Is Homosexuality Wrong from a non Biblical perspective?

[kopilo]

As this one currently sees it as disgusting, preferrably not, however were you to change enough variables dealing with history, biology, and GOd, then this one can't say.

If we changed the 'variables' we might also all be speaking spanish, japanese , etc, what is your point? That they don't have to do with sexual immorality over political baisness?

What does?.. now remember you can't use the Bible (and presumeably the God of the Bible) from the OP. YOu must also then define how what is right and what is wrong is brought about.

Ohh but it is possible to use the bible and not be biblical about it.

Such as, it seems incorrect to push someone's view point of a said text (eg bible) upon onto those who do not believe the said text to be true as if they were forced to accept these values, that would be taking away their freedom of choice.

Although one may say the same thing about thieves, thieves may have beliefs in which what they are doing is correct, 'stealing from the rich and giving to the poor' but this also impeeds on someone's rights to own goods as well as their right to use that good.

In a true communist/socialist society this may not be an issue because everyone may share a lot of things but in capitalistic societies this can and sometimes does cause a lot of critical problems, such as high unemployment due to corporation closure.

Where as homosexuals currently in many societies have as much economical influence as asexuals or unmarried couples.

 

[dawiyd]

Personally I don't think it is wrong in the slightest, coupled with the fact it occurs animal kingdom.

To deny a persons homosexuality as un-natural is to deny a starving mans hunger as un-healthy.

 

[Khalliqa]

The primary reason for our genitalia is procreation...

secondarily pleasure...

Pleasure is involved in procreation but certainly not the purpose for our existence.....

Homosexual behavior cannot produce life.....

thoughts feelings and emotions about another human being are very subjective.... people often have very deep mutual feelings for their animals.... I'm sure we can find scientific studies to support the pleasure that an animal would feel emotionally and physically from beastiality..... that does not make the behavior right....

if one looks through the prism of behavior for the greater good only then one is severly limited in understanding morality...

morality is not mere number.... it goes into quality....

humans were not randomly created.... life is not a random creation.....

there is thought behind our existence, and this consciousness has some idea of our purpose...

Homosexuality is deviant from the purpose of life...

gender was created for a reason....


and who says animals are perfectly in harmony with universal law....

there is a delicate balance to the universe, and we are always striving to right it...

surely if there is overpopulation one does not encourage deviant behavior...

one simply curtails their sexual proclivities..... but overpopulation for whom? the countries that overeat? overuse? overspend?

and surely homosexuals make a choice... no one forces them to develop feelings for one man over another or one woman over another... they choose....



also being a minority does not equal best......



Peace,
Khalliqa

 

[TricksterWolf]

This isn't a formal debate invite as much as a discussion. I would like to ask if anyone has a NON-biblical reason for thinking Homosexuality is wrong. This is seperate from promiscuity, bestiality or any other "sexual sins." I only want to know what reasons, if any, you have for believing homosexuality is wrong. This is open for christians or non-christians alike.

A few things about me. I do not consider myself a Christian, at least not in the fundamentalist sense. I do admire C.S. Lewis and his views. I'm agnostic about most things but most days I believe in a personal God. Lately I've been rediscovering my spirituality. I"m not gay myself--I'm very happily married and have son and daughter. I have a gay uncle and a gay boss and a few gay friends, so this issue is somewhat personal to me.

Thanks
Fregas

Any sexuality is dangerous: mentally and physically. But sexual relations between two people of the same sex is no more dangerous or morally questionable than sexual relations between two people of the opposite sex. There is no logical moral argument against homosexuality.

Gay men have a higher risk of certain STDs. Monogamous gay men do not. Gay women do not. AIDS is a disease that is very easy to catch from a man, not a "gay disease".

Trickster

 

[TricksterWolf]

Homosexuality is deviant from the purpose of life...

gender was created for a reason....

If homosexuality had no benefit to society it would not continue to exist with such high preponderance in social animals like bonobos and dolphins. It would be selected out and cease to be. Rather, it flourishes in nature. This doesn't mean it's morally right; it does mean it can be beneficial.

And none of this would mean that homosexuality is wrong. Saying "the purpose of X is Y" is still an appeal to your Biblical view of God's design.

Trickster

 

[TricksterWolf]

I see the sexual side of it as being wrong. Why in creation or evolution would we have two separate creatures (male and female) with two separate genitalia. And when put together they create another male or female. This cannot be with homosexuality.

