Secular arguments against homosexuality

SoldierOfTheKing said:

I remember this coming up on a thread a couple of years ago, and the answer I gave ruffled some feathers, it didn't get an answer.

Political authorities have an interest in perpetuaing their citizenship by enouraging childbearing. A society that fails to punish homosexuality severly enough to effectively deter it condemns a section of its population to childlessness, lowers the birthrate and in the long run, fails to perpetuate itself.

Click to expand...

So you are operating under the idea that if you punish homosexuality enough homosexuals will suddenly start popping out kids? I think I see the reason why no one answered it.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

I remember this coming up on a thread a couple of years ago, and the answer I gave ruffled some feathers, it didn't get an answer.

Click to expand...

You cant know if it ruffles feathers if nobody responds.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Political authorities have an interest in perpetuaing their citizenship by enouraging childbearing. A society that fails to punish homosexuality severly enough to effectively deter it condemns a section of its population to childlessness, lowers the birthrate and in the long run, fails to perpetuate itself.

Click to expand...

There is zero chance that the population of the US is going to start shrinking. I have no proof but I will never buy this as a legitimate reason.

CabVet said:

Gay people have kids, they are not sterile.

Click to expand...

Yes, by engaging in heterosexual sex. This is how societal repression of homosexuality can increase the birthrate.

CabVet said:

Oh, so you think it is perfectly possible for you to simply stop liking women and start dating men today? For me that is physically impossible, something I cannot conceive.

Click to expand...

It's quite common for people who never showed any interest in homosexual activity on the outside to start engaging in it in prison. That's just one example of situational homosexuality. When the choice is either homosexuality or complete chastity, to many people the former can become much more appealing.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Yes, by engaging in heterosexual sex. This is how societal repression of homosexuality can increase the birthrate.



It's quite common for people who never showed any interest in homosexual activity on the outside to start engaging in it in prison. That's just one example of situational homosexuality. When the choice is either homosexuality or complete chastity, to many people the former can become much more appealing.

Click to expand...

If the choice is between homosexuality and complete chastity, neither will produce children. Still doesnt support your shrinking country argument.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Yes, by engaging in heterosexual sex. This is how societal repression of homosexuality can increase the birthrate.



It's quite common for people who never showed any interest in homosexual activity on the outside to start engaging in it in prison. That's just one example of situational homosexuality. When the choice is either homosexuality or complete chastity, to many people the former can become much more appealing.

Click to expand...

Quick question, what will happen if the world's population decreases a little? I don't think we would become extinct. I mean, in America along like half of all babies born are accidents. Do you want to exponentially increase the size of the world's population, or just increase it gradually, or keep it the same, or some other thing? It's just that whenever I ask someone why having the population decreasing a little is bad, they just go, "Because it's decreasing!" or "It's too complex to even attempt to answer." So, when I hear that it's just sounds like an empty argument.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

I remember this coming up on a thread a couple of years ago, and the answer I gave ruffled some feathers, it didn't get an answer.

Political authorities have an interest in perpetuaing their citizenship by enouraging childbearing. A society that fails to punish homosexuality severly enough to effectively deter it condemns a section of its population to childlessness, lowers the birthrate and in the long run, fails to perpetuate itself.

Click to expand...

You're right. The ancient Greeks had no limitations on homosexuality, and so that's why there are no Greeks today. Oh wait.

There seems to be a lack of understanding by some of the difference between homosexual behavior and homosexuality.

Verv said:

It isn't personal.

Click to expand...

No, it never is. That's the chilling part of it all to me.

As it stands, my viewpoints are persecuted, and if we were ever on the verge to power, you and your friends would kill me

Click to expand...

Of course you'll neglect to mention what kind of things you would do if you were on the verge to power compared to the sort of things I'd do if I were on the verge to power (hint: not much, I don't even desire power). Not that such justifies killing you for it. I would be strongly against any attempt to do anything like that.

or just your friends would kill me; or just people who agreed with you politically would kill me.

