What are non-religious reasons for being against homosexuality?
Asked by
DominicX (
28813
)
June 22nd, 2009
from iPhone
Religious reasons make [some] sense to me. They have their holy books and their hell and damnation and such…but what of non-religious reasons? Is it really just an “ick” factor?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
122 Answers
BUTTSECKS IS GROSS. ~
Yeah, I’ve never personally met anybody who was against homosexuality for any non-religious reason other than the “ick-factor.”
Are there legitimate religious reasons for being against homosexuality?
it doesn’t produce offspring, so it’s essentially “pointless”? i’m just giving a suggestion, not looking for a flame war, mmkay?
Yeah, what a person finds gross should determine what I do with my life and whom I can love. It makes so much sense.
Also, I believe I heard once that a non-religious reason to be against gay marriage specifically is that gay marriage would automatically allow pedophile and bestial marriage because they are inherently linked as there is no difference between two consenting adults and a child and animal who can’t consent.
I refuse to not decide that these people are dumb. D-U-M-B dumb.
@eponymoushipster – I had a hysterectomy when I was 19, so almost all the sex I’ve had in my life was pointless, but it has been a Hell of a lot of fun anyway!
@eponymoushipster
Something tells me that most of these people fuck like there’s no freakin’ tomorrow. Which means that they’re not having babies all of those times… :P
Well, my gay friend thinks female breasts are “ICKY” so I guess its just a matter of perspective.
Anyone who has been around gay people for any amount of time should know that not all gay men engage in anal activity, and that many heterosexual couples do engage in it, so claiming the ick factor is rather illogical. But then, enforcing your morals on someone else’s private life is rather illogical anyway.
like i said, i’m not saying yay or ney, i’m just providing a possible answer to the proposed question.
@DominicX – Why do people only seem to find gay male sex yuckie? They don’t seem to have an aversion to lesbian sex, and most also have no aversion to anal sex with hot women…
@juwhite1
Because they’re hypocritical and…well, as I said before…dumb.
:P
I’m just going to be honest: when someone says they’re against homosexuality because they’re religious, it doesn’t really bother me. I’m used to it…they have a [relatively]* valid excuse. But the “it’s gross” and the Marriage Slippery Slope piss me off so much.
*I say that in the whole separation of church and state thing; that their religious opposition to homosexuality shouldn’t affect the rights of homosexuals.
No, there is no legitimate reason, it is just bias and bigotry. Unfortunately it is unlikely to change in the near future.
Maybe it’s that fear of the unknown factor. Some people hate what they fear.
Not a great reason, in my book, but it could be a reason.
@juwhite1 “They don’t seem to have an aversion to lesbian sex, and most also have no aversion to anal sex with hot women”
Many woman have a distinct aversion to anal sex even if men don’t. My mother tells me that is was common when she was young but she never met a woman who claimed to like it, even if they agreed to it. I find nothing at all sexy or appealing about it.
Homos can’t make fires. They dance like pansies. They always smell of cologne. If you stand next to one, you get cooties. If there are five or more in a room, and you happen in there, you get stuck in a daisy chain. No way out.
The Mine Shaft doesn’t provide jizz cups. They think a stone wall is some kind of protest, instead of a good way of keeping neighbors friendly. They don’t know what a bath is for. The choir could focus on music instead of oggling each other. We don’t want our children to be smart.
Well, I could go on, but then you might think I’m biased, and I assure you that every word I say is the God’s honest truth. Oops. Does that make me religious? Damn!
There are no legitimate reasons for being against homosexuality, unles you consider ignorance to be a legitimate reason. Sheesh!
My favorite is when they’re just against the act of buttsecks, but that gays can be together. It makes me laugh so much. I just can’t wrap my mind around it.
I agree with @cak in that I also think that much of the distaste is due to fear of the unknown. However, it can sometimes also be a fear that homosexuality is enjoyable, thus forcing the person to align themselves with a frowned-upon group.
I personally believe that anal sex is not for me under any circumstances, but what other consenting adults do is their business.
