Homosexuality counter argument

[vera_dicere]

Its not natural for humans. Some animals may shag other members of their same gender, and that could possibily be natural behavioru for them - ie. dominence, peer bonding, probably just sexual release without a female in heat.

But its also natural for male Lions to kill the cubs of previous alpha males. Its also natural for mice to eat their babies if they are stressed out or malnourished - the mums, not the bubs. It is natural for the male sea horse to be pregnant.

Just because something for an animal is natural does not mean its natural for humans. Humans require male and female to reproduce.

THe state has a vested interest in keeping marriage between one man and one woman - this is the natural state for creation and rearing of children, who grow up to hopefully be stable adults who then become good workers - and tax payers.

Children require male and female parents to role model from. Putting marriage on par with some same sex civil union will only seek to legitmise something that will damage the rearing of children.

Same sex unions have come from the contraceptive mentality - if a man and a woman can sterilise their sexual unions then why can’t we accept two men who’s sexual unions will always be sterile.

Homosexuals are not second class citizens because they can’t marry, 10 year olds can’t marry, a man can’t marry his dog, they’re certailnly not second class citizens. Those with SSA can still vote, go where they want, work where they want, study, drive, own property, they can shag who they want when they want, they can run businesses, and they are free from being unjustly arrested, if someone beats them or murders them because they are gay, it is a hate crime and the perp is often treated harsher then someone who murders randomly.

SSA persons are not second class citizens. THey do have the right to marry - why a homosexual man wants to marry another woman seems a bit strange. Marriage is something bewteen one man and one woman. That is the naturre of marriage. They cannot change the nature of marriage to suit themselves, any more then a car can be classed as a truck sure, there are similar elements, but they’re not the same.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t see you fully understanding my “argument”.

I think I do.

Your dealing with modern times and all the the assistence that provides.

Indeed, as the people in the discussion reference in msg #1 live in modern times with the assistance it provides. The argument that it would not have been as advantageous to society several thousand years ago doesn’t say much to discourage it now.

But why the concentration on the state of things thousands of years ago? If some one asked “What’s the best way to have some meat for dinner” I’d think you’d consider modern options involving restaurants or grocery stores before limiting considerations to what was available thousands of years ago.

With the dawn of man, homosexuality could not have been the predominent orientation.

That doesn’t really contribute to the arguments against homosexuality in modern times. It does suggest that if occurrences of homosexuality went above a higher than a certain level thousands of years ago then reproduction rates would not be as high. Below that level there could still be both population growth and occurrences of homosexuality.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

No. Straight men still won’t look for "friction’ from another male. If you have prison in your mind, forget the myths. I worked 17 years with COs. Straight guys stay straight, unless you are talking about rape, which you wouldn/t want to do, would you? The gay guys in jail are gay already.

So uh, what’s the orientation of men who will take sheep in a pinch? Fellatio is the same whether done by males or females.

That’s a whooooooole lot of desperation for sex you’re talking about there. Even after 29 years of celibacy, I would have fought to the death to avoid that sort of friction.

Some people are so weak they’ll take sheep; personally I consider a straight guy screwing a guy or fellatio as substantially less desperate than a guy taking a sheep.

 

[davidv]

So uh, what’s the orientation of men who will take sheep in a pinch? Fellatio is the same whether done by males or females.

Some people are so weak they’ll take sheep; personally I consider a straight guy screwing a guy or fellatio as substantially less desperate than a guy taking a sheep.

How does one perverse act justify another?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

How does one perverse act justify another?

It does not justify. If some men will engage in sex with animals for pleasure (which seems substantially more disgusting) then it is quite likely that a number of heterosexuals will engage in sex with men for pleasure if there are no women available, this means that johnnyjones’s assertion that in prison only gays will engage in sex with men willingly is wrong.

 

[BobCatholic]

Previously some tried invoking Kantian morality by saying that if everyone were homosexual then the species would die off therefore it is bad, but if everyone where celibate (and continent) then the species would die off too, as the latter is not actually immoral it means that Kantian morality can not be used to determine that homosexuality is bad as the rule does not always work for behaviour.

Then there’s the issue that the first argument “If everyone were homosexual…human race becomes extinct” was based on a non-religious argument, while celibacy and continence argument, which is practiced by people who are in certain religions, so it crosses into an area (religion) that is outside of the jurisdiction of the first argument.

In effect, it is like comparing apples and oranges. Or Apples and Roast Beef.

 

[CopticChristian]

NARTH has been discredited in the view of the secular world as their research has been shown to have flawed methodology and numerous other studies have shown the opposite of what NARTH claims (the other research shows that changing from homosexual to heterosexual is exceptionally rare and that it is outweighed by psychological harm to some). Then there is of course Spitzer retracting his study. Spitzer’s study was major in advancing the ex-gay cause because he had no biases in favour of reparative therapy. As of a month ago NARTH still had ~300 citations to his study. Also Exodus International is backing away from reparative therapy.

