Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

[Serious]

The fact that most people pursue sex for wrong reasons doesn’t make it right.

Who says that having sex for pleasure is wrong? You see, this whole thread reminds me of a book by Lee Strobel, (A Case for whatever…) in which he tries to “emulate” an atheist and present atheist arguments. He fails ridiculously. You guys have no idea how an atheist argues (despite the fact that quite a few gave examples). So stick to your religion-based arguments, and you will be fine.

And to say procreation would be impossible without pleasure is laughably absurd. If people want children and know how to make them, they can and will do so, with or without finding pleasure in it.

Only humans will act that way. Animals would never engage in procreation if they would not be “forced” by the pleasurable aspect. Humans are different in this respect. Nevertheless most pregnancies are unplanned. If a pregnancy would only occur if both partners wanted it to happen, then there would be much fewer instancies of it (and there would be no abortions). How come that god, in his infinite wisdom did not stumble upon this easy and perfect solution?

Also, saying that procreation is an unlucky byproduct of sex is ridiculous. Pleasure is the by product. Procreation is the purpose.

In 95% of the cases it is not. The purpose is only in the eyes of the participants. And most of the time, they do not want it.

You go on to state that homosexual behavior does not harm anyone. I would advise you to read the arguments counter to that claim. Societal acceptance of homosexuality leads to an observable decay in sexual ethics in general, helping to spread acceptance of promiscuity, which leads to the spread and development of STDs, and so on.

Hogwash. Ever since the dawn of time, the OLD people in every generation complained about the decrease of “morals”, lamenting that the new generation deviates from the virtuous forefathers. “O tempora, o mores” - said Cicero. Nonsense. Our morals change, of course, and in the eyes of some they keep deteriorating. Who cares what those people say? The good old times are today.

 

[Iowa7681]

DISCLAIMER: I am Catholic and believe that gay sex is morally wrong, and therefore am simply pointing out problems in the OP’s post (from the perspective of an atheist).

As some have noted, the OP’s post very obviously fails to convince because it contains a priori assumptions that are easily revealed as problematic.

This does not matter. Why should we care what is “natural” in this case? So what if it is disordered?

“Created” is an evolutionary sense, sure. And what does this matter?

Again, irrelevant. This is not even an argument. It requires other assumptions in order to be compelling, ones that the OP has not laid out. In other words, in order to accept this natural law argument, I need to accept natural law. The OP has presented no reason whatsoever for doing so.

Non-sequitur for the above reason.

Untrue. Incest has genetic implications that homosexuality does not.

Why should I accept this?

What natural moral law? I see nothing about this in the OP’s post, and therefore mention of it is irrelevant.

None of that is necessarily inherent to gay sex being considered morally acceptable. And what you define as “sexual ethics,” others may define as behavior with no moral overtones whatsoever.

Bravo Baelor, very well explained.

It seems near impossible for a reasoned, logical explanation to be put forth that does rely on a priori, as you said, that would not hold in a secular discussion. “Natural Law” in particular is a huge land mine that people jump up and down on. Even if you could somehow squeeze that rationale into a secular discussion (which is a very tall order) I would still have to subscribe to you or your faiths particular interpretation.

As pointed out, most of the points in the OP are either A) irrelevant in a secular society and B) entirely dependent on agreeing with a particular interpretation of specific moral interpretations.

None of this is to say that anyone should change their beliefs, or, that those beliefs are in and of themselves wrong. It simply means there is no no-theistic logic that would support enforcing your particular views on another. Seems simple to me…

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

This does not matter. Why should we care what is “natural” in this case? So what if it is disordered?

Indeed, if we were to require everything to have a stated purpose, and outlawed any contravention of that purpose, then I think there would be a lot of people in jail for their creative use of duct tape.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Baelor

This does not matter. Why should we care what is “natural” in this case? So what if it is disordered?

A secularist does not have to be a Catholic theologian to believe that sodomy is a disordered condition. Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Jefferson (none of them Catholics) could easily see the violation of the natural order in sodomy.

Nor does it take a rocket scientist for anyone else to see that.

Common sense should prevail. The male penis was not designed for the male or female anus.
It hurts! As any man in prison who is victim of it could tell you. :bigyikes:

 

[mgreen77]

Common sense should prevail. The male penis was not designed for the male or female anus.

True, which makes it an impractical act, but why the leap to immoral?

