Secular arguments against homosexuality

stevevw said:

You keep talking about condemning gays. What are you going on about. Just because I am showing some statistics for what happens with people who partake in certain things doesn't mean I am condemning them. As we both agreed its the same for any heterosexual person who partakes in certain behaviors.

Yes inhaling to much smoke will cause certain problems so this is important to point this out and thats what we do on cigarette packets. Yes you can get skin cancer from the sun but we dont say to not go out in it. We point out the risky situations and behavior that will cause you to get skin cancer more easily IE being not wearing sun block or going out in the midday sun ect. Yes you are at risk of car accidents but we dont say stop driving cars. But we do point out when driving cars there are certain risky behaviors that will cause you more problems than others like not wearing a seat belt or speeding. We have to and should point out these things as a message of safety and making people aware of the risks. But Thats all we are doing with this message. Its call harm minimization.

But we are not condemning anyone or telling them not to do it. We are making them aware of the consequences of certain actions and behaviors so that people can make informed decisions. That is exactly what I am doing with sexuality. Except what happens with this topic more often is that people get more personal and their personal feelings get involved which is understandable. It is something that people feel more strongly about not being told what to do with their own bodies and sex life. But that is not what is going on here.

Click to expand...

So again, if you're not condemning anyone, what's your point?

stevevw said:

You keep talking about condemning gays. What are you going on about. Just because I am showing some statistics for what happens with people who partake in certain things doesn't mean I am condemning them. As we both agreed its the same for any heterosexual person who partakes in certain behaviors.

Yes inhaling to much smoke will cause certain problems so this is important to point this out and thats what we do on cigarette packets. Yes you can get skin cancer from the sun but we dont say to not go out in it. We point out the risky situations and behavior that will cause you to get skin cancer more easily IE being not wearing sun block or going out in the midday sun ect. Yes you are at risk of car accidents but we dont say stop driving cars. But we do point out when driving cars there are certain risky behaviors that will cause you more problems than others like not wearing a seat belt or speeding. We have to and should point out these things as a message of safety and making people aware of the risks. But Thats all we are doing with this message. Its call harm minimization.

But we are not condemning anyone or telling them not to do it. We are making them aware of the consequences of certain actions and behaviors so that people can make informed decisions. That is exactly what I am doing with sexuality. Except what happens with this topic more often is that people get more personal and their personal feelings get involved which is understandable. It is something that people feel more strongly about not being told what to do with their own bodies and sex life. But that is not what is going on here.

Click to expand...

Do you point out how it is more risky to be female then male? Because this strikes me as somewhat the same thing. While it is interesting and pertinent data it is not a moral argument. I guess I to question what you are getting at.

Armoured said:

So again, if you're not condemning anyone, what's your point?

Click to expand...

I thought you may have got it by now. Its call making someone aware of their decisions and actions and pointing out the consequences of those decisions and actions so they can make informed decisions. It's as simple as that. You may call it condemning or you may see things different as to how to tell others about what you believe is right or wrong. But by pointing out the risks and consequences of the decisions and actions we make the ball lies in the court of the person themselves. They are then made aware of what all the information and the decision is up to them.

I work in the care services industry and this is the approach that is taken. We don't and are not even allowed to judge or condemn others when they come through our doors. To be honest I cant see what that will do at a time when they maybe suffering from whatever problem they are in. But if I start to condemn them then that will just make matters worse and I would have no chance to help them practically let alone save their souls. So first things first. If I can reach someone that way then I have a chance to help them take things further. But still once again I cant force my beliefs onto anyone. I can only be an example of Christ. As it says in the bible those without sin can throw the first stone.

stevevw said:

I thought you may have got it by now. Its call making someone aware of their decisions and actions and pointing out the consequences of those decisions and actions so they can make informed decisions. It's as simple as that. You may call it condemning or you may see things different as to how to tell others about what you believe is right or wrong. But by pointing out the risks and consequences of the decisions and actions we make the ball lies in the court of the person themselves. They are then made aware of what all the information and the decision is up to them.

I work in the care services industry and this is the approach that is taken. We don't and are not even allowed to judge or condemn others when they come through our doors. To be honest I cant see what that will do at a time when they maybe suffering from whatever problem they are in. But if I start to condemn them then that will just make matters worse and I would have no chance to help them practically let alone save their souls. So first things first. If I can reach someone that way then I have a chance to help them take things further. But still once again I cant force my beliefs onto anyone. I can only be an example of Christ. As it says in the bible those without sin can throw the first stone.

Click to expand...

How does pointing out these supposed risks have anything to do with an argument either for or against homosexuality? How would this awareness make any difference about someone being gay or not?