@evelyns_pet_zebra
Ha. I don’t think breasts are icky, I just find them uninteresting. They don’t do anything for me sexually. It usually blows people’s minds when I say that… :)
A popular reason seems to be that a gay couple cannot procreate. If being able to produce children is the standard, then all men with E.D. should be stopped from marrying.
And no marriage certificates without proof of erection.
The best way to get over the fear of the unknown is to jump in and try it out, right?
My gay brother-in-law can appreciate a nice set of ta tas. We frequently spot them and point them out to my husband for his enjoyment!
In my opinion, there are no valid or compelling, religious or non-religious reasons, to be against homosexuality. Its just another example of prejudice and hatred. I wish people would just mind their own business, and also accept gay marriage.
1) Ignorance
2) Hate
3)
I can’t think of a third.
I remember some guy on here argued that gay people had to prove their lifestyle was legitimate before anyone should accept it.
So you’re asking the wrong question! Not “why is homosexuality bad”? It’s “why isn’t homosexuality bad!”
There are no reasons. People are just dumb and scared of things they don’t understand. What they don’t understand I’ll never know. What is wrong with two people loving each other?
The best I can think of is pure xenophobia. AKA, you’re a pussy for hating gays for non-religious reasons.
No offense to any vaginas that may be joining us tonight.
I’ve faced the whole ‘gays can’t procreate, so they shouldn’t be getting married’ and that marriage is about having kids, which gays can’t do argument. Of course, when I tell them I am married to a woman and we don’t have kids because we don’t want kids, they have a tendency to backpedal from that particular reason. Effing hypocrites.
What other people do in the privacy of their home with another consenting adult(s) is no one else’s business.
All of these reasons so far stem from religion.
The only real reason I can find is evolutionary: if everyone was homosexual, we could not procreate as a species. Given that a significant amount of individuals are not, and that as a result our population rises even beyond our control, what each person decides to do in their own bed is none of my business.
A secondary but not important reason is that, once it is no longer in the privacy of their own bed, then it can be seen as a social phenomenon and in some cases could be disturbing. But all this has to do with “norms” and breaking of social rules and conventions, and is in fact not a case against homosexuality at all. Whether someone is homosexual or not has nothing to do with whether they should display their affection in public, or, to see it from another perspective, whether society should be more tolerant towards them.
So as a practice, the only real danger homosexuality poses is that it does not lead to procreation (which I think was also the original religious objection).
I’ve met people who oppose gay marriage for the simple fact that they don’t want to pay more taxes… Or so they claim. What I always say in reply to that specific argument is that they should just outlaw all marriages, in that case. No one says anything after that, usually.
I think the only reason I know of is being raised in a homophobic environment.
I know many people that are not religious, but still afraid of homosexuals. They feel not actively disapproving may make other people associate them with homosexuals, hurting their male posture. In short: the main non religious reason is ignorance.
Timendi causa est nescire . (Ignorance is the Cause of Fear, Seneca +/- 60 AD)
A sidenote:
We should not focus too much on religion as a cause for homophobia. I feel that religion’s disapproval of homosexuality may follow from the vox populi rather than the other way around. In many homo-friendly countries the local churches are far more positive towards homosexuality than in countries where homophobia is mainstream.
l Iive in Holland and there are few occasions that a church would actively disapprove (even though many churches officially still do!) . On the other hand, there are churches in which homosexuals can marry in the face of God. Religions are not independent of the people and if the people all decide that being gay is OK, the churches will follow.
In the past the Catholic Church would not agree with the earth being round and there have been many churches in the past declaring black people to be less in the eyes of God. Change comes from the people and religion will follow.
I went to college with a guy who was totally against homosexuality. He said it was just gross to think of two mens’ genatalia (hope I spelled it right ) touching was wrong. Funny thing is though….He was a twin. I used to tell him his nuts touched another guys for 9 months, and to grow up. :)
Having read through most of the replies, I find it strange that no-one has picked up on the fact that none of this is to do with any form of religion, but the human race would die out if the gays had their way. It’s just wrong and it’s against nature, plus it’s icky!