Listening to music, enjoying art or a moonrise… all pointless and impractical uses of my senses. Why is homosexual sex different?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

There is a difference between the purpose of sex - procreation - and nature’s choice of method for it - the reason why nature insists that it should be sex specifically that should serve that purpose.

The reason for sexual reproduction from an evolutionary perspective is to increase the robustness of the species by insisting on the mixing of genetic material. That is why nature has decided that humans are only to reproduce sexually - to increase the robustness of the species. But the purpose of sex itself is none other than procreation and there is no alternative method for humans to procreate.

I will still argue that procreation is not the true purpose. As you have indicated, robustness of the species is what nature cares about. Therefore, I claim that the purpose of sex is not individual procreation, but rather protection of the species.

 

[Serious]

Common sense should prevail. The male penis was not designed for the male or female anus.

I don’t think that going into technical details would be advised - especially considering the possible underage audiance. So it should suffice to say that your imagination is very limited. Shame, shame…

 

[prodigalson2011]

Who says that having sex for pleasure is wrong? You see, this whole thread reminds me of a book by Lee Strobel, (A Case for whatever…) in which he tries to “emulate” an atheist and present atheist arguments. He fails ridiculously. You guys have no idea how an atheist argues (despite the fact that quite a few gave examples). So stick to your religion-based arguments, and you will be fine.

Au contraire, mon frere. I know exactly how an atheist would argue because I was one for over 10 years. Of course, the question of whether sex solely for pleasure is wrong is a moral question, and you’re free, as an atheist, to throw moral questions out the window. But if one goes, they all go. If, on the other hand, you accept the existence of morality, you must at least consider the reasoning behind the argument for sexual morality, including effects on health, physical as well as psychological, individual as well as societal. For example, fact: before the normalization of contraception and premarital sex, there were 3 common STDs. There are now somewhere in the area of 27. Fact: births out of wedlock have increased astronomically since said normalization. This has ben shown to contribute to a host of problems; behavioral, financial, etc. I could go on, but I won’t.

Only humans will act that way. Animals would never engage in procreation if they would not be “forced” by the pleasurable aspect. Humans are different in this respect. Nevertheless most pregnancies are unplanned. If a pregnancy would only occur if both partners wanted it to happen, then there would be much fewer instancies of it (and there would be no abortions). How come that god, in his infinite wisdom did not stumble upon this easy and perfect solution?

This is just plain false. Animals are driven to the sex act by chemical signals, I.e. pheromones, and instinct. Hence why they only have sex when the female is in heat (putting out high amounts of pheromones.) Very few animal species derive pleasure from sex.
I’ve heard speculation on dolphins and bonobos, but there is still debate on even those cases.

In 95% of the cases it is not. The purpose is only in the eyes of the participants. And most of the time, they do not want it.

This makes even less sense from an atheist’s perspective than a theist’s. From a materialistic stance, the subjective experience of an organism is itself a byproduct of natural chemical processes, so the “purpose” of the intellect is, prima facie, secondary to the physical/chemical purpose.

Hogwash. Ever since the dawn of time, the OLD people in every generation complained about the decrease of “morals”, lamenting that the new generation deviates from the virtuous forefathers. “O tempora, o mores” - said Cicero. Nonsense. Our morals change, of course, and in the eyes of some they keep deteriorating. Who cares what those people say? The good old times are today.

And what happened to those societies? They collapsed. Suffered widespread malady, disease, poverty, etc. Even now, our economy is collapsing as there are more elderly people dependent on a younger generation whom they outnumber, I believe, about 4 to 1. Out population is below the replacement rate (read: going extinct.)

 

[Serious]

But, I was responding to your post. The reasoning I expressed can certainly be known from secular logic. It is not an issue of divine revelation.

This is what you said: “The act must reatin its relationship to procreation, not each act must achieve conception”. Why “must”? If someone wishes to undergo a tube ligation, or if the ovaries are removed, or if the uterus itself is removed, there is no more “relationship” to procreation.

How are you using the word harm?

The same as everyone else.

 

[Serious]

I know exactly how an atheist would argue because I was one for over 10 years.

Not all atheists are “created” equal.

Of course, the question of whether sex solely for pleasure is wrong is a moral question, and you’re free, as an atheist, to throw moral questions out the window.

There are all sorts of levels of “morality”.

But if one goes, they all go.

You gotta be kidding. I have not seen such a strange idea for a long time.

