Homosexuality counter argument

[bri89]

Homosexuality is not self-defeating, if that were so, than why does it still exist after thousands of years, Probably because it’s more of a development than an innate quality. I 've known people who have married, reproduced, and later in life realized they were also capable of being attracted to the same sex. I’ve known people who thought they were exclusively homosexual and then decided they were bisexual. All this confusion of labeling is caused by the erroneous belief that there are fixed sexual orientations and sexuality is classifiable. Some writer said, “there are no heterosexual or homosexual persons, only heterosexual/homosexual ACTS”. Arguing for or against the “innateness” of homosexuality as a sexual predilection is not as important as addresssing it’s place and permanence in the scope of human sexuality. Bear in mind we can not prove the innateness of heterosexuality either, we only know that this is the procreative kind of sexuality and so we enshrine it.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Frankly, I doubt arguments from religious doctrine or natural law will gain much traction with a secular person.

A neo-Darwinian/psychologically based argument would be that:

A) Obviously, two men or two women who are exclusively homosexual cannot reproduce. Even the unusual set of circumstances of a gay male “crossing the line” with a lesbian for the express purpose of fathering a child is a heterosexual act, and arguably, the use of artificial insemination is technically heterosexual, in that an orgasm provided semen which was inserted into the female for the purpose of reproduction, an act which is closer to heterosexuality than homosexuality, as both a male and a female must be involved.

B) Traits that reduce one’s ability to transmit one’s genes - such as infirmity, feeblemindedness, physical unattractiveness, infertility - are generally held by all human societies to be undesired traits. They are not traits one seeks out in a potential mate, they are not traits celebrated by society, and they are not traits one desires for oneself.

C) By accepting an identification of oneself as “gay,” one has accepted (consciously or unconsciously) that one’s genotype - all the physical and behavioral traits that make us unique - is unworthy of being transmitted to another generation. This devalues the self, and at some level, leads to the loss of self-esteem and sense of personal dignity and worth that may be a contributing factor to many of the societal ills associated with homosexuality - substance abuse, extreme promiscuity, risky sexual practices, higher suicide rates. While the gay rights movement insist that the root cause of these recognized problems is lowered self-esteem due to bullying and homophobia, this model suggests that the problems themselves may be insolvable even if society were to eliminate such actions.

To the extent that a person who self-identifies as gay is able to have a child (whether through adoption or through a heterosexual act), he or she may be able to assuage some of the feelings of lack of self-worth, but the fundamental psychological identification of oneself as “gay” is an implicit identification that one’s unique self is unworthy of transmission to another generation, unless one uses a generative heterosexual act (one’s own or another couple’s) to gain esteem.

It could be argued in extremis that technological advances such as cloning may permit two men to reproduce, but in actuality, it is the reproduction of only one person, not a couple (barring gene-splicing technologies that still lie in the realm of science fiction), and is clearly a societal ill due to the reduction in genetic diversity in the species.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Homosexuality is not self-defeating, if that were so, than why does it still exist after thousands of years, Probably because it’s more of a development than an innate quality. I 've known people who have married, reproduced, and later in life realized they were also capable of being attracted to the same sex. I’ve known people who thought they were exclusively homosexual and then decided they were bisexual. All this confusion of labeling is caused by the erroneous belief that there are fixed sexual orientations and sexuality is classifiable. Some writer said, “there are no heterosexual or homosexual persons, only heterosexual/homosexual ACTS”. Arguing for or against the “innateness” of homosexuality as a sexual predilection is not as important as addresssing it’s place and permanance in the scope of human sexuality. Bear in mind we can not prove the innateness of heterosexuality either, we only know that this is the procreative kind of sexuality and so we enshrine it.

Cystic fibrosis is extremely self defeating and yet it still refuses to go away.

Frankly, I doubt arguments from religious doctrine or natural law will gain much traction with a secular person.