Why is this such a hot topic when there are more serious issues going on? I don't get it.

Belk said:

Do you point out how it is more risky to be female then male? Because this strikes me as somewhat the same thing. While it is interesting and pertinent data it is not a moral argument. I guess I to question what you are getting at.

Click to expand...

My moral position as a Christian is the same as other Christians. The bible says to not live a sexually immoral life whether gay or heterosexual. But that is not what the OP was about. It was about secular arguments against homosexuality. So the secular arguments are to do with how some of those actions that can lead to bad consequences for physical, mental and emotional health and not whether its morally right or wrong. Obviously when someone points out that there are consequences for an action that are bad that this is also saying that it is not the good thing to do because of those consequences. But secular society doesn't get into whether its morally right or wrong and its up to the individual to decide that when they choose what to do.

But being female doesn't involve actions that are chosen that will have consequences that can be avoided as far as her nature is. Though nowadays people can have sex changes but the basic nature of being a female is something that is in a person and they dont have much choice. But if being a female a women chooses to do risky things like sleep around or have unsafe sex then there are certain consequences with doing that that need to be pointed out so that she is made aware so she can make informed decisions. You can say that this is not the right sort of behavior because of those consequences and the same for any actions that gays would do which is based on cause and effect but not morals. At least that is how secular society sees things.

Euler said:

How does pointing out these supposed risks have anything to do with an argument either for or against homosexuality? How would this awareness make any difference about someone being gay or not?

Click to expand...

Because once you point out the consequences of these decisions and actions you are also showing that they are wrong in the first place. But secular society doesn't normally get into rights and wrongs as far as a persons sexuality is concerned. Specialists can point out the data that shows how being a homosexual is something that is caused by different reasons to do with physical, psychological and emotional problems that make a person become maladjusted to the normal way a person should be. But I am not sure if thats an argument against being gay. If you start getting into saying that this person is wrong and its an argument against them for being like this or that then you are bringing in moral judgements I believe which is not what the OP was about.

Sofaman said:

Homosexuality could be evolutions method of keeping the population in check and so it wouldn't be an immoral act. Saving the species from expanding too quickly and depleting the resources necessary for survival of the species

Click to expand...

Evolution and nature have no method for keeping populations in check besides cruelty & starvation. Why do something redundant like re-wire the DNA of a creature to not favor self-preservation when the balancing of populations will come naturally through conflict over scarce resources and famine?

It's not like the mass overpopulation of geese or deer needs to be fixed by an evolutionary process when it happens. They just starve to death in the winter.

That's your mistress for ye!

Euler said:

How does "continuation of the species" equate with morality?

Click to expand...

It is a moral question. You are completely right... It isn't necessarily, as a given, 'moral' to continue the species if, say, in order to preserve humanity we had to totally displace and destroy an intelligent species that deserves to exist of its own right (if we can think of such a Sci Fi world).

But it is certainly a moral question...

If the human population has been incredibly depleted and there are 17 people left in 'your known world,' and of them all of the viable breeding partners have paired off and are couples except for you and a suitable breeding partner... Well, it doesn't really matter how you feel about them; deciding to practice 'celibacy!' because you might not actually love them deeply is not a moral choice.

The moral choice is to breed so as to insure the survival of your tribe and, in this case, species.

Lost Angel said:

They cater to what brings in viewers. It is about advertising on broadcast television. Very rarely does a show survives if it doesn't bring in viewers for the time slot. Shows with gay leads sink or swim like any other show.

Yes, many shows do have gay characters, very few shows have Asian and hispanic leads.

For oh so long we have had gay performers. Was that politically correct?

The term politically correct is so often used out of context, just to cover and defend offensive behavior.

Yes, there are many gay characters on television. It is not a matter of political correctness, it is the networks giving audiences what they think they want to see. Ergo, the flood of low i.q. Police, courtroom, and medical dramas.

Black...ish, is one of the shows they think a large audience wants to see. I doubt that it will air ten episodes before being canceled.

Click to expand...

Yes and no, but to support your yes: that is why inappropriate contentography sells (or is actively viewed/sought). Not because there is any particularly good quality to it; not because it is 'entertaining' or brings a good message; but because it caters to the most low and base manifestation of the human libido.

On some level, all entertainment is made for the lowest common denominator minus a few niche sows, and every show tries to take up a specific portion of a specific demographic and fails if it does not do so.

