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

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 20 by Wootah]

I don't need to argue from evolution if you can't present a secular argument against homosexuality.

The secular argument is that homosexuality fails at basic pattern matching.

The thing is, the pegs DO fit holes other than the ones you have in mind. What makes your preferred pattern the correct one?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 31 by Bust Nak]

I have to hold onto rationalism here. I can't see any counter argument once someone says that. I hope in less emotional matters you do not think that way.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 31 by Bust Nak]

I have to hold onto rationalism here. I can't see any counter argument once someone says that. I hope in less emotional matters you do not think that way.

Here is the problem from my point of view. You cannot seem to show that your view is even rational.

You talk about pegs and holes, and when it is pointed out that those very same pegs and holes do actually fit, you then insinuate that them happening to also fit is somehow irrational and that this is just being said for emotional reasons.

The pegs and holes fit in the real world, so you need to explain how you are being rational. Until then, it would seem that perhaps your argument is the one based on emotions.

[Bust Nak]

I have to hold onto rationalism here. I can't see any counter argument once someone says that. I hope in less emotional matters you do not think that way.

Whether a peg fits into a hole or not, is a matter of physical dimension, where do you think emotion come into this?

If you are denying that the peg fits a varieties of holes, then without going in graphic description, you are simply wrong.

A final point, my pinkie fits very nicely into my nostril, my index finger, less so; what, if anything, does that say about the morality of nose picking?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 32 by Wootah]

Can you demonstrate that the peg does not fit?

Can you demonstrate people do not get a release of serotonin by receiving said peg or smelting said peg?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 32 by Wootah]

Can you demonstrate that the peg does not fit?

Can you demonstrate people do not get a release of serotonin by receiving said peg or smelting said peg?

Also, if a women is 'tongue darting the fart box' of a man for example, would the pegs then be fitting? Or only if a man was to do this to another man? (Or woman to woman).

I mention this because the tongues between a man and a women are not all that different. Unlike the 'pegs' I assume he was talking about before. In this instance, the pegs would be irrelevant I would think, so I wonder where (and why) he would stand on this type of sex. How are the 'pegs' even relevant?

[Haven]

[Replying to post 26 by Wootah]

It always amazes me how explicit people opposed to homosexuality will get when describing certain sexual acts that some gay men (always men) engage in. I thought the whole point of opposition to homosexuality was sexual conservatism (you know, the idea that non-heterosexual sex is dirty/sinful)?

I can guarantee you that gay people don't go around thinking about heterosexual sexual acts in such gory detail. As long as there is consent (between adults, without coercion), why would anyone care what people do in the bedroom? Who cares if "pegs fit?"

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 26 by Wootah]

It always amazes me how explicit people opposed to homosexuality will get when describing certain sexual acts that some gay men (always men) engage in. I thought the whole point of opposition to homosexuality was sexual conservatism (you know, the idea that non-heterosexual sex is dirty/sinful)?

I can guarantee you that gay people don't go around thinking about heterosexual sexual acts in such gory detail. As long as there is consent (between adults, without coercion), why would anyone care what people do in the bedroom? Who cares if "pegs fit?"

Because the bible by and large doesn't address Lesbian activity. The only thing that comes remotely close is a dubious interpretations from Paul(it could equally be talking about prostitution). All comments about Lesbians is found strictly in Romans. It is not found in any of the commandments. I figure this is a win for sexism, after all if the bible treated women equally I figure scissor sisters would find themselves more vocally despised.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 33 by Clownboat]

If you argue for determinism then harm is not part of the equation.

It's like blaming a fire for burning you.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 33 by Clownboat]

If you argue for determinism then harm is not part of the equation.

It's like blaming a fire for burning you.

Wootah this is hardly even related at this point. You have the burden of proof to support your claims.

1. That there is a secular argument against homosexuality
2. That the pegs don't fit in the holes

At some point you have to actually support your claims or run aground of violating the unsubstantiated claims rule.