But this argument suggests that homosexuality is wrong only because it isn't procreation. Then isn't it a moral imperative to produce as many children as possible? Should we all be polygamous and allow men to rape women who refuse sex, in order to ensure the maximum amount of offspring?

Choosing not to produce children is not inherently immoral, and the goal of life isn't to make as many women pregnant as possible. We need families without children to adopt children, because there are too many kids uncared for already.

Trickster

 

[Khalliqa]

If homosexuality had no benefit to society it would not continue to exist with such high preponderance in social animals like bonobos and dolphins. It would be selected out and cease to be. Rather, it flourishes in nature. This doesn't mean it's morally right; it does mean it can be beneficial.

And none of this would mean that homosexuality is wrong. Saying "the purpose of X is Y" is still an appeal to your Biblical view of God's design.

Trickster

murder continues to exist and in general societies and those that are enlighten recognize this as something that should not exist.... though there are exceptions...

benefit should not determine right or wrong exclusively...

one can find exception and benefit in anything....

this is why morality is important.....

God does not deal strictly in numbers or elementary pleasure or pain arguments.... both have their place.... but morality is deeper than this.... though to those who live a certain life it really is quite simple....

purpose is not biblical....

but it is creationist...

scientist deal with what happens and rarely venture into why....

like reading a book .... scientists read the words... count the words.... compare the words of one page to another....

reading comprehension requires one to tap into the mind of the author.... the words must come together to have meaning, purpose and direction.... lest one really miss the whole point of the story........


such is with life....



Peace,
Khalliqa

 

[TricksterWolf]

murder continues to exist and in general societies and those that are enlighten recognize this as something that should not exist.... though there are exceptions...

benefit should not determine right or wrong exclusively...

This is not a correct allegory. Homosexuality is proven beneficial because it continues to exist despite the fact that it directly selects against itself. You can't make an allegory to murder because a murderer can still father children.

You could make an allegory to suicide. I would agree that suicide is somewhat beneficial to society and is also immoral, but homosexuals are hardly committing suicide by engaging in a relationship with someone they love. Plus, homosexuals are unlikely to change over the course of their lives.

None of this makes homosexuality immoral.

Trickster

 

[Khalliqa]

This is not a correct allegory. Homosexuality is proven beneficial because it continues to exist despite the fact that it directly selects against itself. You can't make an allegory to murder because a murderer can still father children.

^^I was responding to your statement that it is not beneficial only...

and used an example of another behavior that has benefit but is considered immoral....

in this light, the analogy is appropriate...


though I could still make an analogy to a murderer fathering children if I wanted to....

because a murderer kills... ceases life... he can father children, but he also takes a way life..

a homosexual can father children if he so desires... but the chosen act to sexually interact with his/her own sex takes away the possibility of life...

the very act of being a murderer is antithethical to life...

the very act of homosexuality is antithetical to procreation.....

but that wasn't my point...

You could make an allegory to suicide. I would agree that suicide is somewhat beneficial to society and is also immoral, but homosexuals are hardly committing suicide by engaging in a relationship with someone they love. Plus, homosexuals are unlikely to change over the course of their lives.

None of this makes homosexuality immoral.

Trickster

That depends on your standard of morality...

or if you have one at all.....


Peace and Blessings,

Khalliqa

 

[HunterRose]

benefit should not determine right or wrong exclusively...

You have just demolished your own argument.

you say benefit does not determine right or wrong but then ignore this when you state that being homosexual is wrong because it does not procreate (benefit).

 

[Khalliqa]

You have just demolished your own argument.

you say benefit does not determine right or wrong but then ignore this when you state that being homosexual is wrong because it does not procreate (benefit).

No....

My argument goes to purpose.... there is benefit in the purpose....


the purpose is to procreate....

whether or not this is beneficial to human beings is a separate argument...

but since you bring it up...my point still stands.. my statement was benefit should not determine right or wrong exclusively...

meaning one should not operate from a purely utilitarian view to assess what is best for society....

purpose is not strictly utilitarian... though it may encompass aspects of utilitarianism....


Peace,
Khalliqa

 

[Cerberus~]

the purpose is to procreate....

What are we, cattle?

Our only "purpose" is to live a fulfilling life. We're past the stage of humanity going extinct due to lack of procreation. Matter of fact, considering a third of the world goes to bed hungry every night, maybe we should leave them alone, and not worry so much about them not making babies, and a bit more about the millions of babies that are starving and dying in the world.