@pezz…..OK, I’ll nibble a little. Just what is the gay “way” that will kill off the human race? Is it their “way” to force you to be gay? Do you think they would oppose man/woman marriages and procreation? No, I do not believe they will judge you or deny you any partner of your choice or prevent you making all the babies you wish yet you judge them and deny them same-sex marriage with the same rights as man/woman marriage? No, it is you that is just wrong, & frankly, I think your position is plain icky!
@pezz It might be against nature, but I see no reason to think so. The race will not die, as long as not everyone is gay. On top, gay people can still reproduce by making a sidestep into bisexuality for the occasion. (Or even if exclusively gay, one may seek technological help).
Furthermore, homosexual activity is widely observed in nature by various other animals than man.
I didn’t mean to say that there were many other animals watching, although they likely are.
@whitenoise….Welcome to fluther. It’s always a delight to find a voice of reason among, what at times appears to be insurmountable, shouts of ignorance and hatred.
@whitenoise @whatthefluther In response to your flag waving. My point is not one of “hatred” nor will any amount of “sidestepping” alter the fact that it is against nature. I’m amused that you think I’m wrong. I think that humans genitalia pretty much speaks for itself.
@pezz
I don’t think you’re wrong, I just think your reasoning is flawed. My genitalia don’t speak by the way. They don’t type either. How do yours manage?
@pezz “it is against nature”
1) How do you decide what is or is not against nature?
2) Why is nature (which brings us everything from cholera to tapeworms) the great arbiter of what should or should not be experienced by humans?
3) Ever heard of the naturalistic fallacy?
”I think that humans genitalia pretty much speaks for itself.”
You mean like when it gets all hot and bothered for similar genitalia?
Is there such a thing as gay rape? Is it as rampant as violence against women? If not then why are women bearing all the brunt of “evolution” or “revolution” or what ever it is? And if it is; what was the question again?
@pezz against nature is a meaningless term. There are at least 300 animal species that show homosexual tendencies in the wild, as animals in zoos are NOT behaving naturally. Also, the common bedbug mates not by genital to genital contact by male and female, but by the male using his sharply pointed genitalia to stab the female through the abdomen to deposit his sperm, completely avoiding the female genitalia altogether. Bedbugs are completely natural, and yet, they not only mate through this violent technique, they also ‘rape’ other male bedbugs in an attempt to replace the sperm packet of the stabbee to pass on their genetic material.
Once one understands the variety of sexual practices of natural creatures, the argument that ‘homosexuality isn’t natural’ doesn’t hold any water. To paraphrase a great man Nature is not only as strange as we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine.
I don’t see religious reasons against homosexuality. Non-religious reasons? Difficult. Homosexuality is part of human nature. It’s normal. The only reason I can think of is the following: Suppose population growth comes to a halt. There’s widespread eduction and poverty has been eliminated. Without immigration more and more country face a demographic dilemma: huge numbers of retired people and not enough children. Well, lesbian couples could solve the issue by visiting sperm banks. But gay couples can’t become pregnant. Unless we invent the artificial womb which might be ready by 2020 or 2025.
@mattbrowne I think it’s already here. What about surrogate mothers.
I think that “against nature” is being taken too literal here. And thanks right up front for all the “non-natural” natural facts. That said, lets say your all in favour homosexuality, that’s fine too, your all free to do what you want. However, talking or not, there is a DESIGN fault with trying to use similar genitalia to procreate. Last of all, from bedbugs to monkeys, same gender sex is icky.
@pezz
You’re not really here for an open minded discussion, are you?
Have a great day.
BTW, I don’t think anyone so far has been trying to procreate with similar genitalia. We’re talking sex, not procreation.
Relax and have fun :-D
@mattbrowne this is an interesting site, and has a running total of births and deaths. Not sure how accurate it is, though.
@pezz, careful, your prejudice is showing. Your true intentions are quite transparent. Have a nice day and a wonderful life. and I hope none of your children ever come up and tell you that they are gay.
@pezz Are you saying it’s against nature because sex is only meant to procreate? And obviously since a man can’t get another man pregnant, that makes it “not natural”?