Click to expand...

Perhaps.

I'm not accountable for the actions of people who believe in some of the things that I believe in.

The bottom line is this: You really do wish to restrict my liberties. I do not wish to restrict yours. The difference to me, is obvious and I wonder what it is you think I should admire from this exactly?

But they are a temporary concept and a temporary benefit and not an immutable truth. Doesn't security come first?

Click to expand...

No. Not always.

It is impossible to characterize all dictatorships.

Click to expand...

What is it specifically about the South American Military Juntas you admire so much?

I mean you must really admire the North Korean Leadership for making most of their population poor and imposing a strict uniform lifestyle incumbent on all those who live in urban areas.

We are limited in our information and scope and brainwashed from a young age, and promises of liberty and freedom are meaningless to us.

Click to expand...

Liberty and freedom as concepts aren't meaningless to me. They really do mean something and they ought be defended and advocated.

I do not understand the significance of the question.

Click to expand...

I'm suggesting that your repeating of "contemplation" as a virtue may be indistinguishable to desire or at minimum that you will be functionally unable to argue for a very real difference between the two in a general sense thus rendering your argument null.

I mean, on this point, how is you listening to music not enacting a desire?

The reasons to restrain the sexuality are threefold: (1) social harmony through respect to the traditional value systems and the social order which prefers exclusivity for the safety & best interests of child rearing and courtship

Click to expand...

"Traditional value systems" (or at least those you refer to) treat people as an institution. They demonise sexuality, impose gender standards, harbour racist undertones and impose religious observation onto those afflicted. In a society where all are happy to live by those standards they certainly cultivate social order but where we are now culturally their imposition would achieve the complete opposite.

In other words: No it wouldn't. Any imposition of traditional roles by the state would lead to mass protest and rightfully so as people would find their lifestyles and relationships being taken away by the state. Your 'values' only have merit in the sense that you see them as good ends in themselves and regretfully for you, that's no reason to demand society live by them through intimidation.

It is also worth pointing out the mass sexual repression and societal issues that traditionalist societies currently suffer: Saudi Arabia is the most notable example.

and (2) personal avoidance of overindulgence and attitudes that lead towards increased sexual appetite that aren't beneficial to anyone.

Click to expand...

If you want to make this a general point in favour of moderation or in favour of abstinence, by all means - but this is not an argument in and of itself against homosexuality but general indulgence in leisure activities.

Not beneficial to anyone (3) because people exist moreover as personalities & intellectual, spiritual entities, and are not mere physical means to an end

Click to expand...

This is such a nonsensical argument when applied to something you choose to do for yourself. If I make an example of someone else for the purpose of discouraging others from doing X then I am using them as a means to an end - I would be punishing them for something they did not commit (this is the reason I am against the idea of making an example of someone). It is absurd to apply that to an act of hedonism or general desire committed by someone to themselves. The end is enjoyment, which they acquired.

I think the problem with debates and discussions around homosexuality is that people think it is just about sex.

Also, wanted to add that it is not classed as a disease/disorder/illness, curse, punishment, political statement etc.

Belk said:

So you are operating under the idea that if you punish homosexuality enough homosexuals will suddenly start popping out kids? I think I see the reason why no one answered it.

Click to expand...

An idea which, as I said, I believe to be supported by history.

GenetoJean said:

You cant know if it ruffles feathers if nobody responds.

Click to expand...

Oh, people responded, but with indignant huffing and puffing, rather than any real argument.

GenetoJean said:

There is zero chance that the population of the US is going to start shrinking. I have no proof but I will never buy this as a legitimate reason.

Click to expand...

I wasn't specifically talking about the US. However, the US population is only growing due to immigration, and a number of European countries definitely are undergiong a demographic implosion.