Dakota,

There is literature out there to show change. I posted this in this thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=690225

 

[CopticChristian]

Sure it is relevant. Otherwise the argument for procreation is only applicable to homosexuals that want to procreate and can procreate. Given a homosexual that doesn’t want to produce kids that he or she had heterosexuals in his or her ancestry isn’t going to be a strong argument to convince him or her to not engage in sexual activity with a partner. Especially not on secular grounds. And if he or she is sterile that argument would carry even less weight.

I’m not sure what “self preservation as unique people” means. I’m guessing it’s another term that means “procreate.” Otherwise one’s ability to live isn’t dependent on whether or not he or she has procreated within their lifetime. Either way we all die.

Since there seems to be an emphasis on homosexual people that want to procreate let’s talk about that for a moment. Such people also have the option of artificial insemination. It’s no miracle. The male donating the sperm could be heterosexual, homosexual, or autosexual. (Technically he could even be in a coma. Without so much as an incision there’s a simple way to cause immediate ejaculation of sperm that I don’t wish to describe here). The female carrying the child can be homosexual, heterosexual, autosexual, or what ever. Yes, lesbians can have themselves impregnated and gay men can donate sperm. The fusion of the sperm and the egg isn’t dependent on the sexuality or sexual attraction of the involved parties. Artificial insemination and related options have been around for the past 34 years now.

But I only say this as a side note. Whether or not homosexuals can have off spring or not doesn’t seem like a strong argument for the reasons given in the first paragraph.

You argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce.

Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development.

Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause.

The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials?

Gays cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Then there’s the issue that the first argument “If everyone were homosexual…human race becomes extinct” was based on a non-religious argument, while celibacy and continence argument, which is practiced by people who are in certain religions, so it crosses into an area (religion) that is outside of the jurisdiction of the first argument.

In effect, it is like comparing apples and oranges. Or Apples and Roast Beef.

Both are chosen behaviour, no? By the same Kantian logic celibacy is bad.

Dakota,

There is literature out there to show change. I posted this in this thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=690225

I am only using information that the other person would use.

apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/therapeutic-response.pdf

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination

It’s not really an argument as much as a statement of fact. And it’s not just specific to lesbians, but applicable to humans capable of reproduction. This Choose some permutation of gender and sexual orientation and so as long as it isn’t one of the ones that involves getting your genitals altered then you are still talking about a classification of person that could still engage in a procreative act via artificial insemination. Gay men could also have been included in your statement. And it would have been applicable to people that are not gay too.

But also like I said before, given the population trends if a gay (or heterosexual) individual decides not to procreate in not doing so the person has not done any harm. Nor does that exclude the person from being a contributing member to his or her society. So the discussion of reproduction seems like more of a side conversation.

but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce.

Yes. And same goes for a gay man, whether he donates to a sperm bank or hires a surrogate.

Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development.
…]
Gays cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

I read the description of the book on Amazon. From that summary reading it seems that David is contrasting two parent homes against single parent homes. Since I haven’t read the book it is possible this is in there but just not mentioned in the description, but I think a comparison of some other family configurations would be helpful. The description doesn’t suggest that the book has looked at other configurations. For example, in general is a home with two mother figures more advantageous than a home with a single mother figure? Is it more advantageous than a home with a mother and father figure?

 

[johnnyjones]

It does not justify. If some men will engage in sex with animals for pleasure (which seems substantially more disgusting) then it is quite likely that a number of heterosexuals will engage in sex with men for pleasure if there are no women available, this means that johnnyjones’s assertion that in prison only gays will engage in sex with men willingly is wrong.

Boy, your really digging deep to hang onto some form of equal measure of sex between two straight males. You’ve made the assumption that deviant men engage in bestiality for lack of women. These hillbillies or tribal people have women around but prefer animals due to control and brutality. This is not a legitimate comparison of isolated gay people on an island where the gay man must turn to a woman. Unless you are saying the mind of a gay man is as deviant as the bestiality example you gave . Are you?

To justify homosexual men having sex with women to procreate, you’ve bought into the old myth that straight men will turn to other men at all costs for sexual pleasure. Straight men in prison are force by rape into gay sex. You can always find someone who will go outside the norm and do strange things, but to perpetuate a non heterosexual existence in isolation there would have to be a massive scale of gay men having sex with women. Gay people will walk through fire to be with the same sex, what do you think all the arguments over orientation are about?