The notion that homosexuality is wrong because it's "unnatural", against our nature, or against our "purpose" reduces us to mere machines. Those arguements are seriously flawed.

 

[kopilo]

Even some animals will not procreate as much if their environment changes.

 

[MoonlessNight]

What are we, cattle?

Our only "purpose" is to live a fulfilling life. We're past the stage of humanity going extinct due to lack of procreation. Matter of fact, considering a third of the world goes to bed hungry every night, maybe we should leave them alone, and not worry so much about them not making babies, and a bit more about the millions of babies that are starving and dying in the world.

The notion that homosexuality is wrong because it's "unnatural", against our nature, or against our "purpose" reduces us to mere machines. Those arguements are seriously flawed.

I think that she means the purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. In fact after referring to her original post I'm almost certain that's what she meant.

 

[Khalliqa]

What are we, cattle?

No... we are not...

these were my statements initially

"The primary reason for our genitalia is procreation...

secondarily pleasure...

Our only "purpose" is to live a fulfilling life.

What determines a fulfilling life differs among human beings... hence why we have discussions about how we see life....

a fulfilling life is very subjective.... including being in harmony with universal laws and order, God's dictates or self service and pleasure... what fulfills us is not at issue here... again, at any rate it is subjective...

the purpose of one's organs is not so subjective...

We're past the stage of humanity going extinct due to lack of procreation.

The last statistic I read was 6 months ago, stating that Europeans were at zero population growth along with some Arab countries like Iraq....

some parts of humanity are undergoing the reverse process of proliferation.....

Matter of fact, considering a third of the world goes to bed hungry every night, maybe we should leave them alone, and not worry so much about them not making babies, and a bit more about the millions of babies that are starving and dying in the world.

For sure, if that was the discussion, surely we can focus on the topic at hand.... without throwing out gross red herrings...

I'm quite sure if this was a sincere concern of yours you wouldn't give THIS topic the time of day.... you would be too busy supporting in reality those people..... don't get haughty on the internet.... if you're serious you wouldn't have time to argue with me about the "fulfillment" of the homosexual lifestyle...

The notion that homosexuality is wrong because it's "unnatural", against our nature, or against our "purpose" reduces us to mere machines. Those arguements are seriously flawed.

If that was my position solely you'd halfway have a point.. but it wasn't..... you came in at the tail end of a back and forth discussion....



Peace....

Khalliqa

 

[Khalliqa]

I think that she means the purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. In fact after referring to her original post I'm almost certain that's what she meant.

Gracias....




Peace,
Khalliqa

 

[HunterRose]

No... we are not...

these were my statements initially

"The primary reason for our genitalia is procreation...

secondarily pleasure...

According to who?

You?

Aside from your personal desire to justify discrimination why should we accept your claim that this is so?

The last statistic I read was 6 months ago, stating that Europeans were at zero population growth along with some Arab countries like Iraq....

some parts of humanity are undergoing the reverse process of proliferation.....

Considering the planet has about twice the human population it can handle…why is this a bad thing?

 

[HunterRose]

and surely homosexuals make a choice... no one forces them to develop feelings for one man over another or one woman over another... they choose....

I’ve lost track of the number of times I have run into that little lie.

 

[HunterRose]

The primary reason for our genitalia is procreation...

secondarily pleasure...

Pleasure is involved in procreation but certainly not the purpose for our existence.....

Homosexual behavior cannot produce life.....

Neither can the infertile heterosexual. Question: should the infertile heterosexual be subjected to the same discrimination and justifications of prejudice that you apply to gays and lesbians?

 

[HunterRose]

No....

My argument goes to purpose.... there is benefit in the purpose....


the purpose is to procreate....

whether or not this is beneficial to human beings is a separate argument...

] but your self defined “benefit” of procreation is the only thing you use in your justification of prejudice against gays and lesbians.


You attack and denounce an entire minority based on your presumption that because as a rule gays and lesbians do not reproduce (though a significant number do have children whether through such mechanisms as artificial insemination and/or adoption) and nothing else.

but since you bring it up...my point still stands.. my statement was benefit should not determine right or wrong exclusively...

But it is the only justification for prejudice you bring up

meaning one should not operate from a purely utilitarian view to assess what is best for society....

purpose is not strictly utilitarian... though it may encompass aspects of utilitarianism....

And we are back to my point that the infertile heterosexual cannot reproduce…therefore is it moral subjected infertile heterosexuals to the same discrimination and justifications of prejudice that you use against gays and lesbians?