If, on the other hand, you accept the existence of morality, you must at least consider the reasoning behind the argument for sexual morality, including effects on health, physical as well as psychological, individual as well as societal. For example, fact: before the normalization of contraception and premarital sex, there were 3 common STDs. There are now somewhere in the area of 27. Fact: births out of wedlock have increased astronomically since said normalization. This has ben shown to contribute to a host of problems; behavioral, financial, etc. I could go on, but I won’t.

This argument is called the fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.

I’ve heard speculation on dolphins and bonobos, but there is still debate on even those cases.

And those are very important cases, indeed. The dolphins could be still debated, but the sexual behavior of bonobos (make love, not war) is very well established. Their morality is far superior to the humans.

This makes even less sense from an atheist’s perspective than a theist’s. From a materialistic stance, the subjective experience of an organism is itself a byproduct of natural chemical processes, so the “purpose” of the intellect is, prima facie, secondary to the physical/chemical purpose.

Sure. So what? We are all pleasure-seeking and pain avoiding animals (except a fwe mentally disturbed ones).

And what happened to those societies? They collapsed. Suffered widespread malady, disease, poverty, etc.

And other, external socities waging wars on them.

Even now, our economy is collapsing as there are more elderly people dependent on a younger generation whom they outnumber, I believe, about 4 to 1. Out population is below the replacement rate (read: going extinct.)

Sure. Dumb goverment policies, which have nothing to do with sexual “morality”.

 

[Serious]

Of course it does. We’re arguing about the morality of homosexuality from a secular perspective, and my point is that modern secularist thinking is completely blind to moral arguments because it has dogmatically accepted the standard I have attempted to explain.

No, it rejects your kind of “morality”. It is not blind to it, it actively rejects what you peddle as “morality”.

If one consents to something that is objectively harmful, the secularist sees it as right…

Certainly, since it is his body, his existence, and he has sole dominion over it. Of course, I am aware that the Catholic stance says something different, but we speak of secular arguments here, not the religious ones.

… and that therefore means he adopts subjective criteria, i.e. the point of view of the person objectively being harmed who has consented, as the standard for evaluating whether the action was right or wrong.

Actions never happen in vacuum, as such they cannot be evaluated in vacuum.

If the person suffering objective harm is not sufficiently aware so as to be able to perceive that harm subjectively, as in the case of a child being aborted, it is not wrong in the eyes of the secularist.

Don’t try to derail the problem by brining in cases, which are fundamentally different. We talk ONLY about those cases, when the participants are adult, and in full command of their faculties.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Don’t try to derail the problem by brining in cases, which are fundamentally different. We talk ONLY about those cases, when the participants are adult, and in full command of their faculties.

Indeed, this would not be the first time a debate about homosexuality has ended with “but… but… abortion!”

 

[Serious]

Indeed, this would not be the first time a debate about homosexuality has ended with “but… but… abortion!”

Haha! Indeed… and your post number was 2048 = 2^11 … something to be cherished… while mine is 63 = 2^6 - 1 also pretty nice number.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I will still argue that procreation is not the true purpose. As you have indicated, robustness of the species is what nature cares about. Therefore, I claim that the purpose of sex is not individual procreation, but rather protection of the species.

Since robustness of the species is natures true insistence, then occasionally having sex solely for pleasure is not disordered. It is allowed as long as it does not interfere with the robustness of the species.

 

[prodigalson2011]

---

Not all atheists are “created” equal.

I think you could have responded to this without making passive aggressive commentary on my intelligence, but no matter.

There are all sorts of levels of “morality”.

But there must be an absolute ground for all morality. Otherwise, it’s only preference/majority rule.

You gotta be kidding. I have not seen such a strange idea for a long time.

It isn’t if you understand morality to be the assessment of the effects on the good of the individual and society. As sex has just such effects, it is an essential moral question. If you think you can ignore the ramifications of sexual behaviors, why couldn’t you ignore the consequences of any other issue?

This argument is called the fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.

My goal was not to present a philosophical argument. In the real world, there is very little else that can account for the correlation. If you can think of a more reasonable causal factor, I’d be intrigued to hear it.

And those are very important cases, indeed. The dolphins could be still debated, but the sexual behavior of bonobos (make love, not war) is very well established. Their morality is far superior to the humans.