A neo-Darwinian/psychologically based argument would be that:

A) Obviously, two men or two women who are exclusively homosexual cannot reproduce. Even the unusual set of circumstances of a gay male “crossing the line” with a lesbian for the express purpose of fathering a child is a heterosexual act, and arguably, the use of artificial insemination is technically heterosexual, in that an orgasm provided semen which was inserted into the female for the purpose of reproduction, an act which is closer to heterosexuality than homosexuality, as both a male and a female must be involved.

B) Traits that reduce one’s ability to transmit one’s genes - such as infirmity, feeblemindedness, physical unattractiveness, infertility - are generally held by all human societies to be undesired traits. They are not traits one seeks out in a potential mate, they are not traits celebrated by society, and they are not traits one desires for oneself.

C) By accepting an identification of oneself as “gay,” one has accepted (consciously or unconsciously) that one’s genotype - all the physical and behavioral traits that make us unique - is unworthy of being transmitted to another generation. This devalues the self, and at some level, leads to the loss of self-esteem and sense of personal dignity and worth that may be a contributing factor to many of the societal ills associated with homosexuality - substance abuse, extreme promiscuity, risky sexual practices, higher suicide rates. While the gay rights movement insist that the root cause of these recognized problems is lowered self-esteem due to bullying and homophobia, this model suggests that the problems themselves may be insolvable even if society were to eliminate such actions.

To the extent that a person who self-identifies as gay is able to have a child (whether through adoption or through a heterosexual act), he or she may be able to assuage some of the feelings of lack of self-worth, but the fundamental psychological identification of oneself as “gay” is an implicit identification that one’s unique self is unworthy of transmission to another generation, unless one uses a generative heterosexual act (one’s own or another couple’s) to gain esteem.

It could be argued in extremis that technological advances such as cloning may permit two men to reproduce, but in actuality, it is the reproduction of only one person, not a couple (barring gene-splicing technologies that still lie in the realm of science fiction), and is clearly a societal ill due to the reduction in genetic diversity in the species.

You don’t need gene splicing, currently they are working on extracting genetic material from sperm to replace the genetic material in eggs and vice versa.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Homosexuality is not self-defeating, if that were so, than why does it still exist after thousands of years, Probably because it’s more of a development than an innate quality. I 've known people who have married, reproduced, and later in life realized they were also capable of being attracted to the same sex. I’ve known people who thought they were exclusively homosexual and then decided they were bisexual. All this confusion of labeling is caused by the erroneous belief that there are fixed sexual orientations and sexuality is classifiable. Some writer said, “there are no heterosexual or homosexual persons, only heterosexual/homosexual ACTS”. Arguing for or against the “innateness” of homosexuality as a sexual predilection is not as important as addresssing it’s place and permanance in the scope of human sexuality. Bear in mind we can not prove the innateness of heterosexuality either, we only know that this is the procreative kind of sexuality and so we enshrine it.

I would agree that there is behavior, but that it shouldn’t be used to define who we are in most cases. Gore Vidal (of all people) has argued that there is no such thing as a “homosexual,” only individual behavior that can be between the same sex in one set of circumstances and between members of the opposite sex in another set of circumstances. Ultimately, there are moral choices we make, and any sexual attraction that is wrong as defined by the community, or wrong for an individual who does not want to act that way, can be resisted. No genetic compulsion forces them to commit a sexual act (if it does, they would fit into the legal definition of insanity.)

There are numerous undesirable behaviors (i.e., “sins”) that society and the legal community do not recognize as crimes, but which I am prone to, probably by a combination of birth (original sin?), environment, and especially, free will. I tend to be snarky, cutting, and uncharitable to others, especially to those who disagree with me. I recognize that acting this way is a sin, even though it often feels very, very good to win (or think I win) an argument through derision, and even though I often feel bad afterwards. I know I shouldn’t act that way and don’t want to act that way, but recognize that it is my free choice to do so. It does not help me change my behavior to tell me that I am a jerk because I was born that way.

 

[bri89]

Cystic fibrosis is extremely self defeating and yet it still refuses to go away.