You know what? People come up with all kinds of reasons, as if they really care about evolution or nature or bestiality but no, no one really gives a shit about procreation, they certainly wouldn’t if they got someone pregnant or were themselves accidentally pregnant and wanted to rid themselves of that burden…all of a sudden, no one cares about procreation…and bestiality, what an idiotic thing to connect to homosexuality, makes no sense, and this probably comes from people who like to wear diapers and lick each others toes (no offense, that’s cool for some, but don’t knock what other people do either)...and why connect all of it back to sex, homosexuality isn’t about sex, yes I suppose, it is about who you’re attracted to but it’s an identity, not an entirety of a person…okay, so back to the question…
Non religious reasons to object to homosexuality: because your parents raised you that way, because the neighborhood you lived in was so heteronormative and homophobic, you couldn’t even think it’s okay, because you think that supporting LGBT people makes you gay, because you worry that watching 2 guys make out makes you less of a man, this is for people who think to be masculine is to be with a woman…all these reasons are ridiculous but are very real…in some cases, the reason is sexism…some homophobic men are so because they can’t imagine how another man can ‘take it’ from another man as if he was the woman…clearly the bottom should be a woman…such idiocy
I’ve got a non-religious argument for homosexuality. This is something my friend came up with the other day (and I found it pretty amusing). She said that the world’s suffering from overpopulation anyway, why do we need people to procreate?
@Saturated_Brain However, I don’t know why people are under the impression that queer people don’t procreate…I identify as queer and have two children…My best friend identifies as gay/queer and he is planning to use a surrogate…My other best friend is a lesbian and is planning to raise a baby with her girlfriend who will carry the baby and my partner will prob be the sperm donor
@pezz, the problem with what you’re saying is that it’s not really a “reason” so much as a “stupid argument.”
You’re arguing that homosexuality is wrong because it does not result in procreation. But lots of things don’t result in procreation—including sex between sterile people, sex using birth control, and oral sex. Are you against all of these things too?
@atlantis – Surrogate mothers can lead to a dilemma. Sometimes they get quite attached to the unborn baby and want to keep it after birth.
@evelyns_pet_zebra – Interesting application. Thanks for sharing the link!
@NaturalMineralWater yup, I agree. I sometimes think that everyone on fluther must be gay.
btw why are people mentioning gay marriage? What does that have to do with the question? DominicX asked if there was any reason against homosexuality itself, not marriage. And homophobia is not a reason. It may be the reason some people don’t like homosexuals, but it’s not a reason against homosexuality.
@NaturalMineralWater
lol…I don’t care if it’s being done again. At all. If you don’t like the question: move on.
@Jack79
I’m perfectly fine with people mentioning gay marriage. The comment that inspired this question was about gay marriage.
No, it is not a reason. You might even say I’m asking for the reasons for homophobia, aside from religion. Where homophobia of course means hatred of or fear of homosexuals. Also, I tend to agree with Simone. People bring up things like evolution and procreation, but that ends the second they have an unwanted pregnancy. I truly think the main reason is their upbringing, which leads to the idea that two people of the same sex together is “gross” and thus they don’t want that to be encouraged and they certainly don’t want their children doing it.
And I’m not really buying the procreation reason: 10% of the population is homosexual or bisexual. Gay men can still procreate by using surrogates and such. Gay women can go to a sperm bank, etc. The world is already populated quite a bit. There is a reason L.A.‘s freeways are crowded 24/7 and they didn’t used to be in the past. There are simply more people. India and China have over a billion people in a relatively small space. Do you really think that the population of the world is threatened by that small number of homosexuals who can still procreate anyway? Do you really think that if the population was ever threatened that the gay people on Earth would refuse to procreate? Do I really think that most people care about the future population of the world?
I think it’s a really half-assed excuse. I don’t realistically think that people who claim homosexuality is “wrong” are truly basing that off procreation. I think they’re basing that off something else, namely that they simply think it’s gross and “different” and “weird”. Procreation is simply attaching the word “science” to their “gut feelings” and hysteria. I suppose this is almost my gut feeling. Feel free to argue against me and disagree. I’m just sayin’...
I agree with your last comment, DominicX. Yes, the “ick factor” as you mention it is the actual reason why people are against this “otherness” (trying to be as neutral as possible here).