Syd the Human said:

Quick question, what will happen if the world's population decreases a little? I don't think we would become extinct. I mean, in America along like half of all babies born are accidents. Do you want to exponentially increase the size of the world's population, or just increase it gradually, or keep it the same, or some other thing? It's just that whenever I ask someone why having the population decreasing a little is bad, they just go, "Because it's decreasing!" or "It's too complex to even attempt to answer." So, when I hear that it's just sounds like an empty argument.

Click to expand...

Explaining the consequences of a declining birthrate is a bit complicated, but I'll try to give the best short answer I can. A birthrate that isn't at least close to replacement levels (average at least 2 children per woman) means an aging population, which in turn means, as the proportion of the population above retirement age increases, a shrinking work force (and hence less productivity) as well as a larger retired population to care for. I found a short article from the Rand Corporation which discusses the matter a bit. Also, such societies leave themselves more vulnerable to aggression from more virile neighbors.

Hetta said:

You're right. The ancient Greeks had no limitations on homosexuality, and so that's why there are no Greeks today. Oh wait.

Click to expand...

The homosexuality of the ancient Greeks was different in many ways from the modern Western "gay" phenomonon. For men to mess around with other men in their younger years was tolerated, in some circles even approved of, but it was still expected that a man would eventually marry and father children. There were no "homosexuals", or "heterosexuals" for that matter, as we understand by that term today. Homosexual desire was understood to be universal, not particuar to certain sexual minorities. Homosexuality was for before marriage, heterosexuality for after marriage. To say there were "no restrictions on homosexuality is far form the truth.

This was true of other cultures as well. Some societies, even after marriage, would look the other way at a man's "extracurricular activities" provided he fulfills his obligations of marriage and children. The West, however has long held that sexual energy should be directed toward marriage, and even today monogamous relationships are held as normative. If that's our cultural standard, then the only approach to homosexuality that makes sense biologically is to forbid it altogether.

On the other hand, if anybody actually wants to argue that we should imitate the ancient Greeks in there sex mores, feel free to do so. It would make for an interesting discussion.

Euler said:

There seems to be a lack of understanding by some of the difference between homosexual behavior and homosexuality.

Click to expand...

By "homosexuality" do you mean homosexual identity?

Two questions Soldier

1) Are you actually in favour of criminalising homosexuality?

2) Do you think Homosexuality is a primary reason or the reason for population growth decline in First World Nations?

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Yes, by engaging in heterosexual sex. This is how societal repression of homosexuality can increase the birthrate.

Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is that they have children, and raise them with their partner (and not the natural mother/father of the child). So your argument is flawed. Actually, I will go a step further. Homosexual couples that are not married will usually not have children, so if this is your argument, you should be in favor of gay marriage because it would make homosexual couples get married and have more children.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

It's quite common for people who never showed any interest in homosexual activity on the outside to start engaging in it in prison. That's just one example of situational homosexuality. When the choice is either homosexuality or complete chastity, to many people the former can become much more appealing.

Click to expand...

Yes, everyone "choses" to have gay sex in prison. It's a choice, right. But I didn't ask about "situational" homosexuality, I asked if you think that its possible for you to decide to start liking men overnight.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

An idea which, as I said, I believe to be supported by history.



Oh, people responded, but with indignant huffing and puffing, rather than any real argument.



I wasn't specifically talking about the US. However, the US population is only growing due to immigration, and a number of European countries definitely are undergiong a demographic implosion.



Explaining the consequences of a declining birthrate is a bit complicated, but I'll try to give the best short answer I can. A birthrate that isn't at least close to replacement levels (average at least 2 children per woman) means an aging population, which in turn means, as the proportion of the population above retirement age increases, a shrinking work force (and hence less productivity) as well as a larger retired population to care for. I found a short article from the Rand Corporation which discusses the matter a bit. Also, such societies leave themselves more vulnerable to aggression from more virile neighbors.