My point is that even if you were to isolate “homosexuals” on an island you still wouldn’t weed out homosexuality because there are formerly “heterosexual” people who are now practicing “homosexuals” and vice versa. Furthermore there are bisexuals as well.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Cystic fibrosis is extremely self defeating and yet it still refuses to go away.

This would tend to reinforce my argument. Does a genetic illness (or an allegedly genetic behavior that makes one less likely to reproduce) make one more or less likely to attract a mate? More or less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? More or less likely to have positive self-esteem and sense of self-worth?

You don’t need gene splicing, currently they are working on extracting genetic material from sperm to replace the genetic material in eggs and vice versa.

And again, the need for such heroic methods to provide an heir would not be likely to increase one’s sense of self-worth.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

This would tend to reinforce my argument. Does a genetic illness (or an allegedly genetic behavior that makes one less likely to reproduce) make one more or less likely to attract a mate? More or less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? More or less likely to have positive self-esteem and sense of self-worth?

And again, the need for such heroic methods to provide an heir would not be likely to increase one’s sense of self-worth.

Recessive genes don’t need to be good to continue. There is also evidence that women on the maternal side of a gay tend to be more fertile enough to overcome an gays that crop up, why this is is unknown.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What we are talking about is what homosexuals don’t have, that is a non attraction to the opposite gender for self preservation.

And what I’m talking about is what NP151 had requested in msg #1, a secular argument against homosexuality. What you’ve describe so far isn’t something that I think will carry weight with a secular argument for some of the reasons that I’ve previously mentioned.

Also, what you are describing isn’t self preservation. Self preservation is about the survival of an individual organism. A metazoan’s life typically isn’t prolonged because it has reproduced. In either case the “self” will die.

I 've known people who have married, reproduced, and later in life realized they were also capable of being attracted to the same sex. I’ve known people who thought they were exclusively homosexual and then decided they were bisexual.

I worked with a gay man that had a gay father (who of course “came out” after the man had been born). It doesn’t seem to be unusual. The guy’s poor wife was a psychologist. I’m sure she was second guessing herself for missing that one.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Recessive genes don’t need to be good to continue.

Of course not, but that’s not the argument. (Although strictly speaking, natural selection doesn’t say a gene is “good” or “bad,” they simply promote or do not promote the transmission of one’s DNA materials.)

There is also evidence that women on the maternal side of a gay tend to be more fertile enough to overcome an gays that crop up, why this is is unknown.

If heard that claim made in sociobiological arguments since the early 1980s but have never found a source for the study. I’m not saying there isn’t one, I just would like to know if you can identify it for me.

It’s also not germane to the argument, which is not based on the promoting the positive good of childbearing to society as population replenishment or to pay social security taxes. If one has exclusively same-sex relationships and has no children, and one’s sister is heterosexual and has children, then one may appreciate and love one’s nephews and nieces, one may contribute to their well-being and influence them, one may appreciate that a sibling has passed their own version of shared genetic material on - but it is hardly the same.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Homicide is found in nature. But we don’t say that people are born homicidal.

Thievery is found in nature. But we don’t say people are born to thieve.

Alcoholism is found in nature. But we don’t say people are born to be alcoholic.

Sodomy is found in nature. Are we now to believe that people are born to sodomize?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Homicide is found in nature. But we don’t say that people are born homicidal.

Thievery is found in nature. But we don’t say people are born to thieve.

Alcoholism is found in nature. But we don’t say people are born to be alcoholic.

Sodomy is found in nature. Are we now to believe that people are born to sodomize?

Sometimes animals kill people, either in self defense or for food, AFAIK neither self defense nor hunting are intrinsically evil.

Most animals don’t understand property.

What animal knows how to brew alcohol other than man?

Those are actions, what is being discussed is attraction to the same sex, not sodomy per se.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What animal knows how to brew alcohol other than man?.

It occurs naturally. No need to brew.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1219_051219_drunk_elephant_2.html

 

[johnnyjones]

If a culture has it that reproduction is a duty then a lot of people will do it even if they don’t care for it.

