I need a rock-solid argument

[Lost_Sheep]

…to convince somebody that homosexuality is just plain wrong. This person is not gay, but is a supporter of gay rights and thinks gay “marriage” is OK. This person claims to be a Christian (non-Catholic) but Bible passages don’t seem to faze her.

 

[Aeden]

Ask her what the purpose of sex is. If she’s in favor of homosexuality, she’d probably be in favor of sex as pure recreation, with no reproductive aspect. You have to convince her that this is wrong, at least in my experience. This is easier said than done. Try to get her to see sex’s pleasurable aspect as something that God gave as a blessing for those who can reproduce (or perhaps even as a motivator back when man didn’t understand reproduction) If she tries to say that sex is no longer necessary for that and should thus be a purely recreational thing, since we have science and can use cells from parent bodies to make babies, ask her about her abortion stance, since many babies die in the process of artificial production of feti.

We can’t really give you an “airtight” or “rock-solid” argument that would work against her since we don’t know her or her perspective and assumptions that make her think what she does, so let’s hope this advice helps.

 

[Carolus_Martell]

Sodom and Gomorrah … the bible has never been proved wrong.

 

[bzkoss236]

We can’t really give you an “airtight” or “rock-solid” argument that would work against her since we don’t know her or her perspective and assumptions that make her think what she does, so let’s hope this advice helps.

I agree with this. Without knowing her stance, it is hard to create a really good argument.

One thing that I’ve wanted to try is about whether she believes in the “Theory of Evolution” and/or “Theory of Natural Selection”. Natural selection states that animals choose partners based on favorable attributes in an attempt to further the species. Homosexuality goes against this theory, even in other animals, because animals that choose a partner of the same gender, which then cannot reproduce, die out and cannot carry on their genetic line. The same would go for humans, as in a scientific sense, we are animals/mammals. We too seek out a partner with what we consider to be desirable traits, and if we pick out a partner with whom we cannot pass on our genetic line, we are going against nature. This goes for homosexuals.

Idk, just a lump of thoughts for a secular argument that is still in development.

 

[Tyrion]

Ask her what the purpose of sex is. If she’s in favor of homosexuality, she’d probably be in favor of sex as pure recreation, with no reproductive aspect.

This sentence displays the fundamental problem of the catholic approach. Why do you suppose that there is an “exclusive OR” between the two aspects? Why should everyone be “opened” to procreation every time they have sex? For the continuation of the human species it is only necessary that most people are “open” to procreation some (!!!) of the time. Even if some people exclude themselves from the gene-pool - like the members of the catholic clergy are supposed to do - and/or the homosexuals and/or all those who are simply not interested in producing children (for whatever reason) … the continuation of the human race is on “rock solid ground”. So this kind of argument will probably fail, as it should, because it has no rational foundation.

To bring in God into the question would probably backfire, too. After all if God REALLY wanted sex to be exclusively reproductive (with the pleasure part being only the icing on the cake) he could have made humans and also the greater apes just like the rest of the animals, namely not being interested in sex outside the time of the estrus. The greater apes frequently engage in pleasure-only type of sex, masturbation, homosexual activities, etc. and God obviously does not seem to “mind” it at all - and their continuation is perfectly well established.

So there are no “rock solid” arguments, just like there are no rational arguments either.

 

[bzkoss236]

This sentence displays the fundamental problem of the catholic approach. Why do you suppose that there is an “exclusive OR” between the two aspects? Why should everyone be “opened” to procreation every time they have sex? For the continuation of the human species it is only necessary that most people are “open” to procreation some (!!!) of the time. Even if some people exclude themselves from the gene-pool - like the members of the catholic clergy are supposed to do - and/or the homosexuals and/or all those who are simply not interested in producing children (for whatever reason) … the continuation of the human race is on “rock solid ground”. So this kind of argument will probably fail, as it should, because it has no rational foundation.

I think you misunderstand what “open” to procreation, or as we say it “open to life” really means. It doesn’t mean that every time you have sex that you hope to get pregnant. It means, that you should not hinder the possibility of getting pregnant, whatever the reason you choose to have sex (preferably as a married couple, not just for religious reasons). So, if one were to get pregnant, they would not choose to abort the child. I, personally, haven’t looked into creating a secular argument for why people shouldn’t prevent conception, but I might eventually.

