex this way...

And as for the "it occurs in nature, therefore it is natural" bit, that's not quite right... Yes, if you want to argue semantics, if something occurs in "nature", then it must be "natural"...

However, genetic defects occur in nature... Are those natural? Is mental retardation natural? Are siamese twins natural? How about albinoism?

Nope, none of that can be classified as "natural"... Sure, they happen all the time, and there's nothing wrong with it, they're just mistakes in nature...

Homosexuality is the same... It's a mistake of nature... It's not something nature intended...but it happens anyways... It's an abnormality...

But again, there's nothing "wrong" with it... It doesn't really cause any appreciable harm to anyone...

Now, as this all applies to marriage and the legal issues involved (which is my guess as to what spurred this topic, given the current NationStates UN resolution), then I've got to simply point out that marriage doesn't have to have anything to do with sex (as others have mentioned) or procreating... So I don't see any reason for homosexual marriage to be banned (or sterile couples, or those with AIDS, etc)...

Marriage is nothing more than the union of two adults who wish to make a commitment to each other...

OF course, this is speaking from a secular point of view... Which is what this topic is aimed at, anyways... But from the perspective of the non-religious, marriage is nothing more than what I've just defined it as... A symbolic bond between two people who choose to share a common life together...

So to me, it doesn't matter who the couple is... As long as it's a consenting union between two people (or more... I suppose I don't really even mind polygamy, given all parties involved don't care, although my "morality" tells me that it's wrong), then it shouldn't matter who they are or what they do in bed...

Many of our society's ethical and moral codes are directly descended from religion. And many of those codes continue to exist -- apart from religion -- because they allow SOCIETY to run better. I think, to answer this from a secular perspective, you have to take it to its extreme. Imagine a country whose entire population was homosexual. That society/culture would die off in just one generation, because there'd be no reproduction. So, from the point of view of an entire culture, homosexuality ultimately means the death of the collective. Therefore homosexuality is (instinctively) viewed as threatening by society, and by many individuals within society, because it threatens the continued existence of the tribe. Heterosexuality protects the tribe and assures new generations will be born to carry on the culture.

I think this same instinct is what causes parents to nag their sons and daughters to get married and have kids. The family is the microcosm of society. If the family survives, the genepool survives, and the society survives. Homosexuality ends the genepool, ends the line of descent, and ultimately ends the society.

I reasoned this out pretty much WHILE I was typing it :headbang: , but I think therein lies the answer to your question. Personally, I have nothing against homosexuals.

Remember how I worded things up there...

The sole purpose of sex on a natural level is to procreate... From the standpoint of "mother nature", sex is not meant for recreation, emotional connections, or anything else other than making babies... Heck, forms of sexual reproduction occur in nature that don't even involve contact... "Sex" (the word used on a purely academic sense... meaning that it involves the joining of reproductive cells from two members of the species) in those instances can only be for the act of procreation...

Actually there i some debate as to whether the sole purpose of sex is to procreate because of the citoris and the prostate gland. Also because of the positioning of the prostate gland, I read an article that maybe homosexual sex between men maybe not as unnatural as we think and is a good thing... I'll try and find the article.

Homosexuality is wrong because it makes little babies who can't deal with the fact that there are people out there who are different from them cry.

People, may I have your attention: MOVE. THE HELL. ON.

There are gay people, and they're not going away. In the same way you can't wish away atheism and abortion and computers, you're not going to triumph over this. Times change, cultures evolve. Basically:

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Actually there i some debate as to whether the sole purpose of sex is to procreate because of the citoris and the prostate gland. Also because of the positioning of the prostate gland, I read an article that maybe homosexual sex between men maybe not as unnatural as we think and is a good thing... I'll try and find the article.
there is more than one article on this subject, and evidence goes far beyond our physical pleasure responses. neurobiological studies reveal that sexual contact stimulates the release of a chemical in the brain that is identical to the one release by a woman's body when she breast feeds her infant; it is a "bonding" chemcial, a drug that causes feelings of closeness and protectiveness, and encourages an emotional connection. ample evidence suggests that sexual contact is geared to do more than just cause the production of young, it is also geared to increase the survivability of EXISTING young by promoting a bond between parents...if the parents are bonded to each other they are more likely to share the care of the young, and therefore increase the likelihood that the young will survive to reproduce.