Are you incapable of using the quote button? It is standard forum etiquette to use that icon instead of cutting and pasting with some bolding. It allows people to go back to that post to view it in context.

Self preservation only applies to them specifically not mankind as a whole.

Reading out of context. I was talking about more primitive tribal areas not yourhypothetical island.

Wait, are you implying they will kill all nongay offspring???

I’m not looking for justification for it, I don’t even agree with it. I’m just sick of idiotic ideas on BOTH sides.

The point of the “island” is to only put homosexuals in isolation for example purposes to show that alone, they can not survive. You keep missing that concept. Stick with the OP question.

If you get “kill all nongay offspring” out of what I wrote you are not only interjecting your own bizzare ideas but making a horrible, reaching statement about this Christian CAF member. Your view that straight men are some kind of wild creatures that are forced to make it with another man when the urge strikes is unfortunate.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Sometimes animals kill people, either in self defense or for food, AFAIK neither self defense nor hunting are intrinsically evil.

Most animals don’t understand property.

What animal knows how to brew alcohol other than man?

Those are actions, what is being discussed is attraction to the same sex, not sodomy per se.

Chimpanzees hunt down and murder members of their own species.

blogs.nature.com/news/2010/06/homicide_chimpanzee_turf_wars_1.html

And occasionally, they try to do the same to our species, as with the researcher who was just dragged off and mauled.

Sodomy and other homosexual acts actually is what is being discussed, as without the sexual component, there would be nothing wrong with an intense friendship felt for a member of the same sex.

We could also make the secular argument that sexual acts are unnatural if they require supporting paraphernalia. You shouldn’t have to make a trip to the drugstore to buy lubricant, condoms, dental dams, diaphragms, oral contraceptives, abortifacients, or whatever else is required to float your boat, to prevent a particular sex act from being excruciatingly painful, to prevent a life, to prevent the transmission of disease, or to arouse interest. If so, maybe you should reconsider doing it or with whom you are doing it.

 

[johnnyjones]

Homosexuality is not self-defeating, if that were so, than why does it still exist after thousands of years, Probably because it’s more of a development than an innate quality. I 've known people who have married, reproduced, and later in life realized they were also capable of being attracted to the same sex. I’ve known people who thought they were exclusively homosexual and then decided they were bisexual. All this confusion of labeling is caused by the erroneous belief that there are fixed sexual orientations and sexuality is classifiable. Some writer said, “there are no heterosexual or homosexual persons, only heterosexual/homosexual ACTS”. Arguing for or against the “innateness” of homosexuality as a sexual predilection is not as important as addresssing it’s place and permanence in the scope of human sexuality. Bear in mind we can not prove the innateness of heterosexuality either, we only know that this is the procreative kind of sexuality and so we enshrine it.

It “still exists after thousands of years” because of heterosexuals. Isolate it (homosexuality) and practice it in it’s true incarnation, and it dies out. There will always be homosexuality produced by heterosexuals but it is not enough to counter act the isolation factor.

What people “decide” as to orientation is not definitive answer as to what they should be. The catholic church does not believe you are born gay. Although one may have an inclination towards same sex attraction, it is still a disorder, quite a serious one according to the church.

 

[sw85]

The point of the “island” is to only put homosexuals in isolation for example purposes to show that alone, they can not survive. You keep missing that concept. Stick with the OP question.

If you get “kill all nongay offspring” out of what I wrote you are not only interjecting your own bizzare ideas but making a horrible, reaching statement about this Christian CAF member. Your view that straight men are some kind of wild creatures that are forced to make it with another man when the urge strikes is unfortunate.

I can agree that “kill all nongay offspring” is indeed a terribly ungenerous reading of what you were saying and that anyone who genuinely believes that’s what you were saying probably has a terribly difficult time making sense of the world. On the other hand, while “straight men are some kind of wild creatures that are forced to make it with another man when the urge strikes is unfortunate” is a regrettably extreme way of putting it, it’s not entirely inaccurate.