Also, I’ve heard of many homosexual couples who wish to have children, and either opt for sperm/egg donor, or wish to adopt. Some also saying, that if they could, have children that were 100% theirs biologically, they would prefer that.

To bring in God into the question would probably backfire, too. After all if God REALLY wanted sex to be exclusively reproductive (with the pleasure part being only the icing on the cake) he could have made humans and also the greater apes just like the rest of the animals, namely not being interested in sex outside the time of the estrus. The greater apes frequently engage in pleasure-only type of sex, masturbation, homosexual activities, etc. and God obviously does not seem to “mind” it at all - and their continuation is perfectly well established.

This just falls under the, “if God doesn’t like sin, why didn’t he just make it so we couldn’t?” category. Also, in terms of bringing God into the question, the belief is that animals do not have the same soul that we have, and because of that, they cannot sin. And from a secular argument, just because animals, even the greater apes, do something, doesn’t mean that we should.

 

[Aeden]

This sentence displays the fundamental problem of the catholic approach. Why do you suppose that there is an “exclusive OR” between the two aspects? Why should everyone be “opened” to procreation every time they have sex? For the continuation of the human species it is only necessary that most people are “open” to procreation some (!!!) of the time. Even if some people exclude themselves from the gene-pool - like the members of the catholic clergy are supposed to do - and/or the homosexuals and/or all those who are simply not interested in producing children (for whatever reason) … the continuation of the human race is on “rock solid ground”. So this kind of argument will probably fail, as it should, because it has no rational foundation.

To bring in God into the question would probably backfire, too. After all if God REALLY wanted sex to be exclusively reproductive (with the pleasure part being only the icing on the cake) he could have made humans and also the greater apes just like the rest of the animals, namely not being interested in sex outside the time of the estrus. The greater apes frequently engage in pleasure-only type of sex, masturbation, homosexual activities, etc. and God obviously does not seem to “mind” it at all - and their continuation is perfectly well established.

So there are no “rock solid” arguments, just like there are no rational arguments either.

I do not assume that it is an either or scenario, far from it. The pleasure of sex should go hand in hand with an openness to reproduction That is the primary aspect of it, the pleasure is simply there to make it more enjoyable.

This is not an argument about the continuation of the human race, it is about the purpose of the act itself, which is reproduction regardless of the population levels.

God gave man free will. With that will, comes freedom. If we were bound to having sex only a few months of the year and being biologically driven for it, we would not truly be free would we?

You say that apes engage in pleasure-only sex. This is correct. Also note that Apes are significantly less developed than humans. If that is the kind of society you think we should emulate, I’d love to hear your argument for it. God does not mind when apes do it because they do not have eternal souls or free will in the same way that humans do, they are driven primarily by instinct.

Also, how is everybody multi-quoting? I’d love to know so that I can address individual aspects of an argument rather than a block text.

 

[Polycarp1]

This sentence displays the fundamental problem of the catholic approach. Why do you suppose that there is an “exclusive OR” between the two aspects? Why should everyone be “opened” to procreation every time they have sex? For the continuation of the human species it is only necessary that most people are “open” to procreation some (!!!) of the time. Even if some people exclude themselves from the gene-pool - like the members of the catholic clergy are supposed to do - and/or the homosexuals and/or all those who are simply not interested in producing children (for whatever reason) … the continuation of the human race is on “rock solid ground”. So this kind of argument will probably fail, as it should, because it has no rational foundation.

To bring in God into the question would probably backfire, too. After all if God REALLY wanted sex to be exclusively reproductive (with the pleasure part being only the icing on the cake) he could have made humans and also the greater apes just like the rest of the animals, namely not being interested in sex outside the time of the estrus. The greater apes frequently engage in pleasure-only type of sex, masturbation, homosexual activities, etc. and God obviously does not seem to “mind” it at all - and their continuation is perfectly well established.

So there are no “rock solid” arguments, just like there are no rational arguments either.

To leave God out of the question leaves us with what? Man’s worldly reasoning? That certainly has never been reliable since… well forever! How do we know what God really wants? Oh yeah He established and authorized a Church to be the pillar and ground of faith and told them what they bind on earth will be bound also in heaven. So how does the Church know what to bind or not? Oh yeah God gave us His revelation in scripture and tradition and that has been very clear on the question of homosexuality. He sent the Holy Spirit to be its guide.

