Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

[Baelor]

DISCLAIMER: I am Catholic and believe that gay sex is morally wrong, and therefore am simply pointing out problems in the OP's post (from the perspective of an atheist).

As some have noted, the OP's post very obviously fails to convince because it contains a priori assumptions that are easily revealed as problematic.

In particular,

1)... Males and males can't naturally procreate, nor can humans procreate with animals. So if natural procreation is not possible between a male and male, or female and female, this makes homosexuality a disorder of sexual preference and an unnatural act...

This does not matter. Why should we care what is "natural" in this case? So what if it is disordered?

...Our sexuality was created to be expressed between the male and female genders as they are both biologically compatible with each other and can procreate.

"Created" is an evolutionary sense, sure. And what does this matter?

...Therefore any sexual expression between people of the same gender is disordered and unnatural...

Again, irrelevant. This is not even an argument. It requires other assumptions in order to be compelling, ones that the OP has not laid out. In other words, in order to accept this natural law argument, I need to accept natural law. The OP has presented no reason whatsoever for doing so.

...In reality the only acceptable sexual relationship is between people of opposite genders(male and female), of appropriate age(where procreation is possible and the parents are mature enough to raise a child) and the persons procreating are not related(so no negative effects of inbreeding occur)...

Non-sequitur for the above reason.

...Even people in incestuousness relationships have a right to love each other sexually, can be used to justify incestuousness relationships in the future...

Untrue. Incest has genetic implications that homosexuality does not.

Originally Posted by fix

That is not accurate at all. The act must reatin its relationship to procreation, not each act must achieve conception.

Why should I accept this?

Flying is not against the natural moral law at all.

What natural moral law? I see nothing about this in the OP's post, and therefore mention of it is irrelevant.

You go on to state that homosexual behavior does not harm anyone. I would advise you to read the arguments counter to that claim. Societal acceptance of homosexuality leads to an observable decay in sexual ethics in general, helping to spread acceptance of promiscuity, which leads to the spread and development of STDs, and so on.

None of that is necessarily inherent to gay sex being considered morally acceptable. And what you define as "sexual ethics," others may define as behavior with no moral overtones whatsoever.

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by JABA

1) The main purpose and function of sexual expression and sexuality is for procreation. Even my anatomy and physiology lecturer at university stated that "all you young people think that sex was created for fun, but it's not. Sex was created for procreation. If there was no need for procreation, there would be no need for sex, and it would not exist.". Males and males can't naturally procreate, nor can humans procreate with animals. So if natural procreation is not possible between a male and male, or female and female, this makes homosexuality a disorder of sexual preference and an unnatural act. Just like pedophilia and zoophilia are unnatural acts.

Procreation can be accomplished without sex. Single cell organisms, and even insects, do it all the time. Some reptiles can reproduce asexually. Therefore, if the goal is reproduction, sex is certainly not the only means and the purpose of sex is not procreation. In other words, the procreation problem had already been solved when sex was invented. Sex had some other purpose, and there is some debate as to what that purpose was. Some people believe sex was invented in order to hinder the spread of parasites or serve some nuanced genetic functions.

[fix]

Originally Posted by Baelor

Why should I accept this?

You do not have to. People know abortion kills a baby and are presented with all types of arguments they reject. The problem is not always the argument. The problem is often the hearer.

What natural moral law?

Right reason.


We have to define our terms before we can get off the ground.

[Baelor]

Originally Posted by fix

You do not have to. People know abortion kills a baby and are presented with all types of arguments they reject. The problem is not always the argument. The problem is often the hearer.

The issue of the state of life of a foetus is a scientific question, not a moral one. Whether abortion "kills a baby" involves no component of morality whatsoever. Whether gay sex is wrong is a moral question -- you can easily see this from the terminology one must use to frame both. Again, read the OP, read my post, and get back to me when you can respond to my actual "claims."

Right reason.

A ha! Now we have something. Convince me that this concept both exists and dictates particular outcomes, and we can proceed.

[kch86]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

Procreation can be accomplished without sex. Single cell organisms, and even insects, do it all the time. Some reptiles can reproduce asexually. Therefore, if the goal is reproduction, sex is certainly not the only means and the purpose of sex is not procreation. In other words, the procreation problem had already been solved when sex was invented. Sex had some other purpose, and there is some debate as to what that purpose was. Some people believe sex was invented in order to hinder the spread of parasites or serve some nuanced genetic functions.

There is a difference between the purpose of sex - procreation - and nature's choice of method for it - the reason why nature insists that it should be sex specifically that should serve that purpose.

The reason for sexual reproduction from an evolutionary perspective is to increase the robustness of the species by insisting on the mixing of genetic material. That is why nature has decided that humans are only to reproduce sexually - to increase the robustness of the species. But the purpose of sex itself is none other than procreation and there is no alternative method for humans to procreate.

[Serious]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

The fact that most people pursue sex for wrong reasons doesn't make it right.