The entire idea of fixed and determinate “sexual orientation” is pretty much a fabrication. It makes it very hard to speak about the world in meaningful ways. For instance, somewhere else on CAF right now is a thread about a “gay” man who is married, has several kids, and has a robust sex life with his wife. Now in what world is it meaningful to talk about this man being “gay”? What does that even mean?

In truth, there is remarkable plasticity in the heuristics men use to identify sexual partners. This is why you get, for instance, profoundly “heterosexual” gang bangers (i.e., big dudes with a harem of lovers and lots of babies) going to prison and then instantly reverting to anally raping men, having never exhibited a male preference at any point before then. Same thing happens to a lesser extent with sailors, except where the culture is very strongly ordered against this sort of behavior. It’s a pretty well known phenomenon, this kind of “opportunistic homosexuality.” The only reason we can fit it into the homo/hetero distinction is because it’s so protean it can accommodate virtually any oddity.

 

[johnnyjones]

I can agree that “kill all nongay offspring” is indeed a terribly ungenerous reading of what you were saying and that anyone who genuinely believes that’s what you were saying probably has a terribly difficult time making sense of the world. On the other hand, while “straight men are some kind of wild creatures that are forced to make it with another man when the urge strikes is unfortunate” is a regrettably extreme way of putting it, it’s not entirely inaccurate.

The entire idea of fixed and determinate “sexual orientation” is pretty much a fabrication. It makes it very hard to speak about the world in meaningful ways. For instance, somewhere else on CAF right now is a thread about a “gay” man who is married, has several kids, and has a robust sex life with his wife. Now in what world is it meaningful to talk about this man being “gay”? What does that even mean?

In truth, there is remarkable plasticity in the heuristics men use to identify sexual partners. This is why you get, for instance, profoundly “heterosexual” gang bangers (i.e., big dudes with a harem of lovers and lots of babies) going to prison and then instantly reverting to anally raping men, having never exhibited a male preference at any point before then. Same thing happens to a lesser extent with sailors, except where the culture is very strongly ordered against this sort of behavior. It’s a pretty well known phenomenon, this kind of “opportunistic homosexuality.” The only reason we can fit it into the homo/hetero distinction is because it’s so protean it can accommodate virtually any oddity.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. I was heavily involved in the thread you mention.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dakota

When you say same-sex attraction you are not talking about what is at the heart of homosexuality. I can be attracted in an affectionate way to another person of my sex. There is nothing at all sinful or abnormal in that. But sodomy is at the heart of homosexuality. You don’t just want affection. You want affection consummated. That is not only sinful but abnormal. As a Catholic you must accept this.

 

[johnnyjones]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. I was heavily involved in the thread you mention.

Edit:

. You may be watching too many prison movies and that has permeated the society, no offense.

The big bad man that rape other men in prison are disordered already. Also, you can not compare rape with a desire for same sex relations. One is brutality and control. Even a specialist on female rape will tell you it is not about sex. Gay men enter jail and stay in gay pocketed groups for protection and desirable relations.

Straight men do not “turn gay” , that is a myth. The attacks by men you say never showed an inclination for other men on the outside of prison is unfounded. These men more often are deviants that only know about dominence and control through criminal activity. As well, they had previous desire for men but did not show it on the outside for fear of being “shamed”. There are always exceptions but to say straight men will 'go for it" in these predicaments is false.

 

[johnnyjones]

Edit: To SW85

. You may be watching too many prison movies and that has permeated the society, no offense.

The big bad man that rape other men in prison are disordered already. Also, you can not compare rape with a desire for same sex relations. One is brutality and control. Even a specialist on female rape will tell you it is not about sex. Gay men enter jail and stay in gay pocketed groups for protection and desirable relations.

Straight men do not “turn gay” , that is a myth. The attacks by men you say never showed an inclination for other men on the outside of prison is unfounded. These men more often are deviants that only know about dominence and control through criminal activity. As well, they had previous desire for men but did not show it on the outside for fear of being “shamed”. There are always exceptions but to say straight men will 'go for it" in these predicaments is false.