1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Non-religious arguments against homosexuality

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Libertino, Dec 22, 2016.

  1. Libertino

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,195
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    This Side of the Enlightenment
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    It's no secret that the most popular and most commonly encountered arguments against homosexuality are religious in nature. These are arguments are difficult to counter because it requires accepting a belief in a particular interpretation of God, which cannot be easily argued against. If God exists and if this interpretation of God is correct, then homosexuality would necessarily be immoral.

    However, I am often curious about atheistic arguments against homosexuality, ones that don't rely on the eternally unresolved God question. One such argument I've heard is the "natural law" argument: that nature (with or without the aid of a God) has its own laws that humans can understand, that cultural moral systems are rooted in these laws. It follows then that sexual intercourse is primarily procreative and intercourse that is not procreative violates the natural law (read: "is immoral").

    How would you argue against a "natural law" argument against homosexuality or other non-religious arguments against homosexuality? What other arguments have you come across?
     
  2. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Anyone arguing natural law has a burden to prove that the existence of natural laws is purposive rather than morally insignificant successful mating outcomes, and that if nature does have purpose, intelligent beings have a moral obligation to follow it. There's precious little material to justify either of those arguments.

    The only other anti-homosexuality argument I've come across worth mentioning is that it's fairly universal among societies that homosexuality is or was condemned in society and in law, which is basically a social version of the laws of nature argument.

    Of course, an effective response to this, just as it is to the natural law argument, is to get its proponents to explain why the positive should be the normative (Hume's is ought fallacy). Then substantive reasons about family structures or the nature of gay sex have to come up if they acknowledge the fallacy, arguments which are either subject to the same fallacy or readily rebutted on expansion.
     
  3. Argentwing

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Messages:
    6,696
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    New England
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I don't buy the natural law argument either. If intercourse is inherently for reproduction and any other practice of it is deviant, then bazillions of straight people who like any form of sexual activity that doesn't directly facilitate babies are just as guilty.

    And furthermore, that argument also just means the sex itself is quote-unquote "immoral." Why would we be obliged to block all homosexual relations? It's safe to assume gay people might not choose to have straight relationships if gay ones are banned, so they would not be reproducing regardless. So all we are doing by stopping them from following their heart is causing pain. In my particular moral system, cruelty is much, MUCH more immoral than trying to follow some mandate of the universe, which is just another religion as I see it.

    TL;DR: You don't have to argue against a natural law standpoint because that assumes there is such a thing. All we know is that we are here. There is no irrefutable proof of a moral system coming from a source higher than ourselves.
     
    #3 Argentwing, Dec 22, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2016
  4. Libertino

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,195
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    This Side of the Enlightenment
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Great answers, everyone. I agree that these arguments are not particularly strong, but they are at least worthy of note for me, as they cannot simply dismissed with a difference of religious beliefs.

    What I've heard in relation to this argument is that we consider something "good" in accordance in how it conforms to its nature, so a "good human" is one who follows the natural law, and that seeking the good is a self-evident moral principle.
     
  5. Browncoat

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Zefram Cochrane's hometown.
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    The only one I've heard derives from a very old pop psychology platitude - that women and not men are the ones who are "emotionally suited" to properly raise children, and therefore two men should not be able to raise one.

    That was really his only argument though. He admitted to being fine with gay male couples who do not adopt and lesbian couples who do. :lol:

    Anyhow, I imagine most religious objectors would adopt a similar stance if they had to - "well children need both a mom and a dad raising them or they'll turn out wrong." And then they would claim that the only purpose of marriage is to have children when it came to homosexual marriage.
     
    #5 Browncoat, Dec 22, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2016
  6. Asking

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    New York
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    A few people
    To be honest, I think you have a fair case saying that the world is overpopulating, and if you're gonna have sex, then at least SOME people have to have it yield no result. Of course, we still want most people to so that we can keep up humanity, but we need some people not to have kids.

    Hope this helps. Bye!
     
  7. Creativemind

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    411
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Gender:
    Other
    Gender Pronoun:
    Other
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    As far as the natural law thing, you could argue that heterosexual couples should not be allowed to have oral or anal sex, or use any kind of birth control whatsoever. All of those things prevent procreation yet a lot of straight people want sex for just pleasure. What makes it different for homosexuals?

    You're right, I've never heard a good argument either.
     
  8. Asking

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    New York
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Yep, there's another concrete response.
     
  9. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    The only problem with this is that it's relatively easy to say that you universally oppose those sexual activities. It's a consistent principle if extremely rarely believed, and even if they'd never enforce it among straight people and don't really believe it, you can't prove that easily.

    Making that argument also leaves open relatively 'innocent' homophobia like the Dalai Lama's, whereby you condemn all sexual behaviour same-sex couples could ever have and claim that it isn't targeted.

    It's much better to openly argue in favour of gay sex, rather than letting them condemn all sex that isn't procreative among straight people as well.
     
    #9 Aussie792, Dec 22, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2016
  10. Kira

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Georgia
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    Some people
    As for the "unnatural" argument I tend to point out giraffes, spiders, and a few other critters and then ask them to find other species that are homophobic, then tell me what's natural. Maybe tell them to stop watching television and eating snack food because it's unnatural. :lol:

    The "but it doesn't make babies" argument: if well over half of the world is continuously making them non-stop and making the threat of overpopulation rise on a daily basis, it would actually help if a lot more people didn't make more babies. Plus, not every straight person is eager to birth an army either. Protection exists.

    I've heard the whole "but AIDS" argument before, easily dismissible by the fact that straight people get it too and proper precautions are a thing.

    The "but it's icky/was illegal" argument: Grow up, folks. Simple as that. :wink:

    The "but if they adopt they won't raise the kid right" argument, it's been shown clearly that gay parents don't turn kids into lunatics who act first and possibly think later. That medal still belongs to fundamentalists who seem to be as straight as it gets. My parents were straight, and I almost turned out to be an ignorant little bully before I found reason. Now that I've learned to think, I take the feelings of others into account and don't jab ancient texts down their throats.

    The whole "family values" argument, same applies to members of different races, things change and if you want to stay stuck in the past fine but don't drag the rest of us down with you because you refuse to accept the world is changing. You can go live in your mud hut and leave the "devil machines" like electronics and pencils to us, pretend you're a Neanderthal if it makes you happy but don't expect others to jump on the bus. Things progress for a reason, but you are allowed to exempt yourself if you enjoy hardship.

    And finally "I don't want my child exposed to you, or you will make them gay too" Oh, so it's like being a vampire then? I just go and induce fabulousness on your child and suddenly they're attracted to the same sex? If things worked like that your children are probably secretly mass murderers, knights, cyborgs, and sith lords from movies and video games.

    Religious arguments are pointless anyway, because not everyone is religious, or of that religion. I don't think any invisible man will wipe a town off the map and slay everyone for a few folks screwing in their homes. That threat doesn't work on me anymore.

    Pretty much all of the ones that don't directly say "Jesus/Zeus/Odin/Ra/Allah/Ganesh will destroy you!" I can think of or whatever. Hope I didn't go too overboard, I know I do that at times so remember it's not a personal attack.