The procreation reason, as I said in my original answer, would be the only valid real argument against homosexuality. But of course as others have also said, it’s not as if 99% of the population are gay and we run the risk of extinction as a species. Quite the opposite in fact. But it is a theoretical reason, if not a realistic, contemporary one.
So no, there is no real reason why people should or shouldn’t be gay. My reason for not being gay is simply that I’m not attracted to men. I presume that those who are homosexuals are simply attracted to people of the same sex. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s not really as if we can think about rationally and decide to be one or the other.
I presume that those who are homosexuals are simply attracted to people of the same sex. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s not really as if we can think about rationally and decide to be one or the other.
Exactly. I chose nothing. It’s just the way I am. I don’t understand why more people can’t understand this. To be honest, when people say “homosexuality is a choice”, I don’t think they really understand what they’re saying. They can never explain how it’s a choice.
@DominicX I agree with you, most people are against homosexuality because it is “weird” “wrong” and “different”. When dealing with a whole society and culture it, in my opinion, is a little expected to have this sort of reaction at first. Homosexuality is not a new thing, it has always been around, BUT in society it has been something that people hide it wasn’t something that society was expected to accept. People need time to deal with change, in 50 years it is going to be no big deal. Look at all the hoopla about interracial marriage, it was “different” and “wrong” now it is an everyday thing.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that there is no “good” answer to your question, but there are plenty of real answers, just might not be answers that you or I like. What needs to happen is for the answers, whether you like them, hate them, think they are “half-assed excuses” or whatever need to be understood and addressed. Knowing why people feel they way they do and then working to change those misconceptions and prejudgments is far more productive then anything else.
No, I’m pretty sure it’s not a choice. Otherwise all homosexuals would have to also be pretty damn stupid to put up with centuries of persecution (even in our relatively tolerant days). They’d just turn “straight” and get it over and done with. Whatever hormonal or other reason makes people attracted to certain other people, it’s certainly not something you can easily control.
@DominicX It’s like Bart Simpson saying “Are we there yet?”. Don’t get me wrong.. the topic is interesting.. but it was interesting here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and .. well let’s just face it.. I could paste links all day.
ugh
@NaturalMineralWater: Then when it comes up again, and we all know it will, just use your handy little scroll bar to move past it, and let people who care to discuss it do so.
@NaturalMineralWater
What’s interesting is that you commented on a grand total of 1 of those questions: this one. And your only two comments have been talking about how this topic is so overplayed.
@NaturalMineralWater
This question is not the same as those. You seem to think any question relating to homosexuality is automatically the same question, but it’s not. This question is asking about non-religious reasons for being against homosexuality. Not even gay marriage alone. It’s not the same as talking about marriage laws and Christian views and what not. Sorry you’re so uninterested in the topic that anything related to it is automatically the same.
But you know something? I’m not blaming you. Things we are uninterested in often seem the same and blend in. I don’t like a lot of rap and rock and to me it kind of all sounds the same. I think questions about relationships are uninteresting and they all kind of blend in and seem the same to me.
Coming to think of your question (again).
First: I am not opposed to homosexuality (as you must understand by my previous posts). But getting back to the original question: non religious reasons to be opposed to it.
Objectively?
I can think of no valid reasons,other than ignorance and faulty upraising.
Subjectively?
I would rather see my two children grow up into heterosexuals. Not because I will think any less of them if they would turn out gay, but I definitely think there lives will be so much easier.
The only non-religious reason I can think of is total ignorance.
IF YOU ARE AN ADULT YOU CAN SLEEP WITH WHATEVER CONSENTING ADULT YOU WANT TO!
Jesus Christ people, grow up. We are talking about sex between ADULTS.
@whoever I’ve commented on many of these topics.. perhaps I didn’t link you to one of the 746 other topics which I may have commented in. My bad.
I understand that I don’t have to comment.. I could just scroll by.. but I also understand that I can put my two cents in as well. All of you could have very well scrolled by my comments too. =)
Nuff said.
Fear of the unknown.
Parents instilling their biases on their kids.
Insecurity with one’s own sexuality.
