Homosexuality a non religious issue?

[DanieltheDragon]

I think this is all smoke screen. Forget religion Z, I do a lot more than you think. Disagreeing with homosexual marriage is not about religion but reality.

Homosexuality is a non religious issue. Nobody has any benefit in a great range of activities from homosexuality to head butting a brick wall. No one wants to be a homosexual, just like no one wants to be blind. So why enshrine homosexuality?

Since that is true then really what is the motive behind gay marriage?

Mostly it's about sacrificing one group of people to our own needs. I want to live a certain way and so I will fight that they can live how they want as well.

The fact that God in the Bible is for traditional marriage is a bonus.

Is there a secular reason to be against homosexuality?

Do homosexuals hate their homosexuality?

Is the reason for gay marriage sacrificing one group for our own needs?


From:http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 91&start=0

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 10 by DanieltheDragon]

Using animals is only ever selection bias. And again it's absurd to reference animals To justify your actions.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 10 by DanieltheDragon]

Using animals is only ever selection bias. And again it's absurd to reference animals To justify your actions.

why?

feel free to make a secular argument. instead of saying they are absurd and explain why. Calling something absurd is not an argument and animals were not my only point but augmented the many points I made.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 6 by Clownboat]

My argument is silly - that's the point.

Was it also the point for your argument to defeat itself? Seems counter productive.

In any non emotional context people do not have difficulty putting square pegs in square holes. That will always be the root secular rational argument.

We are not talking about square pegs. I assume you know this. What I asked was:
"Please be specific. Which hole do you refer to that homosexuals use, but at the same time can't use because it doesn't fit?" You know, square peg/round hole.

Intellectually it's silly to believe homosexuality is normal.

People cannot control their skin color. I cannot control who I am attracted to. Therefore, to call something we are that we can't control, that doesn't harm others, "not normal", is unjustified it seems. Also cruel IMO.

Celebrating it is always going to be nonsense.

What!?! Even the committed, loving relationships are nonsense? I would assume the humans involved in such relationships would disagree with you. Therefore, I must assume what you said above is just your opinion. I do need to ask, why are you worried about needing to celebrate it? Are you worried that your government will pass laws that force you to celebrate? I'm truly confused on this point.

It's only ever been an emperor's new clothes issue and the issue will be how much power the emperor has to make you see his splendid gown.

I disagree.
You would need to prove the issue you claim. The issue that I witness, is that we have some humans trying to restrict or condemn an act they cherish for themselves from other humans.

None of which doesn't mean I don't care or have compassion for my fellow man.

You go right on showing how much you care and how much compassion you have by saying things like:
"It's like saying 1 + 1 = 3."
"Anyone can see where the bits are meant to go." (Which you dodged clarifying when asked).
"here we are trying to convince ourselves that homosexuality is normal."
"Intellectually it's silly to believe homosexuality is normal."
"Celebrating it is always going to be nonsense."

Your compassion in this instance just about brings tears to my eyes.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 10 by DanieltheDragon]

Using animals is only ever selection bias. And again it's absurd to reference animals To justify your actions.

why?

feel free to make a secular argument. instead of saying they are absurd and explain why. Calling something absurd is not an argument and animals were not my only point but augmented the many points I made.

To recap Wootah's arguments made so far:
- Using animals is only ever selection bias. And again it's absurd to reference animals To justify your actions.
- It's like saying 1 + 1 = 3.
- Anyone can see where the bits are meant to go.
- here we are trying to convince ourselves that homosexuality is normal.
- Intellectually it's silly to believe homosexuality is normal.
- Celebrating it is always going to be nonsense.

IMO, it would seem foolish to expect a reasoned argument at this point, but here is to hoping.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 12 by DanieltheDragon]

Because animals do things that we would not want to allow humans to do without punishment. Actually it's anthropomorphism at work.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wootah]

We are animals though. Different cultures do things that would be punished or not punish by other cultures does that mean we cant learn from other cultures?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 16 by DanieltheDragon]

Because it's selective bias. Let's pick all the animals where the female eats the male after sex. Or have you heard about ducks and apparently rape is super common in that species?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 13 by Clownboat]

Skin colour is not a good argument. Apart from horrid undertones of implying racism, skin colour falls under a range of genetic phenotypes such as height or hair color that have little effect on behaviour.

It means you are arguing for determinism. And if you really believe in determinism then you have to be fair and accept that others may be wired for murder or rape. It's worse than that of course. You have to believe we are not responsible for anything.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by DanieltheDragon]

Because it's selective bias. Let's pick all the animals where the female eats the male after sex. Or have you heard about ducks and apparently rape is super common in that species?

You are misunderstandingthe application of selection bias. We are talking about homosexaulity and the effect it has on a species. It is pertinent to examine species with homosexual behavior. Most commonly it is in social species. Then we ask why does it show up in social species? Is there a benefits to a species that have homosexual behavior?

It turns out there is, see my other points listed. Even in primates(including humans) studies have shown families with homosexauls tend to be more fertile. It appears to be an evolutionary ADVANTAGE to a species.


You can spend all day ranting about selection bias and ignore everything I have presented that STILL Does not make a secular argument against homosexaulity. The burden is on you to prove it has a negative impact on our species.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 19 by DanieltheDragon]

I don't think you want to argue from evolution. It can be argued from evolution that depression, suicide, bullying and any number of activities are actually evolutionarily beneficial.

And especially since evolution is all about survivng and reproducing ... just some of us get to feel warm and fuzzy about others actually doing the reproducing.