Secular problems with homosexuality

Great Debates
1

Can anyone think of some legitimate reasons to disapprove of homosexuality without using religion? I have been thinking about it for a few days, and nothing springs to mind. Everything comes back to religion. As a secular nation, shouldn’t the US ignore these religious biases?

By the way, this line of thought reminds me of a great funny on the old AOL SDMB. The conversation went something like this:

Poster: Why is homosexuality considered bad? It doesn’t hurt anyone.

Poster 2 (BenEtabba, IIRC): Worse, it hurts God.

Poster 3: Well, it probably would the first time, but after that he would probably really get to like it.

2

Homosexuality isn’t natural - if it was it would have been bred out of people. (still this doesn’t preclude it from being a choice)

The implications of homosexuality are wrong - the same way respectable people don’t hold true with ideas like sodomy, they dont’ hold true with homosexuality.

A person can’t natualy procreate from it

The people who do have a problem with it it is likely to cause far too much contraversy

And of course, the only one that I would think has any real merit against your statment, "As a secular nation, shouldn’t the US ignore these religious biases? " is

The only real prohibitions against beastiality are religously orintated too. If you still think beastiality should be illegal, then you have no reason to think homosexuality shouldn’t be. (And saying beastiality is cruelty to animals doesn’t cut it, becuase if you find nothing wrong with killing a calf and eating its flesh covered in its mothers pastruized milk you have no reason to complain about somone who wants to… well… play with their food.)

(please note, before anyone goes off on a tirade against me, I am not saying I suport these arguemtns. Quite the contrary, I’ll defend homosexuality. But I figured I’d toss out the ones off the top of my mind someone might use… somtimes playing devils advocate is fun :wink:

3

Here’s me secular argument against homosexuality: Gay guys get all the girls (how’s that for alliteration?!?)

4

**

I can’t think of any legitimate reasons why someone would think homosexuality is wrong. On the other hand I can’t say I approve of the dress and floats of Gay Pride Parades but maybe I’m just a prude.

Marc

5

Well there’s a very good reason. Homosexuality does not produce children. And producing children in very, very important in agricultural societies, like we had a hundred years ago or so. When we had a society very different from the one we have now.
Just like it was very important to the societies that produced the Bible. Like maybe that was the main reason for the religious injunction against it to begin with.

6

There are plenty of people who are not particularly religious (or spiritual for that matter) who <redneck accent> don’t like dem Queers </redneck accent>.

As for reasons, in addition to what people said above, there are cases where someone is molested by someone of the same gender and, like many a victim of crime, will react in this kind of manner.

Of course, I am not saying this is a good thing. Only that it happens.

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, four weeks, one day, 7 hours, 14 minutes and 54 seconds.
4812 cigarettes not smoked, saving $601.51.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 17 hours, 0 minutes.[/sub]

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]

7

So “respectable” people don’t like blow jobs?

The same can be said for having sex with a 90-year old woman and yet no one seems to have a very strenuous objection to that (except aesthetically.)

I think it has something to do with the object of sexuality not being able to give permission for the act.

8

Not if you live in VA. =) It’s illegal here.

True but I’m sure they would say it’s the symbolism of it or somthing :wink:

Tsk, since you cut it off, I’ll post it again: (And saying beastiality is cruelty to animals doesn’t cut it, becuase if you find nothing wrong with killing a calf and eating its flesh covered in its mothers pastruized milk you have no reason to complain about somone who wants to… well… play with their food.)

Like I said, that argument doesn’t cut it unless you want to treat animals as somthing other than animals. If you’re a vegan I’d say you have a point, otherwise I’d say you’re a hypocrite.

Besides, even if that is true, it doesn’t count if the human is being the passive participant. Then the person is the object of the sexual act, not the animal. And there have some men convicted for allowing their dogs to mount them from behind. By your argument, this would still be totatly acceptable.
Not to mention it should be totatly acceptable to have sex with dead bodies or dead animals as well. Do you feel that it is?

9

Well, there are a lot of people, who are not very religious or spiritual, who simply find the concept kind of icky.

I think that they’re fixating on one aspect of a person (or group of persons) and allowing that fixation to color their attitudes. Seems kinda detrimental to me. . .

Waste
Flick Lives!

10

(RANT)Homosexuality, necrophilia, and bestiality are not similar. Homosexuality is consensual and we know it is consensual whereas we don’t know if an animal can give consent and we know for 100% certain that a corpse can’t give consent. That is also what makes kiddy sex nonconsensual. Children can’t knowingly know the implications of what they do. This is also shown by what they are able to do in a contract. We have covered this to the universe’s end here and most of us find that comparing homosexuality to rape, necrophilia, and pedophilia to be trite. Please in the future try to come up with something more original.(/RANT)

If you want some more current non-religious oppositions to homosexuality I would suggest (from what I have heard) the following: Homosexuals spread diseases; (No more than other people but it has been around.); Homosexuals aer promiscuous and lascivious (That one has religious undertones.); or Homosexuals decrease my property value initially (Until the stereotypical gay guys fixing up the old, run-down Victorian home in the nasty lower class neighborhood and then make it triple in value.); after the former the argument becomes "I can’t buy a place in what was formerly the slum because all the homosexuals fixed it up and it is now a safe place to live.

There are others but they all seem pretty ludicrous to me.