Wanting to keep the status quo and not engage new viewpoints.
@pezz it might not be natural to you because you’re straight.
I believe homosexuality is merely a method of slowing population growth. Doesn’t seem too unfeasable to me for nature to have a way of stopping species from overcrowding. Obviously our planet is overcrowded as it is, but it’d be worse without us gays!
Also I think in the animal kingdom homosexual activity can be attributed to a display of dominance of one male to another.
Just my two cents.
@tirithalui, not in bonobos or penguins. I’m actually unfamiliar with homosexuality as dominance in other animals, actually, though I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened as it happens in humans.
In ancient Greece homosexuality was considered perfectly normal. Men and women came together to create children, but members of the same sex came together for love and true understanding.
“The noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.”
– Plutarch
If you allow Homosexuality what keeps us from allowing bestiality relationships? I’m not trying to start a war, just curious. I mean people that want to have sex with animals, they think it’s ok and they were born that way and after all, it’s their privacy.
And what about NAMBLA? What keeps them from having sex with 16 year old boys? What about other pedophiles?
NOTE: I’m NOT saying homosexuals are into animal sex or teenage boys. I’m wondering what keeps us from allowing pedophiles to gain a footing in say 50 years, if we continue getting more lax on sexual standards? Is it just a feeling of more freedom for all? I’m curious as to what makes these things right or wrong, popular opinion? Which in a way applies to the homosexuality argument.
@TylerM
What keeps you from being able to see the difference between CONSENTING ADULTS and children and animals who can’t consent?
To most people who use that argument, a freak is a freak. It doesn’t matter if they’re into other men, animals, or children. As long as it’s not “wholesome God-given straight sex”, it’s what freaks do and there’s no difference between anything that those freaks do. But see, there is a difference whether you want to admit it or not. One deals with consenting adults, things that happen in someone’s bedroom that don’t harm anyone. Bestiality harms the animals since they don’t consent to stuff like that. Pedophilia/child-molestation harms the children. Not the same thing at all.
Mann this is still going on?
@TylerM What @DominicX said. Kids and animals are not in a frame of mind to give their proper consent. Adults are. Which is why allowing homosexuality will not lead to pedophilia and bestiality
You see there is an argument behind what I am saying. I do understand the difference between consenting adults, animals, etc. But if someone is in “love” with a dog, seriously, in love with a dog, and they claim to be born that way and cannot have human relationships, why can you deny them that right? Because the animal has the right to consent? Why does it have that right? There is no basis for morality other than the popular belief of the public. Why is it wrong to rape a child? WHY? Because it’s wrong or they’re freaks? But how’d you come to that conclusion? I think morality is becoming a matter of public opinion.
@TylerM
Most things that are considered “wrong” harm someone or something.
What does two men having sex harm?
Bestiality can be considered harming animals because of the fact that they don’t consent. Raping a child harms the child, duh. Since those things cause harm, they are considered “wrong”.
Some serial killers are “born that way”. Does that mean we should give them the right to kill people if it makes them happy because it’s their right to be happy? What about the rights of the people they kill? What about the rights of the animal? What about the rights of the children?
@DomincX AIDS is prevalant among homosexuals. Homosexuals don’t procreate, though they do adopt which is good. If 90% of the world becomes homosexuals we’re harming the human species.
EDIT: I’m playing devil’s advocate here, please don’t take these as personal attacks.
@TylerM
Who says 90% of the population is going to be homosexual? 10% of the population is homosexual.
If we look at homosexuality trends, every year the number grows larger and larger, they eventually may become the majority.
And your question about the serial killer is exactly what I mean. WHY is it wrong for the serial killer to kill? Because they are harming someone? So our basis on right and wrong is only that it cannot harm another person? Other than that, everything is free game. But how do we know that dog doesn’t like free sex.
@TylerM
We don’t know. If we take the chance, we may be harming someone/something.
And what’s wrong with homosexuals becoming the majority? Why should we preserve the species? What’s so great about that, huh?
And who says that homosexuals won’t procreate? Ever heard of a surrogate?