 

[johnnyjones]

That’s a whooooooole lot of desperation for sex you’re talking about there. Even after 29 years of celibacy, I would have fought to the death to avoid that sort of friction.

BINGO! my brother.

 

[johnnyjones]

I think I do.

Indeed, as the people in the discussion reference in msg #1 live in modern times with the assistance it provides. The argument that it would not have been as advantageous to society several thousand years ago doesn’t say much to discourage it now.

But why the concentration on the state of things thousands of years ago? If some one asked “What’s the best way to have some meat for dinner” I’d think you’d consider modern options involving restaurants or grocery stores before limiting considerations to what was available thousands of years ago.

That doesn’t really contribute to the arguments against homosexuality in modern times. It does suggest that if occurrences of homosexuality went above a higher than a certain level thousands of years ago then reproduction rates would not be as high. Below that level there could still be both population growth and occurrences of homosexuality.

The point about “modern times” is not that we can’t talk about it, but the necessity of the reliance on “it”. In and of themselves (which is the model I set up relevant to any self group that wants to be self sustaining) homosexauls can not endure without outside help. If the continual claim by the homosexual is that they can not be with the opposite sex, as they fight to proclaim, then when using the “self sufficient approach”, they fail. That is not the case for heterosexuals.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The point about “modern times” is not that we can’t talk about it, but the necessity of the reliance on “it”.

And many of us are quite reliant on it in various ways.

In and of themselves (which is the model I set up relevant to any self group that wants to be self sustaining) homosexauls can not endure without outside help.

A population also can’t be sustained without some form of food production. But not every one in that population is obligated to engage in hunting, farming, and food production.

I know you are being hypothetical, but the homogeneous group that you describe is in no way descriptive of society. Nor is every member in the group in any way obligated to procreate. In times before artificial insemination if you have a group that all feel obligated by the command “be fruitful and multiply” then on those grounds there is an argument for every one to engage in heterosexual acts. Though NP151 has asked that biblical foundations not be included.

If every one in a society agrees that a sustained population is good (or a growing population) and if that goal is being achieved with less than all members of that population engaging in reproduction then there’s no argument against those that are not reproducing that is only based on heterosexual acts being necessary for population growth. A sufficient number of members of that society have it handled.

Without a reproduction obligation an argument from reproduction argues against homosexuality as much as it argues against non-reproducing priest, non-reproducing dedicated professionals, and non-reproducing people of any sexuality

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Boy, your really digging deep to hang onto some form of equal measure of sex between two straight males. You’ve made the assumption that deviant men engage in bestiality for lack of women. These hillbillies or tribal people have women around but prefer animals due to control and brutality. This is not a legitimate comparison of isolated gay people on an island where the gay man must turn to a woman. Unless you are saying the mind of a gay man is as deviant as the bestiality example you gave . Are you?

To justify homosexual men having sex with women to procreate, you’ve bought into the old myth that straight men will turn to other men at all costs for sexual pleasure. Straight men in prison are force by rape into gay sex. You can always find someone who will go outside the norm and do strange things, but to perpetuate a non heterosexual existence in isolation there would have to be a massive scale of gay men having sex with women. Gay people will walk through fire to be with the same sex, what do you think all the arguments over orientation are about?

They can control women almost as easy so why should they go with sheep? I was actually talking about situations in agricultural areas where the only women they knew were family so that’s obviously off the table leaving animals which wasn’t terribily uncommon centuries ago. I’m saying that since it is substantially less deviant men are probably more likely to do it than the other. Fellatio feels the same regardless of the sex doing it.

I’m sure some gays wound turn to women for sexual pleasure if they were horny enough and there were no guys. It’s entirely possible for them to set up a culture which would get them to reproduce.

 

[CopticChristian]

And many of us are quite reliant on it in various ways.

A population also can’t be sustained without some form of food production. But not every one in that population is obligated to engage in hunting, farming, and food production.

I know you are being hypothetical, but the homogeneous group that you describe is in no way descriptive of society. Nor is every member in the group in any way obligated to procreate. In times before artificial insemination if you have a group that all feel obligated by the command “be fruitful and multiply” then on those grounds there is an argument for every one to engage in heterosexual acts. Though NP151 has asked that biblical foundations not be included.

If every one in a society agrees that a sustained population is good (or a growing population) and if that goal is being achieved with less than all members of that population engaging in reproduction then there’s no argument against those that are not reproducing that is only based on heterosexual acts being necessary for population growth. A sufficient number of members of that society have it handled.

Without a reproduction obligation an argument from reproduction argues against homosexuality as much as it argues against non-reproducing priest, non-reproducing dedicated professionals, and non-reproducing people of any sexuality

You should be thinking,

Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are not equal.

In the animal kingdom sexual reproduction is considered an advantage as all organisms cannot and do not sexually reproduce.