HUGS!
Sqrl

11

Just a thought to put out there…

I know people - a decent number overall whom i don’t know probably fit into this category - who don’t like anal sex. I’m talking heterosexual anal sex here. Women who find it painful, men who find it yucky.

Nobody would question that someone might be grossed out by this act without a religious reason (you might call them a prude, however). Someone might be grossed out enough by it that the thought of someone else doing it might make them a bit queasy (okay - they are prudes), and seeing a porno movie which involved this might not be high on their list.

As such, I don’t see how someone might dislike homosexual activities simply because they find it yucky!

Truth be known, I find male-on-male sex to be yucky and a personal turn-off.

The difference here is I don’t care what someone ELSE does, and what they do in bed does not affect me one way or another, so I don’t care one way or another.

So I think the question should be: Are there people running around who are saying that YOU shouldn’t do something sexually (anal sex with a loving, married partner or homosexual sex or anything else for that matter) who are not doing so because some religious text told them it’s wrong and they care about your sinning souls?

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, four weeks, one day, 12 hours, 55 minutes and 10 seconds.
4821 cigarettes not smoked, saving $602.69.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 17 hours, 45 minutes.[/sub]

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]

12

Good clarification, Satan. Just had to say it.

HUGS!
Sqrl

13

How about this:

For a lot of people, how I feel about something is what’s RIGHT**, and if I find that two men doing nasty stuff to each other is nauseating, then it must be against { God’s will / the laws of Nature / proper human behavior / other “standard” }.

Boiled down, most arguments against homosexuality amount to this. I suppose, if you think there is an objective active theistic God, and he has opinions on the subject, that does make some sort of a difference. But at rock bottom, the “reasons against homosexuality” whether secular or religious amount to, “I don’t like it, so nobody should do it.”

14

How about their extreme love for showtunes and Barbara Striesand.

15

The problem with this is that from a secular standpoint EVERY notion of right or wrong is subjective and is based on societies moral scale. We’re simply socialized to believe that X is wrong (be it necrophilia, pedophilia, whatever… ) and that Y is right (be it charity, kindness, etc.). In another society necrophilia might be perfectly ok… and from a secular standpoint who could say they were wrong? While we might say because it’s nonconsensual, they may view it as having sex with an inanimate object… like a mannequin per se. They may say that it’s absurd to require an inanimate objects consent since it’s clearly impossible.

The point is that from a secular standpoint a society can socialize its citizens to be predisposed to accept just about any idea even if we personally find it repugnant. Didn’t the Aztecs successfully use the practice of human sacrifice for hundreds of years? The secular view is only valid in the society upon which it’s based regardless of what the act is.

16

I have a cousin how is pretty homo-phobic. He is also an Ann Rand anti-god libertarian. He dislikes it for not any specific reason, but because he hears KORN and so forth preaching homophobic comments. Couple that with his general ignorance and hick like hatred of anything different than him. And boom, you have a non-religous homophobic 19 year old.

17

That was quite a rant but you didn’t prove a thing you know.

  1. It’s rather unlikey that the cow your hamburger is made from gave it’s consent for you to eat it. So what’s your problem with someone having sex with it as well?

  2. Of course a corpse doesn’t give consent, it’s dead. It’s just the bits of matter that make up the universe. Screwing a corpse is no difference than screwing a pillow in this case. If you don’t have a problem with people using plastic dildos made from the dead remains of dinosaurs you shouldn’t have a problem with someone using a fresher model.

The point is, you haven’t given a valid reason as to why these two things are tabbo, and shouldn’t be banned as well.

Please understand me, I am not saying that homosexuality is the same as having sex with a dead body or an animal. I am however saying that given the orginal topic, “if we take away religous reasons do people have any argument against homosexualty,” we then also do not have a valid reason not to shag a sheep, sleep with our parents (so long as we don’t acutaly inbreed), or have an orgey in the grave yard.

Now, if you want to aruge this point I’m making, I’m more than welcome to a debate.

But to use your arugment of consent you’ll have to tell me “why we need consent to have sex with a cow and not consent to kill it” and “why we need to have consent with an inatimate object.”

18

**Satan **: But I’m not talking about those who find the sexual act (including oral sex, wonder of wonders!) repugnant, but those who feel that if anyone is holding hands with, kissing, snuggling with, or just generally sharing their lives with someone of the same sex to be doing something icky and unsettling. Now, these folk may be thinking that the next logical step is yucky, but those to whom I have spoken have only mentioned the non-sexual aspects that put them off their feed. Again, I think that it’s pretty foolish to focus on one single aspect of someone and allow your opinion of that person to be based on that and that alone. I also realize that there are an awful lot of people out there who disagree with me. Ah, bliss!

I think that Polycarp has a good point about people feeling that what they think is right should be applied to everyone. If they don’t think that it’s right, then nobody should do it. At least that seems to encapsulate the views that I’ve heard expressed.

Waste
Flick Lives!

19

kyla:

What is this referring to? In what manner are the “religious biases” not currently being ignored? I’ve never heard of any legislation or policy that overtly takes into acount religious thought about gays. To say that your personal opinion is that the underlying “true” reason for this or that is “religious biases” is a matter perhaps worthy of debate on it’s own.

20

**

I’m a little confused over how he could be an “Ayn Rand” anti-god liberatrian and hate homosexuals. Especially considering Rand disliked libertarians and so far as I know said nothing about homosexuality. But it takes all kinds I guess.

Marc