Imagine a country whose entire population was homosexual. That society/culture would die off in just one generation, because there'd be no reproduction.
False. It isn't necessary to have heterosexual sex to reproduce. If gays want children, they can have them. Gays are gay, not sterile.

Homosexuality is wrong because butt sex is nasty. Yuck! But lesbians? Well, that's just hot - as long as the two girls aren't fatties.

Oh, wait! Are we supposed to be serious here? Damn, I guess my arguement doesn't work. Sorry.

Alexander the Great was a homosexual (or so I've been told), and he kicked the hell out of a lot of people! But Genghis Khan was straight and he did the same, so there goes that one too. Double damn! Not doing too well here.

Procreation? Way too much of it. No kids for me due to the lack of parenting skills of so many other so-called adults and a lack of sufficient funds. Plus I won't share my legos.

Screw it. Go Homosexuals! More power to ya!

There's a wonderfully extensive thread right now debating what makes homosexuality a sin in the Christian sense I assume. As a non-Christian, it all seems irrelevant to me. So, I'd like to hear what people think makes homosexuality wrong in a purely secular sense.

I'm a fairly liberal Christian and so in my view, there is nothing wrong with it.

Your post is intellectual and fair, but deeply flawed. The ultimate point of life is the continuation of the species. This is done by passing on genetic material, however passing on genetic material does not necessarily mean having children. Ensuring that children are raised in a loving family (Which studies show can have a two same sex parents with no ill effect) also passes on genetic material.

In nature exclusively homosexual couples have been observed to take on orphaned infants and raise them, or aid others with offspring. In the same way it has been pretty well concluded that orphaned children are much better off in a same sex families than in some government run foster care system.

Instead of just adding another baby to the mix homosexuality tends to take care of the ones already here.

Not to mention that this same phenomenon happens in pretty much all higher order mammals. They may not "adopt" orphaned offspring (although they would if the parents were to die), but they help raise them. By being non-breeding members contributing to the society, they ensure that the offspring live to carry on the species.

You have some misconceptions here...

The sole purpose of sex on a natural level is to procreate... From the standpoint of "mother nature", sex is not meant for recreation, emotional connections, or anything else other than making babies...

Wrong. See Bottle's post. In higher order organisms, there are often other biological reasons for sexual contact. This is *especially* true in social animals, such as humans.

Heck, forms of sexual reproduction occur in nature that don't even involve contact... "Sex" (the word used on a purely academic sense... meaning that it involves the joining of reproductive cells from two members of the species) in those instances can only be for the act of procreation...

You are right, in many organisms, sex is only ever used for procreation. However, this is not true in any of the higher order mammals (or most of the lower ones) that have been studied in depth.

So, again, from a natural standpoint, homosexuality isn't right... It's going against the purpose of life itself (well, it's not really doing much to stop or hinder procreation as a whole, since it'll occur with heterosexual members of the species regardless, but it does reduce the available "resources", so to speak)...

Very, very, very wrong again. Homosexual members in a population *increase* the chances that existing offspring will survive. Take, for instance, a social group of chimps. If *every* chimp procreated, there would be too many offspring, and not enough time to get resources for the group. Having non-breeding members that are still contributing to the survival of the group is actually a huge benefit and *increases* the available resources to the existing offspring. Thus, a "gay uncle" would increase the chances of a young chimp's survival.

And sex as a recreation is unnatural... I didn't say I found anything wrong with that (so don't worry about my sex life ;) ), but in the grand scheme of life, we've made all of that up on our own... It doesn't really belong...