Who says that having sex for pleasure is wrong? You see, this whole thread reminds me of a book by Lee Strobel, (A Case for whatever...) in which he tries to "emulate" an atheist and present atheist arguments. He fails ridiculously. You guys have no idea how an atheist argues (despite the fact that quite a few gave examples). So stick to your religion-based arguments, and you will be fine.

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

And to say procreation would be impossible without pleasure is laughably absurd. If people want children and know how to make them, they can and will do so, with or without finding pleasure in it.

Only humans will act that way. Animals would never engage in procreation if they would not be "forced" by the pleasurable aspect. Humans are different in this respect. Nevertheless most pregnancies are unplanned. If a pregnancy would only occur if both partners wanted it to happen, then there would be much fewer instancies of it (and there would be no abortions). How come that god, in his infinite wisdom did not stumble upon this easy and perfect solution?

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

Also, saying that procreation is an unlucky byproduct of sex is ridiculous. Pleasure is the by product. Procreation is the purpose.

In 95% of the cases it is not. The purpose is only in the eyes of the participants. And most of the time, they do not want it.

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

You go on to state that homosexual behavior does not harm anyone. I would advise you to read the arguments counter to that claim. Societal acceptance of homosexuality leads to an observable decay in sexual ethics in general, helping to spread acceptance of promiscuity, which leads to the spread and development of STDs, and so on.

Hogwash. Ever since the dawn of time, the OLD people in every generation complained about the decrease of "morals", lamenting that the new generation deviates from the virtuous forefathers. "O tempora, o mores" - said Cicero. Nonsense. Our morals change, of course, and in the eyes of some they keep deteriorating. Who cares what those people say? The good old times are today.

[Iowa7681]

Originally Posted by Baelor

DISCLAIMER: I am Catholic and believe that gay sex is morally wrong, and therefore am simply pointing out problems in the OP's post (from the perspective of an atheist).

As some have noted, the OP's post very obviously fails to convince because it contains a priori assumptions that are easily revealed as problematic.

This does not matter. Why should we care what is "natural" in this case? So what if it is disordered?

"Created" is an evolutionary sense, sure. And what does this matter?

Again, irrelevant. This is not even an argument. It requires other assumptions in order to be compelling, ones that the OP has not laid out. In other words, in order to accept this natural law argument, I need to accept natural law. The OP has presented no reason whatsoever for doing so.

Non-sequitur for the above reason.

Untrue. Incest has genetic implications that homosexuality does not.

Why should I accept this?

What natural moral law? I see nothing about this in the OP's post, and therefore mention of it is irrelevant.

None of that is necessarily inherent to gay sex being considered morally acceptable. And what you define as "sexual ethics," others may define as behavior with no moral overtones whatsoever.

Bravo Baelor, very well explained.

It seems near impossible for a reasoned, logical explanation to be put forth that does rely on a priori, as you said, that would not hold in a secular discussion. "Natural Law" in particular is a huge land mine that people jump up and down on. Even if you could somehow squeeze that rationale into a secular discussion (which is a very tall order) I would still have to subscribe to you or your faiths particular interpretation.

As pointed out, most of the points in the OP are either A) irrelevant in a secular society and B) entirely dependent on agreeing with a particular interpretation of specific moral interpretations.

None of this is to say that anyone should change their beliefs, or, that those beliefs are in and of themselves wrong. It simply means there is no no-theistic logic that would support enforcing your particular views on another. Seems simple to me...

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by Baelor

This does not matter. Why should we care what is "natural" in this case? So what if it is disordered?

Indeed, if we were to require everything to have a stated purpose, and outlawed any contravention of that purpose, then I think there would be a lot of people in jail for their creative use of duct tape.

[Charlemagne II]

Baelor

This does not matter. Why should we care what is "natural" in this case? So what if it is disordered?

A secularist does not have to be a Catholic theologian to believe that sodomy is a disordered condition. Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Jefferson (none of them Catholics) could easily see the violation of the natural order in sodomy.

Nor does it take a rocket scientist for anyone else to see that.

Common sense should prevail. The male penis was not designed for the male or female anus.
It hurts! As any man in prison who is victim of it could tell you.

[mgreen77]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

Common sense should prevail. The male penis was not designed for the male or female anus.

True, which makes it an impractical act, but why the leap to immoral?

Listening to music, enjoying art or a moonrise... all pointless and impractical uses of my senses. Why is homosexual sex different?

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by kch86

There is a difference between the purpose of sex - procreation - and nature's choice of method for it - the reason why nature insists that it should be sex specifically that should serve that purpose.

The reason for sexual reproduction from an evolutionary perspective is to increase the robustness of the species by insisting on the mixing of genetic material. That is why nature has decided that humans are only to reproduce sexually - to increase the robustness of the species. But the purpose of sex itself is none other than procreation and there is no alternative method for humans to procreate.

I will still argue that procreation is not the true purpose. As you have indicated, robustness of the species is what nature cares about. Therefore, I claim that the purpose of sex is not individual procreation, but rather protection of the species.

[Serious]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

Common sense should prevail. The male penis was not designed for the male or female anus.