Again, I’m going to say what I said earlier, I’m not connecting animal sex and homosexuality, in nature, but in their basis in morality. America is a religious nation, I don’t care what people say, the majority of our laws are based on rights and wrongs from religions. When we get 50 years down the line, and 3 quarters of the nation is atheist, why can we say that “THIS IS WRONG”, without some basis on something.
@DominicX Hey man… Calm down…
@TylerM I think that you have to prove that the number of homosexuals is rising. That’s a very dubious claim you realise as homosexuality is an extremely complex phenomenon. And why say that it’s wrong if homosexuals become the majority? The point is that homosexuals aren’t the majority.
We have tons of germs in our body. If they become the majority then we’re in trouble. If our white blood cells multiply uncontrollably and become the ‘majority’ in our body then we’re in trouble. But the thing is, they aren’t.
This hypothetical situation that you’re raising is and only can be hypothetical. In fact, believe it or not even 10% of the population being homosexual may be too high a number. It might even be 3–5%.
@TylerM
And I don’t care about the religious laws of this nation. I will fight for the rights of homosexuals for my entire life.
You may wanna refresh this page. I edited and lengthened my response.
@Saturated_Brain
10% is homosexual or bisexual. It’s less for just plain homosexual.
I’m curious, do you believe that I have the right to think that homosexuality is wrong?
@TylerM
1st Amendment. Freedom of speech.
Just like I have the right to think you’re wrong.
@TylerM Duh. Of course you do. You gotta prove your case though
Now if I believe you’re going to hell because of that am I still allowed to hold the opinion? And then and am I allowed to stand in a church and preach about it?
@TylerM
Of course. Just as I am allowed to preach that you’re wrong.
@DomincX Exactly, you do have that right. I think there is a limit to what I can say, I can tell you its wrong to your face, but I think it’s absolutely wrong to provoke someone my protesting their funerals or screaming expletives. That’s what I think is WRONG. But that’s not illegal.
So what I’m wondering is if you think it’s morally wrong if I do that, or if it’s just legal.
Yes. Now it’s careful you answer what you feel and take into no consideration what the law says when you answer.
@TylerM
Is it morally wrong? No. Would it anger me and would I be inclined to beat the shit out of someone doing that? Yes.
See, exactly. You obviously feel like its wrong because of the actions you would take as a result of that. So I think that I have proven that anything can be wrong just because of the way you personally feel about it. I believe homosexuality is wrong because I want to. I have that right. So it’s wrong because it stirs up emotions in me the same way emotions were stirred up in you about a protested homosexuals funeral. I do NOT have to justify myself. I have that right. If I do justify myself and you don’t agree, you have the right to disagree.
@TylerM
We as humans do not know if morality is subjective or objective. If you believe in an Abrahamic religion, it’s objective. If you don’t, it could be subjective. We don’t know. We may never know.
@TylerM
The problem comes when you start thinking because of what you consider wrong, you need to butt into my personal life and restrict what I can do.
@TylerM You feel that homosexuality is wrong because you… feel that it’s wrong…...
There’s no possible discussion from there you realise.
I feel that it’s wrong to protest funerals because I’m not respecting the rights of the mourners. Then again, if the person were a horrible mass-murdering tyrant, then yes I’d probably be more inclined to protest.
Morality is not as subjective as you actually think. There are reasons for what we humans do.
EXACTLY Dominic. I do not think it’s right to butt into your life and tell you can’t have gay sex and make a law against it because it offends me. But homosexuals don’t have the right to tell my church that they can’t preach that homosexuality is a sin because it offends them.
@TylerM
I agree. A church is a private institution and they can preach what they want. I’m assuming you’re referring to the Canada thing, am I right?
Yes, and the new United States Hate Crime legislation that restricts churches from saying that something is wrong because it offends a large part of the population.
Dominic, I’m glad we could discuss this somewhat civilly. I am a Bible believing Christian, if you couldn’t gather that, but I want to apologize in advance for those people that call themselves Christians yet go to funerals screaming that “God hates Fags”. I do believe Christ would have said homosexuality is wrong, but I don’t believe he would have condoned protests or government actions against them in any way.