Wrong again. Sex for recreation is very important in animals that have developed social structures.

And for the argument that raising children is the equivalent of making them, I disagree... If raising children were an equally important aspect of it, then all animals would do it that way...

This is an incredibly naive viewpoint. It's like saying "If single-celled life is good for bacteria, then all organisms should do it that way." Different organisms have developed differently. In social organisms, the strategy used to propogate the species is very different from those that are individuals which only come together to breed.

But many of them do not... Plenty of the creatures in this world simply make the babies, and leave them to fend for themselves... Even the ones that do raise children only do so for a limited time, until those children are capable of surviving on their own...

And here you completely discount social animals. Wolfpacks do not eventually leave all the offspring on their own - those offspring become functioning members of the pack. The same can be said of most apes.

However, genetic defects occur in nature... Are those natural? Is mental retardation natural? Are siamese twins natural? How about albinoism?

These decrease the survival of the individual, while homosexuality does not. These also are very rare among the animal kingdom, while the various forms of sexuality are not.

Claiming that "alternate" sexuality is detrimental to the survival of a species is really naive, considering that bisexuality is incredibly common among mammals and birds. Homosexuality, while less common, is also very normal in the scheme of things.

Nope, none of that can be classified as "natural"... Sure, they happen all the time, and there's nothing wrong with it, they're just mistakes in nature...

Homosexuality is the same... It's a mistake of nature... It's not something nature intended...but it happens anyways... It's an abnormality...

Again, very, very naive.

Imagine a country whose entire population was homosexual. That society/culture would die off in just one generation, because there'd be no reproduction. So, from the point of view of an entire culture, homosexuality ultimately means the death of the collective.

This illustrates the reasoning of some people opposed to gay marriage. It's basically the "domino effect" theory again: The (erroneous) belief that public tolerance of a phenomenon makes it omnipresent.

However, the fact remains that people are born heterosexual or homosexual, with the ratio massively skewed towards heteros. Even if there were no social stigma associated with homosexuality, most people would still be straight.
There goes that assumption. It was good of you to mention it, since a lot of people use it at least instinctively.

What a unfulfilling life you must lead.

Explain.

Becuase its human Population control, and you don't have to worry about your wife saying she has a headache.

Please show evidence that Homosexuality becomes more and more pervasive as population increases. Besides, if you want to control human population start mandating abortions.

So hypothetical homosexual "public decandence" is a threat to state, whereas the biggest heterosexual "public decadence" that is Mardi Gras (complete with drunkenness and both genders baring their chests for cheap plastic beads) is not? Please explain what you see as the difference between these two.

Whether or not homosexual decadence is worse than heterosexual decadence is arguable as it’s based on values – however, your argument that, somehow, just because some heterosexuals are decadent (hell, even most), as seen in Mardi Gras, that excuses homosexual decadence despite the fact that all homosexuals are, by nature, decadent.

Homosexuality is wrong because I say it is. Why do I say it is? Because I am mean and I like to deprive those who are different from me of happiness.

And, of course, the bad thing about that argument is that those who don’t want homosexuality in their communities will be harmed just because their values are different than those who have pro-homosexual views.

Interesting how someone who claims to have voted for a party that espouses the values of the Constitution could spit all over them in a post like this.

They’re the party that comes closest to matching my views.

Is it just me, or does the Constitution Party really protect the Bible more than the Constitution?

The constitution is largely based on the bible and/or theories derived from the Bible. Take the theory of “innate rights”, the ones you guys are espousing left and right in this thread, how on earth could such a theory make sense unless you believed in some higher force?

BTW: Your argument falls flat in this country considering the fact that it was built on individualism. Unless of course the western half of the US spontaneously populated itself, but that sounds like it would have been immensely decadent.

This country was far from built on individualism – take a look as to what individualism means and what was practiced by our “Forefathers”. They were far from egalitarians – reading a history book for 10 minutes can tell you that.