Pointing at a few errant clergy who have broken their vows proves nothing except that no one on earth is perfect and that we are all sinners.

“If we see anything at all — ourselves or some other man, or the universe as a whole or any part of it — without at the same time seeing God holding it there, then we are seeing it all wrong. If we saw a coat hanging on a wall and did not realize that it was held there by a hook, we should not be living in the real world at all, but in some fantastic world of our own in which coats defied the law of gravity and hung on walls by their own power. Similarly if we see things in existence and do not in the same act see that they are held in existence by God, then equally we are living in a fantastic world, not the real world. Seeing God everywhere and all things upheld by Him is not a matter of sanctity, but of plain sanity, because God is everywhere and all things are upheld by Him. What we do about it may be sanctity; but merely seeing it is sanity. To overlook God’s presence is not simply to be irreligious; it is a kind of insanity, like overlooking anything else that is actually there.” SHEED

 

[bzkoss236]

Also, how is everybody multi-quoting? I’d love to know so that I can address individual aspects of an argument rather than a block text.

I just copy the quote tag code QUOTE=…] and end the block I want to quote at that time with the end tag /QUOTE] (both without the space after the ). Then I write in after what I want to respond, then go back to the quoted part and paste the beginning tag, creating a second section of quote.

There might be an easier way to do it, but that is what I do.

Back to the topic…

 

[Tyrion]

I think you misunderstand what “open” to procreation, or as we say it “open to life” really means. It doesn’t mean that every time you have sex that you hope to get pregnant. It means, that you should not hinder the possibility of getting pregnant, whatever the reason you choose to have sex (preferably as a married couple, not just for religious reasons).

I understand it. The question is “why” should one be open to procreation EVERY time? The continuation of the species is not a good argument. Is there a secular argument? I have never seen one.

I, personally, haven’t looked into creating a secular argument for why people shouldn’t prevent conception, but I might eventually.

I would love to see what you come up with.

This just falls under the, “if God doesn’t like sin, why didn’t he just make it so we couldn’t?” category.

Of course it does. And I never saw a good argument about it either. A rational being, who definitely does NOT want something to happen, AND has the power to prevent it — would prevent that “something” from happening.

 

[Tyrion]

I do not assume that it is an either or scenario, far from it.

The way you happened to fomulate your post definitely “implied” it. Your words were: “she’d probably be in favor of sex as pure recreation, with no reproductive aspect”. It is pretty clear.

The pleasure of sex should go hand in hand with an openness to reproduction

Why? Why should the possibility of reproduction be there EVERY time? Usually a couple wants to have a few kids, the average is a tad over “two”, say 2.2. These people engage in sex a couple of thousand times in their life (hopefully). Who cares if they are “open” to procreation outsise those 2.2 pregnancies?

God gave man free will. With that will, comes freedom. If we were bound to having sex only a few months of the year and being biologically driven for it, we would not truly be free would we?

So what? We are not “free” to do a lot of things. We are not free to heal people by laying hands, either. We do not have “absolute, unlimited” freedom. I would not mind if we would be unable to torture or rape or murder. Sure, I am a pacifist, who sees no “advantage” in applying electrodes to someone’s private parts and electrocute them. It is amazing that the christians are in favor of all the atrocities, wars, rapes, tortures in the world… in the name of “freedom” - and us, abominable heathens are against it. Something is wrong with this picture. Let me be blunt: “to hell with this kind of freedom”.

You say that apes engage in pleasure-only sex. This is correct. Also note that Apes are significantly less developed than humans. If that is the kind of society you think we should emulate, I’d love to hear your argument for it.

Look at the bonobos as an example. They really live by the slogan: “make love not war”. Instead of fighting among themselves; they engage in sex, when they are fustrated. Their ethics is much more admirable than ours.

 

[Polycarp1]

I, personally, haven’t looked into creating a secular argument for why people shouldn’t prevent conception, but I might eventually.

I’d be amazed if you could come up with a good purely secular argument for anything. Without considering God and His plan for us leaves us with a wrong premise to start with!

This just falls under the, “if God doesn’t like sin, why didn’t he just make it so we couldn’t?” category.

The statement that God is Love is more than just a platitude, it gives us insight into His nature. Love to be love has to be given freely, it can’t be forced or else its not really love, but a programmed response. God wants us to love Him so necessarily He had to give us the option not too, in other words to choose. He wants us to obey Him, but to love us he had to give us the option to disobey Him or in other words to sin. We get to choose what we will do, but we don’t get to choose the consequences!