Heterosexuals can and do reproduce.

Homosexuals cannot reproduce.

Homosexuals have digressed and discarded their reproductive advantage and depend on Heterosexuals for continued existence and therefore are not equal in the animal kingdom digressing from the progressed advantage.

Homosexuals demand equal rights for a population that has digressed in the reproductive advantange in the animal kingdom.

In the animal kingdom the reproductive advantage allows for the species that has that advantage to succeed and the dependent species to be at the mercy of the successful species for otherwise they could not exist.

Homosexuals should wait until something happens that offers them the advantage to recreate like kind and then successfully compete with the heterosexual reproducing counterpart.

Racial equality admits that race is not an impedement to reproduction and Race has not digressed in the reproductive advantage and any equation of homosexuality and race cannot be accepted or entertained.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dakota

**I’m sure some gays wound turn to women for sexual pleasure if they were horny enough and there were no guys. It’s entirely possible for them to set up a culture which would get them to reproduce. **

The culture does not have to be set up because it already exists. They are called bi-sexuals.

 

[johnnyjones]

And many of us are quite reliant on it in various ways.

A population also can’t be sustained without some form of food production. But not every one in that population is obligated to engage in hunting, farming, and food production.

I know you are being hypothetical, but the homogeneous group that you describe is in no way descriptive of society. Nor is every member in the group in any way obligated to procreate. In times before artificial insemination if you have a group that all feel obligated by the command “be fruitful and multiply” then on those grounds there is an argument for every one to engage in heterosexual acts. Though NP151 has asked that biblical foundations not be included.

If every one in a society agrees that a sustained population is good (or a growing population) and if that goal is being achieved with less than all members of that population engaging in reproduction then there’s no argument against those that are not reproducing that is only based on heterosexual acts being necessary for population growth. A sufficient number of members of that society have it handled.

Without a reproduction obligation an argument from reproduction argues against homosexuality as much as it argues against non-reproducing priest, non-reproducing dedicated professionals, and non-reproducing people of any sexuality

The discussion is not about the reliance on food, water, tools etc., everyone needs that, that is a given. What we are talking about is what homosexuals don’t have, that is a non attraction to the opposite gender for self preservation. I that is as claimed, which is a mega amount of people who refuse to, and fight to be, unique and separate in sexuality, then by simple logic they can not be sustained in and of themselves.

 

[johnnyjones]

They can control women almost as easy so why should they go with sheep? I was actually talking about situations in agricultural areas where the only women they knew were family so that’s obviously off the table leaving animals which wasn’t terribily uncommon centuries ago. I’m saying that since it is substantially less deviant men are probably more likely to do it than the other. Fellatio feels the same regardless of the sex doing it.

I’m sure some gays wound turn to women for sexual pleasure if they were horny enough and there were no guys. It’s entirely possible for them to set up a culture which would get them to reproduce.

Why would you say “they” can control women? Are women who are gay on this hypothetical island of gays only readily willing to take on penetration from a man? Or are all these gay men that need women for reproducing filled with ideas of rape?

Now, even if you grant that some women would comply with intercourse to produce children, that again would have to be on a mass scale of people doing what is opposite to their supposed innateness. Throw in one more huge variable and that is; all the children of these births are not likely to be all gay. And, the only way to preserve an all gay civilization, is to keep having gay children.

No matter how you want to keep looking for justification for the gay agenda, homosexuality in itself is self defeating and over time can not sustain itself. That is the answer to a “homosexual counter argument.”

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota

**I’m sure some gays wound turn to women for sexual pleasure if they were horny enough and there were no guys. It’s entirely possible for them to set up a culture **which would get them to reproduce.

The culture does not have to be set up because it already exists. They are called bi-sexuals.

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.

The discussion is not about the reliance on food, water, tools etc., everyone needs that, that is a given. What we are talking about is what homosexuals don’t have, that is a non attraction to the opposite gender for self preservation. I that is as claimed, which is a mega amount of people who refuse to, and fight to be, unique and separate in sexuality, then by simple logic they can not be sustained in and of themselves.

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

Why would you say “they” can control women? Are women who are gay on this hypothetical island of gays only readily willing to take on penetration from a man? Or are all these gay men that need women for reproducing filled with ideas of rape?

Now, even if you grant that some women would comply with intercourse to produce children, that again would have to be on a mass scale of people doing what is opposite to their supposed innateness. Throw in one more huge variable and that is; all the children of these births are not likely to be all gay. And, the only way to preserve an all gay civilization, is to keep having gay children.

No matter how you want to keep looking for justification for the gay agenda, homosexuality in itself is self defeating and over time can not sustain itself. That is the answer to a “homosexual counter argument.”

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.