What the hell are you talking about? What is public or decadant about homosexuality? In those terms it is exactly the same as herterosexuality. Both are capable of being displayed publically, neither one is more prone to do so. Gay people don't all of a sudden go,

Your values are obviously different from mine.

Queer up the world a little and we would help alleviate world and food power shortages.

Actually, believe it or not, it has been proven that the problem of “world hunger” isn’t the amount of food being produced but the distribution of food. Hell, if you really want to help world hunger don’t eat meat – you’ll be helping alleviate world hunger greatly by doing so. Buying a Honda wouldn’t hurt, either.

The Constitution Party, Tolona, espouses the very same aspects of the Bush administration that you abhor. It touts self-sufficiency and personal liberty, but the government would do everything in its power to legislate archconservative Christianity into the lives of every citizen in America. An atheist voting for the Constitution Party is like Ayn Rand voting for the Communist Party. The Libertarian Party more closely exemplifies your ideals - small government without the intrusion of religion. I assure you that Peroutka or any other Constitution Party candidate would not respect the unwritten principle of separating church from state.

No, you are incorrect. I am against Libertarians because I reject their entire idea that “to tell another person what he can/can not do is wrong” – both on an economic and social level. I loathe libertarians more than any other political group. Also, of course, I have read Rand and vehemently disagree with her.

Secondly, the constitution party has more differences with the Republicans than you state; for one, most Republicans (at least the current Executive branch) now fall into the category of “Neo-Conservatives” whereas the Constitution Party is “Paleo-Conservative”. I could go on and on about their differences but since you (appear to) style yourself as politically knowledgeable you should know what I mean.

passing on genetic material does not necessarily mean having children. Ensuring that children are raised in a loving family (Which studies show can have a two same sex parents with no ill effect) also passes on genetic material.

Could you please explain how on earth you can pass on genetic material without procreation (or something similar, ie, artificial insemination)?

False. It isn't necessary to have heterosexual sex to reproduce. If gays want children, they can have them. Gays are gay, not sterile.

It isn't necessary to have heterosexual sex to reproduce? Barring artificial insemination, it is. The science to allow that is relatively new, so that's something that has not even come close to entering the race mind on an instinctual level. We're talking about millions of years of evolution that lead to the instinct that homosexuality stops the genepool.

This illustrates the reasoning of some people opposed to gay marriage. It's basically the "domino effect" theory again: The (erroneous) belief that public tolerance of a phenomenon makes it omnipresent.

However, the fact remains that people are born heterosexual or homosexual, with the ratio massively skewed towards heteros. Even if there were no social stigma associated with homosexuality, most people would still be straight.
There goes that assumption. It was good of you to mention it, since a lot of people use it at least instinctively.

I was attempting to answer the secular nature of the question. Although I wouldn't necessarily agree with your conclusions, either way. The "fact" that everyone is born one way or the other is more of a theory than a fact. But that's besides the point, and irrelevant to the argument I was making.

The point I was attempting to show was that society will ALWAYS view homosexuality with some distaste, because homosexuals do not reproduce and therefore do not contribute to continued generations of that society. In that way, society views them as a bit of a parasitic organism (regardless of percentages), since the society exists ONLY because prior generations have "kept the faith" and procreated. Not saying this is right or wrong, just saying this it is -- and there is some instinctual logic behind it.

Society doesn't limit this line of logic to homosexuals, either. How many years has the term "old maid" been used derogatorily? Society views the unwed/barren woman as a threat for the same reasons.

It isn't necessary to have heterosexual sex to reproduce? Barring artificial insemination, it is. The science to allow that is relatively new, so that's something that has not even come close to entering the race mind on an instinctual level. We're talking about millions of years of evolution that lead to the instinct that homosexuality stops the genepool.

Imagine two gay men and two gay women; How on earth would they procreate? I really have *no* idea at all. No sirree, not one... :rolleyes:

And, of course, the bad thing about that argument is that those who don’t want homosexuality in their communities will be harmed just because their values are different than those who have pro-homosexual views.