The homosexuality of the ancient Greeks was different in many ways from the modern Western "gay" phenomonon. For men to mess around with other men in their younger years was tolerated, in some circles even approved of, but it was still expected that a man would eventually marry and father children. There were no "homosexuals", or "heterosexuals" for that matter, as we understand by that term today. Homosexual desire was understood to be universal, not particuar to certain sexual minorities. Homosexuality was for before marriage, heterosexuality for after marriage. To say there were "no restrictions on homosexuality is far form the truth.

This was true of other cultures as well. Some societies, even after marriage, would look the other way at a man's "extracurricular activities" provided he fulfills his obligations of marriage and children. The West, however has long held that sexual energy should be directed toward marriage, and even today monogamous relationships are held as normative. If that's our cultural standard, then the only approach to homosexuality that makes sense biologically is to forbid it altogether.

On the other hand, if anybody actually wants to argue that we should imitate the ancient Greeks in there sex mores, feel free to do so. It would make for an interesting discussion.



By "homosexuality" do you mean homosexual identity?

Click to expand...

While growth from immigration might outpace growth from births we would still have growth from births alone:

Immigration to outpace U.S. population growth from births soon: Census | Reuters

And while some countries might be loosing population, a lot by people leaving the country, the world population is still gowing up:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...pulation-11billion-demographics-anthropocene/

SoldierOfTheKing said:

An idea which, as I said, I believe to be supported by history.



Oh, people responded, but with indignant huffing and puffing, rather than any real argument.



I wasn't specifically talking about the US. However, the US population is only growing due to immigration, and a number of European countries definitely are undergiong a demographic implosion.



Explaining the consequences of a declining birthrate is a bit complicated, but I'll try to give the best short answer I can. A birthrate that isn't at least close to replacement levels (average at least 2 children per woman) means an aging population, which in turn means, as the proportion of the population above retirement age increases, a shrinking work force (and hence less productivity) as well as a larger retired population to care for. I found a short article from the Rand Corporation which discusses the matter a bit. Also, such societies leave themselves more vulnerable to aggression from more virile neighbors.



The homosexuality of the ancient Greeks was different in many ways from the modern Western "gay" phenomonon. For men to mess around with other men in their younger years was tolerated, in some circles even approved of, but it was still expected that a man would eventually marry and father children. There were no "homosexuals", or "heterosexuals" for that matter, as we understand by that term today. Homosexual desire was understood to be universal, not particuar to certain sexual minorities. Homosexuality was for before marriage, heterosexuality for after marriage. To say there were "no restrictions on homosexuality is far form the truth.

This was true of other cultures as well. Some societies, even after marriage, would look the other way at a man's "extracurricular activities" provided he fulfills his obligations of marriage and children. The West, however has long held that sexual energy should be directed toward marriage, and even today monogamous relationships are held as normative. If that's our cultural standard, then the only approach to homosexuality that makes sense biologically is to forbid it altogether.

On the other hand, if anybody actually wants to argue that we should imitate the ancient Greeks in there sex mores, feel free to do so. It would make for an interesting discussion.



By "homosexuality" do you mean homosexual identity?

Click to expand...

In the article it gave multiple ways to stop the decline in fertility, and it said nothing about homosexuality. It said to provide more incentives for women to have children (examples were giving child care subsidies, rewarding families for having at least three children, creating work policies that allowed women to raise children while still working etc). It also talked about how more women could join the workforce etc.

Plus, homosexuals would not really want to have children the way most do. They would adopt or have a surrogate or use sperm from a sperm bank or some other thing that I don't know about. I think the only time homosexuals would start having children the way most do is if the human population really was in danger of going extinct and I just don't see that happening.

And, are you a cultural relativist? If so, the culture is becoming more acceptable of homosexuality so in the future you would have to change to accept homosexuality as okay and any argument you made against it would be immoral, based on a cultural relativist stance.

Please note: I am not endorsing homosexuality, it is just based on some of the points that he made he seems like a cultural relativist and based on that belief system he would have to agree to what the culture wants.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

By "homosexuality" do you mean homosexual identity?

Click to expand...