I think you are just like me and have your faults. Personally, I struggle with pornography. Those Christians that complain about homosexuals are so self-righteous, they cheat on their wives at the same time they claim to stand against homosexuality and for “family values”. These Christians need to read their Bibles and see that while homosexuality IS considered wrong, it is just as wrong as a lot of the other sins that they commit all the time, they need to present to homosexuals with Christ’s love and not a feeling of hate and spite.
I hope you can understand where I’m coming from.
@TylerM
Yes, I understand. I am a 100% homosexual liberal-leaning moderate. And I know those Westboro Baptist Church morons are not real Christians and are shunned by real Christians. I don’t ask for everyone to think that my being homosexual or having homosexual sex is “right”, everyone has the right to think what they want about it, but I don’t want people stopping me from doing it. I love my best male friend. I do. I love him. And I am sexually attracted to him. No one is going to take that way from me. No one is going to treat me like a second-class citizen because of whom I’m attracted to. And I will always always defend homosexuals and their rights.
Ah. So we’re done with the discussion? Thank goodness.
Maybe I should stop participating in these things. Doesn’t look like I’m noticed anyway..
@TylerM I very much doubt that there is any legislation in the U.S. that prevents a church from saying something is “wrong”. What I don’t doubt is that there are attempts to restrict people and organizations from actively inciting violence against a group based on their race, religion or sexual orientation. Certainly this is a gray area with regards to what actually can be defined as inciting violence, but I do not believe that your interpretation is accurate.
Do you have some evidence to support this claim?
I would only add that I have seen zero evidence to support the perception that allowing two members of the same sex to love each other openly and or marry is a slippery slope to increased societal homosexuality (let alone immorality…especially as I see nothing immoral about homosexual sex). I think the evidence leans more to homosexuality being a continuum of sexual preference, with our genes or conditions in the mother’s womb having a bearing on our resultant sexual preferences. Certainly statistics could show an increase in occurrence of homosexuality in a society with reducing intolerance as homosexuals are allowed to be more open about their preferences. But this is not the same as an increase in homosexual tendency, and openness a about underlying sexual preference is a more likely explanation than believing that people become or chose to be gay (I used to live in a gay area of Sydney and I very much doubt other heterosexuals who live in this area find themselves increasingly attracted to the same sex). As far as I am aware homosexuality in humans sits around 3–5% .
I would also add that the only means by which multiple people can live within the same nation while preserving any semblance of freedom is to ensure that laws which are for the people are based on protecting people’s rights and the alleviation of suffering. As it is 1) truly suffering to prevent two consenting adults from loving each other, 2) there is no real suffering caused by such activities in non participating adults which justifiy restricting homosexuality, and 3) the only basis for restricting this right is linked to religious dogma, such restrictions can hardly be seen as conducive to a free and fair society. Yes certain churchs and individuals can preach that homosexuality is wrong, but these opinions are only as relevant for society as a whole as the opinions held by any special interest group. If their arguments have universal rational merit, then their logical basis will eventually hold sway with those outside their own in-group.
Regardless, you’re underlying point seems to be that we need God to be good. Or, in other words, without a biblical basis for morality we descend a slippery slope of immorality. Personally, I don’t buy this for a second.
May I suggest you start a thread on this topic in which you present your justification for this belief.
@TylerM as a queer person, I am insulted as your oh-so-cliche insinuation that by allowing us rights that we deserve, you’d be opening a gateway or protecting bestiality and pedophilia…I will go ahead and assume, as I didn’t read all your statements, that your views are because of your religion but you can’t possibly think queer people are somehow more deviant than heterosexuals…it’s illogical
Ok I got another one. How about the fact that there’s enough trouble generated with heterosexual behaviour in the human race and if you add the homosexual ingredient then things can get even more complicated. You can either have one but not the other, mutually exclusive, if someone can understand what I’m trying to get at. I mean we all agree that we’re all better off without intercourse at all right? That’ll be like utopia or something.
@atlantis . . .I’m with you man. My mother used to make me wear a clothespin on my penis when she caught me masturbating too.
@Blondesjon u know what they say… serves you right for getting caught. ROFL.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