Get real. There are actually people out there who are *harmed* when their values are different from others'?
Perhaps some specially-evolved invertebrate-breed of homo sapiens?

People, may I have your attention: MOVE. THE HELL. ON.

There are gay people, and they're not going away. In the same way you can't wish away atheism and abortion and computers, you're not going to triumph over this. Times change, cultures evolve. Basically:

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

You're missing the point; which is to find any viable secular argument against homosexuality. Not necessarily to *endorse* said argument, but to find if one exists. So far, we've found only:

--A strange, Randian argument on how it affects society that makes very little sense.
--The fact that it is a biological abnormality; this does not necessarily mean it is not naturally occurring, as many studies have shown. The fact that it is a biological abnormality is not necessarily even an argument against; it shows a natural mechanism of population control, and is not detrimental to the natural human social structure.

Neither of these is a very viable argument against homosexuality; thus far, we've failed to prove that our hatred for homosexuality is anything but an ingrained Christian response mechanism.

Get real. There are actually people out there who are *harmed* when their values are different from others'?
If no one is harmed when another's values are different (which I believe to be true), why are conservative Christians so up-in-arms against it? No, seriously... why is that?

Perhaps some specially-evolved invertebrate-breed of homo sapiens?WTF are you talking about?

I don't think one's skeletal structure quite qualifies as a 'value'...

Actually there i some debate as to whether the sole purpose of sex is to procreate because of the citoris and the prostate gland. Also because of the positioning of the prostate gland, I read an article that maybe homosexual sex between men maybe not as unnatural as we think and is a good thing... I'll try and find the article.I would argue that just because one receives pleasure from sex, doesn't mean that it is necessarily designed for that. Then again, it doesn't mean that it wasn't....

I use mousepads to open stuck jars, but I wouldn't claim that they were made for that purpose.

There's a wonderfully extensive thread right now debating what makes homosexuality a sin in the Christian sense I assume. As a non-Christian, it all seems irrelevant to me. So, I'd like to hear what people think makes homosexuality wrong in a purely secular sense.

It is an evolutionary dead end (GET THE HINT). Do yous guys in SF and G.Vil have a better plan? Art Bell may take you there.

It is an evolutionary dead end (GET THE HINT). Do yous guys in SF and G.Vil have a better plan? Art Bell may take you there.

well, having a certain percentage of your population not breeding can be productive. As humans are social, it results in more care for the offspring and thus a better chance for that offspring to survive.

It isn't necessary to have heterosexual sex to reproduce? Barring artificial insemination, it is.
But that's irrelevent, the fact remains that if homosexuals want to have children, they can have artificial ensemination, therefore the "country of all gays" wouldn't die off in one generation, as you stated.

It is an evolutionary dead end (GET THE HINT). Again, false. Read the above post.

Society doesn't limit this line of logic to homosexuals, either. How many years has the term "old maid" been used derogatorily? Society views the unwed/barren woman as a threat for the same reasons.
Interesting point. Straight guys who choose not to have kids are let off the hook, but gays and women are attacked for not spreading their seed and (over)populating the world. :p

It is an evolutionary dead end (GET THE HINT). Do yous guys in SF and G.Vil have a better plan? Art Bell may take you there.

If homosexuality is supposedly an evolutionary dead end, why are you and so many others so desperately disturbed by it? Let nature take its course and they will die out.

It seems to me that there's some deepseated fear that homosexuality is a tranmitted disease. Like a vast majority of Christians are picturing Dawn of the Dead with gays instead of zombies and one bite dooms you to a homosexual existence.

It seems to me that there's some deepseated fear that homosexuality is a tranmitted disease. Like a vast majority of Christians are picturing Dawn of the Dead with gays instead of zombies and one bite dooms you to a homosexual existence.
I think Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson would make a lovely couple. :fluffle:

Whether or not homosexual decadence is worse than heterosexual decadence is arguable as it’s based on values – however, your argument that, somehow, just because some heterosexuals are decadent (hell, even most), as seen in Mardi Gras, that excuses homosexual decadence despite the fact that all homosexuals are, by nature, decadent.