I don't think that going into technical details would be advised - especially considering the possible underage audiance. So it should suffice to say that your imagination is very limited. Shame, shame...

[prodigalson2011]

Originally Posted by Serious

Who says that having sex for pleasure is wrong? You see, this whole thread reminds me of a book by Lee Strobel, (A Case for whatever...) in which he tries to "emulate" an atheist and present atheist arguments. He fails ridiculously. You guys have no idea how an atheist argues (despite the fact that quite a few gave examples). So stick to your religion-based arguments, and you will be fine.

Au contraire, mon frere. I know exactly how an atheist would argue because I was one for over 10 years. Of course, the question of whether sex solely for pleasure is wrong is a moral question, and you're free, as an atheist, to throw moral questions out the window. But if one goes, they all go. If, on the other hand, you accept the existence of morality, you must at least consider the reasoning behind the argument for sexual morality, including effects on health, physical as well as psychological, individual as well as societal. For example, fact: before the normalization of contraception and premarital sex, there were 3 common STDs. There are now somewhere in the area of 27. Fact: births out of wedlock have increased astronomically since said normalization. This has ben shown to contribute to a host of problems; behavioral, financial, etc. I could go on, but I won't.

Only humans will act that way. Animals would never engage in procreation if they would not be "forced" by the pleasurable aspect. Humans are different in this respect. Nevertheless most pregnancies are unplanned. If a pregnancy would only occur if both partners wanted it to happen, then there would be much fewer instancies of it (and there would be no abortions). How come that god, in his infinite wisdom did not stumble upon this easy and perfect solution?

This is just plain false. Animals are driven to the sex act by chemical signals, I.e. pheromones, and instinct. Hence why they only have sex when the female is in heat (putting out high amounts of pheromones.) Very few animal species derive pleasure from sex.
I've heard speculation on dolphins and bonobos, but there is still debate on even those cases.

In 95% of the cases it is not. The purpose is only in the eyes of the participants. And most of the time, they do not want it.

This makes even less sense from an atheist's perspective than a theist's. From a materialistic stance, the subjective experience of an organism is itself a byproduct of natural chemical processes, so the "purpose" of the intellect is, prima facie, secondary to the physical/chemical purpose.

Hogwash. Ever since the dawn of time, the OLD people in every generation complained about the decrease of "morals", lamenting that the new generation deviates from the virtuous forefathers. "O tempora, o mores" - said Cicero. Nonsense. Our morals change, of course, and in the eyes of some they keep deteriorating. Who cares what those people say? The good old times are today.

And what happened to those societies? They collapsed. Suffered widespread malady, disease, poverty, etc. Even now, our economy is collapsing as there are more elderly people dependent on a younger generation whom they outnumber, I believe, about 4 to 1. Out population is below the replacement rate (read: going extinct.)

[Serious]

Originally Posted by fix

But, I was responding to your post. The reasoning I expressed can certainly be known from secular logic. It is not an issue of divine revelation.

This is what you said: "The act must reatin its relationship to procreation, not each act must achieve conception". Why "must"? If someone wishes to undergo a tube ligation, or if the ovaries are removed, or if the uterus itself is removed, there is no more "relationship" to procreation.

Originally Posted by fix

How are you using the word harm?

The same as everyone else.

[Serious]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

I know exactly how an atheist would argue because I was one for over 10 years.

Not all atheists are "created" equal.

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

Of course, the question of whether sex solely for pleasure is wrong is a moral question, and you're free, as an atheist, to throw moral questions out the window.

There are all sorts of levels of "morality".

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

But if one goes, they all go.

You gotta be kidding. I have not seen such a strange idea for a long time.

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

If, on the other hand, you accept the existence of morality, you must at least consider the reasoning behind the argument for sexual morality, including effects on health, physical as well as psychological, individual as well as societal. For example, fact: before the normalization of contraception and premarital sex, there were 3 common STDs. There are now somewhere in the area of 27. Fact: births out of wedlock have increased astronomically since said normalization. This has ben shown to contribute to a host of problems; behavioral, financial, etc. I could go on, but I won't.

This argument is called the fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

I've heard speculation on dolphins and bonobos, but there is still debate on even those cases.

And those are very important cases, indeed. The dolphins could be still debated, but the sexual behavior of bonobos (make love, not war) is very well established. Their morality is far superior to the humans.

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

This makes even less sense from an atheist's perspective than a theist's. From a materialistic stance, the subjective experience of an organism is itself a byproduct of natural chemical processes, so the "purpose" of the intellect is, prima facie, secondary to the physical/chemical purpose.

Sure. So what? We are all pleasure-seeking and pain avoiding animals (except a fwe mentally disturbed ones).

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

And what happened to those societies? They collapsed. Suffered widespread malady, disease, poverty, etc.

And other, external socities waging wars on them.

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

Even now, our economy is collapsing as there are more elderly people dependent on a younger generation whom they outnumber, I believe, about 4 to 1. Out population is below the replacement rate (read: going extinct.)

Sure. Dumb goverment policies, which have nothing to do with sexual "morality".