Why is homosexuality bad?

[The Bellman]

This post is aimed at those who think that homosexuality is in some way wrong. I would like to know just why you think it is wrong. Please note that I understand that some religious people believe that the god they worship has decreed that it is wrong/evil, and they therefore believe simply for that reason that it is wrong. But you must understand that in a world not ruled by your particular religious belief, other reasons must be found if you wish to convince those not of your religious belief that it is bad (for example, so they will enact laws against it). So I'm not after "because this scripture says it is" or "because it's the will of [insert deity]." What I'm after are reasons why it is bad for an individual or for the society of which he is a part, aside from theological or moral reasons (since those are neither testable nor objective).

Are there any such reasons?

 

[RVincent]

it's icky.

 

[Volos]

it is morally neutral just like heterosexuality.

 

[Volos]

it's icky.

your command of the English language is stunning.

 

[RVincent]

Your hasty generalization is fallacious.

 

[transientlife]

I won't touch on the moral aspect - just because it's way overdone.
But if you want to look at the nature argument, you could say that since no offspring can come of a homosexual union, then it could be considered 'wrong'. Perhaps the only time I would be against homosexual animals would be in the case of endangered species. In that case, they need to be actively heterosexual in order to preserve their species.
(hastily formed mini-rant) Transient say, what is just IS and there's not much that we can do about it. Homosexuality is not a disease, therefor a cure cannot be found for it. No matter of debate whether it's right or wrong will correct the fact that homosexual animals exist, those that are in some form of denial just need to learn to deal with it in one way or another. (end hastily formed mini-rant)

 

[Philosoft]

But if you want to look at the nature argument, you could say that since no offspring can come of a homosexual union, then it could be considered 'wrong'.

Ah, but the "nature argument" attempts to derive an "ought" from an "is," thereby committing the Naturalistic fallacy.

So, no, you can't condemn homosexuality purely via empiricism.

 

[Avatar]

On any interaction between 2 consenting adults, no third party has the right to condone or condemn. It's simply none of anyone else's business! IMO.

 

[zoe_uu]

it's icky.

The same could be said of heterosexuality.

 

[RVincent]

The same could be said of heterosexuality.

You're right. Maybe that's why I'm so lonely!

 

[GMRELIC]

the bad thing about homosexuality is the treatment they get from self rightous, judgemental, people, that are so busy trying to point out other peoples "short commings" that they don't see thier own.

 

[transientlife]

Ah, but the "nature argument" attempts to derive an "ought" from an "is," thereby committing the Naturalistic fallacy.

So, no, you can't condemn homosexuality purely via empiricism.

Hmm good points. Not my personal view, anyway (the whole nature deal), but thanks for the info.



Edited to add: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GMRELIC again.

 

[NHI]

Homosexuality~ in this case, gay sex always accomplishes nothing...
you have sex...with a purpose to procreate, say as you having eating to sustain life. Gax sex obviously doesn't meet the purpose, and neither would trying to "eat" by putting food anywhere but your mouth go ahead and accomplish nurishment.

Ah, but the "nature argument" attempts to derive an "ought" from an "is," thereby committing the Naturalistic fallacy.

So, no, you can't condemn homosexuality purely via empiricism.

what 'system' or 'theory' is missing?

 

[The Bellman]

Homosexuality~ in this case, gay sex always accomplishes nothing...
you have sex...with a purpose to procreate, say as you having eating to sustain life. Gax sex obviously doesn't meet the purpose, and neither would trying to "eat" by putting food anywhere but your mouth go ahead and accomplish nurishment.

Perhaps YOU have sex "with a purpose to procreate." Virtually nobody else does. The average woman in the western world has 1.8 children...so any time she has sex outside those two times that resulted in conception, it "accomplished nothing"? How ridiculous.

Like it or not, the vast majority of sex is had not to procreate, but to enjoy and grow closer to somebody. There is, of course, no reason why two gay people cannot use sex for this purpose, the same as the rest of us do.

 

[Volos]

Homosexuality~ in this case, gay sex always accomplishes nothing...
you have sex...with a purpose to procreate, say as you having eating to sustain life. Gax sex obviously doesn't meet the purpose, and neither would trying to "eat" by putting food anywhere but your mouth go ahead and accomplish nurishment.

You might have a point except for two things. First: you might have a point if heterosexual sex were only about procreation. However if sex among humans were only about procreation then one would think women would only be sexually receptive during estrus much like certain animals, cats, dogs, horses, cattle and men would neb sexually aroused only by the pheromones that women in estrous give off.



Second: you might have a point if the first were true and if homosexuality was only about sex. It isn’t.



As for your eating metaphor you need to consider intravenous feeing as well as PEG (percutaneous edoscopic gastrotomy) tubs and the like.

 

[transientlife]

Very good points, Volos. Long gone are the days-if they truly ever existed at all - that women and men had sex purely to procreate.

I read somewhere the only other animal on earth, other than the human, that has recreational sex is the dolphin (perhaps the apes, but don't quote me on those, dolphins I know for sure).

 

[Volos]

The bonobo and porpoises does as well.



But to my knowledge the only animals that engage in sex for purposes other than for procreation are humans, dolphins and porpoises and the bonobo.

 

[zoe_uu]

the bad thing about homosexuality is the treatment they get from self rightous, judgemental, people, that are so busy trying to point out other peoples "short commings" that they don't see thier own.

Exactly right.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GMRELIC again.

 

[Philosoft]

Homosexuality~ in this case, gay sex always accomplishes nothing...
you have sex...with a purpose to procreate, say as you having eating to sustain life. Gax sex obviously doesn't meet the purpose, and neither would trying to "eat" by putting food anywhere but your mouth go ahead and accomplish nurishment.

This is essentially just the naturalistic fallacy plus question begging. You're claiming there exists a predetermined "purpose" for sex-related structures and activities, and any activity that fails to accomplish said purpose can be condemned.

This appears to be functionalism gone horribly awry and is, in any case, wholly unsuited to deriving moral precepts from human behaviors.

what 'system' or 'theory' is missing?

Something that would allow us to generate moral precepts, I suppose.

 

[chalice_thunder]

Homosexuality~ in this case, gay sex always accomplishes nothing...
you have sex...with a purpose to procreate, say as you having eating to sustain life. Gax sex obviously doesn't meet the purpose, and neither would trying to "eat" by putting food anywhere but your mouth go ahead and accomplish nurishment.

Ummm - what do you mean that it accomplishes nothing? It has the potential to establish a close spiritual bond between 2 individuals, just like het sex. Just because there's no human life created as a result of the act, there can be wondrous humanity as a result of it.

It's probably time again to point out that sex is a wonderful gift - not dirty or nasty. And it's benefits include, but also go way beyond the procreation of children. Why would you want to deny 2 people who love each other the gift of this incredible bond?