Homosexuals are no more decadent, by nature, than heterosexuals. There are many quiet, stay-at-home homosexual couples who simply want to live in their home and be left alone.

And, of course, the bad thing about that argument is that those who don’t want homosexuality in their communities will be harmed just because their values are different than those who have pro-homosexual views.

You have no right to not be offended. Your views are your own, but your right to enforce them ends when you try to enforce them on another human being. Meanwhile, the right to equal protection under the law is written into our constitution.

The constitution is largely based on the bible and/or theories derived from the Bible. Take the theory of “innate rights”, the ones you guys are espousing left and right in this thread, how on earth could such a theory make sense unless you believed in some higher force?

Somebody hasn't read their history very well.

No, you are incorrect. I am against Libertarians because I reject their entire idea that “to tell another person what he can/can not do is wrong” – both on an economic and social level. I loathe libertarians more than any other political group. Also, of course, I have read Rand and vehemently disagree with her.

So you are against Libertarians because you want to force your beliefs on other people - thus taking away their rights.

Could you please explain how on earth you can pass on genetic material without procreation (or something similar, ie, artificial insemination)?

Human beings are social animals. Thus, the genetic material of the group being passed on is a more important goal than that of every individual being passed on. This is seen in pretty much every social mammal.

The point I was attempting to show was that society will ALWAYS view homosexuality with some distaste, because homosexuals do not reproduce and therefore do not contribute to continued generations of that society. In that way, society views them as a bit of a parasitic organism (regardless of percentages), since the society exists ONLY because prior generations have "kept the faith" and procreated. Not saying this is right or wrong, just saying this it is -- and there is some instinctual logic behind it.

This is only true of idiots with no knowledge whatsoever of behavioral biology.

Interesting point. Straight guys who choose not to have kids are let off the hook, but gays and women are attacked for not spreading their seed and (over)populating the world. :p

Thanks for at least seeing the point. I'm outta this thread now -- too much emotion flying around. Besides, it's not an issue I have any vested interest in one way or the other. Funny how most people can't discuss things like this rationally, though. Abortion is another topic you can't discuss with most "true believers" (on either side of the aisle).

And others simply can't reason well-enough to debate with.

One person responded that it isn't necessary to have heterosexual sex to reproduce; I responded that barring artificial insemination, it is -- and the VERY NEXT PERSON responded that hey! they didn't need artificial insemination, they could have heterosexual sex! WTF? Logic needs to be a required course to graduate high school. Good luck.

:headbang:

So hypothetical homosexual "public decandence" is a threat to state, whereas the biggest heterosexual "public decadence" that is Mardi Gras (complete with drunkenness and both genders baring their chests for cheap plastic beads) is not? Please explain what you see as the difference between these two.
Neither is right, and the only real difference between the two is that the former can be stopped before it grows to the same degree as the latter, which has established too much of a foothold. To quote the great Don Knotts, "Nip it in the bud."

If no one is harmed when another's values are different (which I believe to be true), why are conservative Christians so up-in-arms against it? No, seriously... why is that?

Because it gives them something to do? Maybe it lets them forget their own shortcomings for a while?
Maybe they're stupid?

WTF are you talking about?

I don't think one's skeletal structure quite qualifies as a 'value'...

Invertebrates lack? A spine.
People why cry about things that are different lack? ...

Could you please explain how on earth you can pass on genetic material without procreation (or something similar, ie, artificial insemination)?
rearing one of your siblings would be just as effective at getting your genetic material into the next generation as rearing your own child would be; you share 50% of your gene with a sibling, and 50% with any of your offspring. if your sole purpose is to get your genes passed on, then increasing the reproductive success of a sibling is just as good a means of doing so as increasing the reproductive success of your own offspring.