Of course. One's sexuality is an integral part of personal identity. However, one's sexual activities are sometimes at odds with that identity.

The homosexuality of the ancient Greeks was different in many ways from the modern Western "gay" phenomenon.

Click to expand...

LMAO. You can't make this stuff up.

Verv said:

Alright, this was on the third page, and was the basic introduction to my position -- I added some more just to make it more concise for you:

Homosexuality is opposed because sexuality ought to be minimized to that which is sociologically & culturally beneficial to the society. This would be that which promotes a very restrained sexuality that occurs only within limited context, specifically the context of marriage. Both Christianity & Buddhism (and I believe Islam) endorse this very much, because they view that human sexuality, if overindulged in, is damaging to the individual and to the society as a whole.

The reasons to restrain the sexuality are threefold: (1) social harmony through respect to the traditional value systems

Click to expand...

So because tradition

Verv said:

and the social order which prefers exclusivity for the safety & best interests of child rearing and courtship,

Click to expand...

Sounds like an argument in favor of SSM since they have children and want to form exclusive partnerships.

Verv said:

and (2) personal avoidance of overindulgence and attitudes that lead towards increased sexual appetite that aren't beneficial to anyone. Not beneficial to anyone (3) because people exist moreover as personalities & intellectual, spiritual entities, and are not mere physical means to an end, or even to be used as an emotional stepping stone for an emotional end.

Click to expand...

And again, sounds like an argument in favor of SSM.

So let me make sure I have your argument thus far clear. We should limit our sexuality because tradition, it is good for the children, and having too much sex is bad for you and causes a focus on the physical? Is that correct?

Verv said:

So sexuality should be limited in scope for an individual level, and for a social level, and that scope should be limited to that which also doubles as ideal for child rearing. Children ought to have both a mother & a father, and both of which who observe traditional gender roles, because the most natural form of our biological existence is male & female, and these roles are predetermined by inclinations brought with gender.

Click to expand...

We should only traditional gender roles and both should be in the household because that mirrors what we typically see in nature.

Verv said:

Moreover, because (A) sexuality is fluid, we should consider encouraging the non-heterosexual towards heterosexuality and there is a good chance that they can reach that.

Click to expand...

Homosexuals should be able to switch to heterosexual

Verv said:

(B) Even if they cannot reach that, we should not promote non-monogamous, non-heterosexuality, because the overall impact on society to promote these other lifestyles as bearing the moral equivalent of the same will have a bad impact.

Click to expand...

If they can not become heterosexual they should be celibate otherwise there will be a negative outcome.

Verv said:

As it is known: if we have one, single standard for something and do not make exceptions, the standard tends to stand proudly. If we make exceptions, then soon all exceptions have to be made, and the standard is rendered meaningless, and then we lose the (1) social harmony & unified culture that we have sought as a value.

Click to expand...

There should be a single standard that everyone is held to because it is good for social cohesiveness.

Verv said:

It is also worth noting that (C) Certain behaviors are entirely masculine or feminine; while cultural differences exist in the manifestation of the masculine and of the feminine, they still are related back to identifiable symbols & roles across these cultures, and are not accidental.

These behaviors & cultures evolved from the biological inclination. And so there is a general set of standards that we should uphold.

Click to expand...

There are certain behaviors that are only capable of being performed by one sex and so we have to uphold those behaviors as standards.

Verv said:

NOTE: I will repost this regularly and amend it as the arguments see fit because it seems that we have people incapable of following exactly what is going on, or addressing it; but we do have a surplus of snark.

Click to expand...

Indeed, let us address it then. Would you agree with my summations of your arguments and if not why not?

Verv said:

I ran out of time but I will get to you later and haven't forgotten or ignored you.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I also responded to your amended reasoning post. Would you prefer to just concentrate on that?

SoldierOfTheKing said:

An idea which, as I said, I believe to be supported by history.

Click to expand...

I disagree but I'll look at your evidence.