 

[Aeden]

The way you happened to fomulate your post definitely “implied” it. Your words were: “she’d probably be in favor of sex as pure recreation, with no reproductive aspect”. It is pretty clear.

I implied no such thing. I pointed out that those in favor of homosexuality probably don’t see reproduction as the purpose of sex, since homosexual sex can not end in reproduction

Why? Why should the possibility of reproduction be there EVERY time? Usually a couple wants to have a few kids, the average is a tad over “two”, say 2.2. These people engage in sex a couple of thousand times in their life (hopefully). Who cares if they are “open” to procreation outsise those 2.2 pregnancies?

The purpose of sex is reproduction. If it wasn’t, then sex organs would not be involved. Given this, there can not be a manipulation of sex to make reproduction impossible. So long as you are OK with having a kid from the act and it is physically possible, a married couple can have sex. Outside these conditions, it is sinful as it twists the true purpose of sex.

So what? We are not “free” to do a lot of things. We are not free to heal people by laying hands, either. We do not have “absolute, unlimited” freedom. I would not mind if we would be unable to torture or rape or murder.

Here, you assume that you know better than God. This, honestly, is rather disturbing. Also, your argument hinges on people being able to do that which is a physical impossibility, based on the examples you are giving here.

Sure, I am a pacifist, who sees no “advantage” in applying electrodes to someone’s private parts and electrocute them. It is amazing that the christians are in favor of all the atrocities, wars, rapes, tortures in the world… in the name of “freedom” - and us, abominable heathens are against it. Something is wrong with this picture. Let me be blunt: “to hell with this kind of freedom”.

This is quite the anecdotal argument, and frankly looks like a red-herring to me. Christians are not in favor of raping and torturing people. These are atrocities and frankly, I have no idea where you are coming from with this.

Look at the bonobos as an example. They really live by the slogan: “make love not war”. Instead of fighting among themselves; they engage in sex, when they are fustrated. Their ethics is much more admirable than ours.

How are their ethics more admirable? They engage in casual sex (is there even a way to know that the sex itself is not rape?) because they are ticked off. Also, why do you assume that having sex between a married man and woman means that people will go to war whenever they are aggravated? This is quite a leap of argumentation and you have provided no backing, instead producing a black-or-white fallacy.

 

[bzkoss236]

I’d be amazed if you could come up with a good purely secular argument for anything. Without considering God and His plan for us leaves us with a wrong premise to start with!

This is part of the reason I haven’t looked into it. Another part is that, frankly, I shouldn’t have to, but with what drives this country, and possibly the world (now-a-days), I’d basically have to.

 

[Tyrion]

Before we go any further, you should copy not only the end quote /quote], but also the starting quote quote=whatever] to surround the text you wish to reply to.

I implied no such thing. I pointed out that those in favor of homosexuality probably don’t see reproduction as the purpose of sex, since homosexual sex can not end in reproduction

They do not see sex as being ONLY for reproduction.

The purpose of sex is reproduction.

Not the ONLY purpose. For the animals beside the greater apes, it is. For the greater apes (us included) it is NOT.

Outside these conditions, it is sinful as it twists the true purpose of sex.

“Sin” is not a secular concept. I am only interested in rational (non-theological) arguments. So there is still no secular argument for not being “open” to procreation. I have never seen one.

Here, you assume that you know better than God.

I only assume that God is a rational being. And no rational being would allow something to happen if he does not want it, and can prevent it.

Christians are not in favor of raping and torturing people. These are atrocities and frankly, I have no idea where you are coming from with this.

From you and other catholics. Every time someone suggested that the world would be better off without these atrocities the “standard reply” was: but what about “freedom”? As I said: “to hell with such freedom”.

How are their ethics more admirable? They engage in casual sex (is there even a way to know that the sex itself is not rape?) because they are ticked off. Also, why do you assume that having sex between a married man and woman means that people will go to war whenever they are aggravated? This is quite a leap of argumentation and you have provided no backing, instead producing a black-or-white fallacy.

You do not understand. Bonobos do not fight, when they are aggravated. They engage in “sex”. Much more humane than bashing each other. Amazing that apes are more humane than humans…