It is worth noting that Television's primary demographic is female;

Check this out:

There are a few broadcast primetime series -- excluding
sports -- being watched by more men than women that are doing well, but they number a handful. The entire Fox Sunday animation block of The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, Bob's Burgers and The Cleveland
Show is watched by more men than women, and CBS newsmagazine 60 Minutes is watched by more men in the 18-49 demo than women by a slight margin.
The CBS freshman drama Vegas, the network's attemptto reach more men with a series, averages just a 1.7 among the 18-49 demo overall, and a 1.8 among women in the demo. At the other end of the success spectrum in the demo sits the Fox drama The Following which is averaging a 2.8 18-49 rating, and a 3.0 among women in the demo. And CBS drama Person
of Interest is also close in ratio, averaging a 2.7 in the demo overall,
and a 2.9 among women 18-49.

Click to expand...

Women Viewers Continue to Rule Broadcast Primetime | Broadcasting & Cable

Here is an example of some of those charts: Lexicalist.com - Demographics of Popular TV Shows

Men spend 40 minutes less in front of the TV and have far less 'appointment' shows, and they are 4 times more likely to say they enjoy watching sports, and women are twice more likely to say that they enjoy watching dramas, and even the very nature of what excites them about the same show is incredibly different:

His And Hers Tv: How Men's And Women's Viewing Habits Differ - Orlando Sentinel

Most of the shows are designed for women -- they are meant to pull at their heart stringes and fulfill their fantasies. I watch one popular drama with my girlfriend -- Grey's Anatomy. We got sucked into it because the first 1-2 seasons wasn't bad, and I keep watching personally to keep tabs on the mainstream culture's insanity on issues like sexuality.

Otherwise, the only shows I watch are my favorite comedies and sports.

It is interesting to note that the Iranian Television programming that I occasionally watch, which is geared towards women, tend to focus very much on motherhood and familial relationships, and as opposed to 'excitement' involving sexual adventures it involves the excitement around broken families, illness, etc. it is not as if you cannot create a show without appealing to some sexuality...

This brings up the point on why you are wrong:

Television is, always has been, and always will be, a tool for social manipulation by elites.

Iranian broadcasts favor family centered messages, religiosity, overcoming poverty or drug abuse as themes in cinema and TV; other popular foreign shows are often action ones or even Korean broadcasts because just like Iranian ones they tend to favor the same themes.

American broadcasts have always been pushing agendas and attempting to promote multiculturalism even from as early as I Love Lucy, and promoting feminism & multiculturalism throughout the sixties and seventies, and they have climaxed with the political messages over the last decade.

To think that you are not daily subjected to organized propaganda yet, say, an Iranian or a Russian is, but you are somehow the 'exception' is a bit silly.

All is social manipulation. All is bias.

Attitudes are changing, and people are becoming much more tolerant and comfortable with homosexuals being able live open lives. Political correctness or common decency?

Click to expand...

That is because we have been under propaganda bombardment since the 90s on the gay issues; it's been the last few years it has been ratcheted up. Even just watch the whole course of a series lie Law & Order and you will see this amazing evolution.

stevevw said:

Because once you point out the consequences of these decisions and actions you are also showing that they are wrong in the first place.

Click to expand...

How? There are risks associated with all forms of sexuality. How do the risks make something 'wrong'?

But secular society doesn't normally get into rights and wrongs as far as a persons sexuality is concerned.

Click to expand...

That's wrong. All kinds of people make judgements about all kinds of things.

Specialists can point out the data that shows how being a homosexual is something that is caused by different reasons to do with physical, psychological and emotional problems that make a person become maladjusted to the normal way a person should be. But I am not sure if thats an argument against being gay.

Click to expand...

Neither do I. It would be like trying to argue that being male is 'wrong'. Or female. Or Caucasian. Or black.

If you start getting into saying that this person is wrong and its an argument against them for being like this or that then you are bringing in moral judgements I believe which is not what the OP was about.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you understand much of what the OP was about.

stevevw said:

Because once you point out the consequences of these decisions and actions you are also showing that they are wrong in the first place. But secular society doesn't normally get into rights and wrongs as far as a persons sexuality is concerned. Specialists can point out the data that shows how being a homosexual is something that is caused by different reasons to do with physical, psychological and emotional problems that make a person become maladjusted to the normal way a person should be. But I am not sure if thats an argument against being gay. If you start getting into saying that this person is wrong and its an argument against them for being like this or that then you are bringing in moral judgements I believe which is not what the OP was about.

Click to expand...

Those wouldn't be specialists, they would be liars who are posting false data to demonize gays. No evidence suggests homosexuality is caused by the bolded.

Homosexuality may not be promoted* on Christian Forums. Homosexuality may only be discussed, without promotion, in our Congregation forums. Homosexuality may also be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues.

http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_rule_0

Thread closed.

After Staff Review, this topic will remain closed as it violates the Homosexuality rule.