Are there any non-religious arguments against homosexuality?

Question

Almost every single I've ever seen against homosexuality can be broken down into either a) my holy book says that it's bad or b) it is icky and I don't want to think about it. Are there any actually rational arguments against homosexuality other than appeal to antiquity and appeal to emotion?

Answer 1

Favorite Answer

None which make any sense. You can say it doesn't propagate the species, but a) over population is already a huge problem and b) neither do infertile, old, or unwilling heterosexual couples.

Answer 2

There can be societal pressures against it that are not based on religion. In Japan homosexuals aren't ostracized or persecuted, but the culture does see it as a childish experimentation and that homosexuals should basically grow up and get a real family.

Answer 3

In some historical cultures it has been a problem. In our modern society it is not.

There used to be the huge problem of abusive slavery. In the ancient world, handsome young men were at risk of being abducted, sometimes castrated (to become eunuchs) and sold as sex-slaves. Naturally men in some of the predated societies were somewhat squeemish about suffering this sort of fate!

This was also the age in which the Bible was written. And naturally the Jews as a small, weak nation surrounded by larger predatory slave-buying countries like Egypt and Babylon was particular sensitive to the sex slave problem. You will notice that the Bible mostly talks about male prostitution, and is clearly associated with rape, abuse and victimisation (e.g. in the story of Sodom and Gommorah, where the threat is of male gang rape).

Answer 4

The strongest arguments have always been from reason and from history. It is YOU who make it religious !!!! Why for example are you posting in the religion forum unless you yourself think it's a religious question.

1) From reason...Plato and Socrates consider homosexuality an abomination...more fiercely than the Bible [ From the Gorgias ] :

SOCRATES: And here, Callicles, I would have you consider how you would reply if consequences are pressed upon you, especially if in the last resort you are asked, whether the life of a catamite is not terrible, foul, miserable? Or would you venture to say, that they too are happy, if they only get enough of what they want?

CALLICLES: Are you not ashamed, Socrates, of introducing such topics into the argument?

SOCRATES: Well, my fine friend, but am I the introducer of these topics, or he who says without any qualification that all who feel pleasure in whatever manner are happy, and who admits of no distinction between good and bad pleasures? And I would still ask, whether you say that pleasure and good are the same, or whether there is some pleasure which is not a good?

CALLICLES: Well, then, for the sake of consistency, I will say that they are the same.

SOCRATES: You are breaking the original agreement, Callicles, and will no longer be a satisfactory companion in the search after truth, if you say what is contrary to your real opinion.

CALLICLES: Why, that is what you are doing too, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Then we are both doing wrong. Still, my dear friend, I would ask you to consider whether pleasure, from whatever source derived, is the good; for, if this be true, then the disagreeable consequences which have been darkly intimated must follow, and many others.

1) From History...Homosexuality precedes and hastens the decay of a society

Family and Civilization

by Carle C. Zimmerman

This is documented in the great historians Toynbee and Gibbon among others

http://www.christianpost.com/Opinion/Columns/2008/...

Answer 5

Yes, just not in our current situation.

If for example, humans were an endangered species, then the importance of reproduction of species would make homosexuality much less desirable for the species then heterosexuality. Of course we our currently over populated so the argument makes more sense in the reverse.

Answer 6

There's the animalistic part of human nature "pick on the little guy"

But what sets humans apart from other animals is complex emotion to understand and feel compassion and accept others.

Those who put down others are not human at all. They're vicious

Answer 7

Well, I think that logically it could be argued that homosexuality could threaten man because they do not reproduce.

Now, I know that is an asinine argument because there will never be more homosexuals than heterosexuals, and the world has plenty of people already.

Answer 8

As someone already stated, there is only the "Eeeww, but they're nasty!" 'argument'.

Being a girl, I don't get that one as much. Actually, I get the opposite a lot. ("Oh, wow, so you wanna come over with my frat bros and make out for us?!?")

The reproduction argument (homosexuality is wrong because humans are naturally meant to reproduce, which only hetero couples can do) is null and void. I am infertile due to a irregularly-shaped uterus. Am I 'wrong' because I can't reproduce? No, it's not a normal condition, but does that make it wrong?

Source(s): Lesbian

Answer 9

I suppose it could be said that it is simply unnatural.

But then, so is my relationship with coffee.

Perhaps also someone could go into the culture behind homosexuality, but there again, we are all subject to being judged by culture and stereotypes in the same way.

I say keep it a religious belief, and leave it to god to be the judge.

Answer 10

The only one people use is that to homosexuals can't have kids.

That is probably a good thing, overpopulation is a problem, and homosexuals usually adopt kids, giving them good homes.

Answer 11

First of all, let me say it is natural. There are many documented cases of homosexuality among animals. You can google it.

Second reproduction for reproduction's sake, fills the jails, homeless shelters, and foster care. Have a child because you want one, not because God says so.

There is not a rational arguement that I have heard in my many many years on this earth. You either are or you are not. Simple.