Interesting, yes. Important, no.
In regards to our discussion, your claim that any animal besides humans would not have sex if they didn’t derive subjective pleasure from the act still falls flat.
Beyond that, bonobos and dolphins are not moral agents. They lack the intellectual faculty to even understand the consequences of their sexual behavior. They never think, “I’m making little bonobos!” It is an act of pure instinct.
And, as indicated above, bonobos have no morality to speak of. Morality and conflict resolution/aversion are not the same thing. One entails the idea of right and wrong, the other simply attempts to avoid unpleasant confrontations and situations.
People can lie to avoid conflict, but that doesn’t make it moral.

And other, external socities waging wars on them.

Complacency and gratuitous self-indulgence weaken society from within, making conquest much easier. True story.

Sure. Dumb goverment policies, which have nothing to do with sexual “morality”.

Dumb government policies are eroding family values and preventing people from having children?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Serious
**
I don’t think that going into technical details would be advised - especially considering the possible underage audiance. So it should suffice to say that your imagination is very limited. Shame, shame… **

I gotcha. You’re squeamish. So for that reason, to protect the underage (there must be millions of them watching) we also should not describe in detail the process of an abortion.

Bad taste? I don’t think so. What sodomy is should be described from time to time, so that even the underage will know exactly what topic is being discussed.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mgreen
**
True, which makes it an impractical act, but why the leap to immoral?**

Because it is hurtful … not only physically but psychologically and spiritually.

And it is shameful. Can you think of anything shameful that is not also hurtful and immoral?

Name one.

I grant you some sodomites are not ashamed of themselves. But so are some prostitutes and thieves and liars and murderers. So not having shame is no argument that an act is not shameful and immoral.

 

[Baelor]

A secularist does not have to be a Catholic theologian to believe that sodomy is a disordered condition. Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Jefferson (none of them Catholics) could easily see the violation of the natural order in sodomy.

So? That is not an argument. “Plato said it” is not compelling unless he provided a secular argument against it. You are talking about a “natural order” that you have not proven exists, or is relevant even if it does.

Common sense should prevail. The male penis was not designed for the male or female anus.

So?

But there must be an absolute ground for all morality. Otherwise, it’s only preference/majority rule.

You are correct. I argue that there is nothing but preference/majority rule. Before I accept any of this reasoning, you will need to get me on board with absolutism. I am currently not.

It isn’t if you understand morality to be the assessment of the effects on the good of the individual and society. As sex has just such effects, it is an essential moral question. If you think you can ignore the ramifications of sexual behaviors, why couldn’t you ignore the consequences of any other issue?

Ramifications are irrelevant. Either the act is immoral or it is not. I reject anything other than an analysis of the action in a vacuum or its inherent immediate consequences.

Because it is hurtful … not only physically but psychologically and spiritually.

I am a (pretend) atheist! I do not believe in spirituality. I also do not believe that being gay is harmful psychologically.

And it is shameful. Can you think of anything shameful that is not also hurtful and immoral?

I do not think it is shameful at all.

I grant you some sodomites are not ashamed of themselves. But so are some prostitutes and thieves and liars and murderers. So not having shame is no argument that an act is not shameful and immoral.

Can we please move out of first millennium please? I am not even in character now. This is just so ignorant and senseless that I am compelled to comment as a Catholic, not as a devil’s advocate. You have no basis for this statement whatsoever, and not only is it incredibly offensive and judgmental to your fellow brothers and sisters, it is wildly inaccurate. You should speak to a priest ASAP if this is actually how you view these issues.*

Okay, back in character. Who are you to assign shame?

 

[mgreen77]

Because it is hurtful … not only physically but psychologically and spiritually.

Well, spiritually doesn’t count as a secular reason.

And I don’t see how it’s hurtful psychologically unless someone also agrees that it’s immoral/shameful, which circles us back to WHY is it immoral or shameful? And round and round we go. It’s immoral because it’s shameful, and shameful because it’s harmful, and harmful because it’s immoral.

I think the problem is that the immoral arguments mainly rest on the sex act being inherently sacred, so any “abuse” of the act is immoral, a corruption of the blessing. I get that, it makes sense… just not to a secularist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mgreen

**I think the problem is that the immoral arguments mainly rest on the sex act being inherently sacred, so any “abuse” of the act is immoral, a corruption of the blessing. I get that, it makes sense… just not to a secularist. **

Do you think secularists have no shame or morals? Do you know a secularist who freely admits to masturbating? And I suppose if he did, it would be because he has no morals or shame. But that doesn’t say much for secularists if that’s the position they are going to argue.