Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

[kch86]

Well, not necessrily. A secularist might consider sadism and masochism to be dysfunctional psychological problems that should be addressed, rather than exploited. Secularists really aren’t always, “anything goes as long as there’s consent” as some people here suggest.

That’s certainly true and perhaps even most would consider those to be psychological problems that should be addressed, especially in the case of the sadist as he might seek to cause intentional harm to people, although I don’t think he could really argue against the sadist doing what he wanted to a masochist provided they both agreed to it.

As for homosexuality, it is clearly a deviation from the norm, although I assume that the reason it isn’t treated as a psychological dysfunction is twofold: a) political, and b) it is harmless from the secular perspective. And I think you’d be surprised - a lot of homosexuals do suspect that there are psychological reasons for their orientation and I’m sure many would be quite happy to switch their orientation if they could because it would make life a lot easier for them. They certainly do not choose it. Unfortunately, the problem doesn’t lend itself to correction easily.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I think people in the Apologetics forum are obsessed with homosexuality . Every week its a different thread and I grow tired of having to defend myself before hordes of angry Catholics who think I’m going to break up their marriages and destroy society.

I can only say a small prayer that the views here aren’t the views of the rest of the country

Wait, you mean you aren’t plotting to destroy marriage in America by luring husbands away from their wives and that you aren’t busy corrupting youth?

I honestly have no idea why people are so worried about homosexuality that it will sometimes take up a quarter of the page if it is only like 3% of the population. I can only apologize for them.

 

[buffalo]

Let’s test it. Let’s put some males, females and homosexuals on an island. Sterilize them all. Let’s see what happens after a few years.

The natural law will prevail.

 

[kch86]

Wait, you mean you aren’t plotting to destroy marriage in America by luring husbands away from their wives and that you aren’t busy corrupting youth?

I honestly have no idea why people are so worried about homosexuality that it will sometimes take up a quarter of the page if it is only like 3% of the population. I can only apologize for them.

It’s one of the moral issues of the day. I’d guarantee that if there were a push to legalise bestial marriage then that too would take up a quarter of the page.

Let’s test it. Let’s put some males, females and homosexuals on an island. Sterilize them all. Let’s see what happens after a few years.

The natural law will prevail.

In what way? They will eventually get old and die?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Let’s test it. Let’s put some males, females and homosexuals on an island. Sterilize them all. Let’s see what happens after a few years.

The natural law will prevail.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting homosexuals are neither male nor female?

 

[Baelor]

So where is the proof there is no natural law? I have never seen it offered anywhere. All I have heard is that it is denied, not that it can be proven not to exist.

You clearly need help with rhetoric, so I will help you out.

The OP asked for a secular argument. All arguments made must therefore be secular. The structure of this request means that those forwarding “secular” arguments must be able to explain their reasoning at a secular level, and the onus is on them to produce a proof that their reasoning is secular if asked.

You forwarded the idea of natural law, which you should prove secularly. You refuse to do so, so I will respond to your claim in character.

There is no God. There are no gods. There is absolutely nothing supernatural. We are humans, and humans are animals. There is no teleology. We evolved in a particular way. This does not matter at a moral level, because there are no morals. Why would shooting you in the face be wrong? What “right to life” do you have? None. “Nature” should not even be described as a force or in any spiritual terms whatsoever, and therefore no moral connotations whatsoever can exist to going for or against nature since it is totally irrelevant. Ergo, natural law does not exist.

 

[Dale_M]

Yes, I thought so too, but I interpreted it to mean “biological function.” Now, I guess one of the biological functions here would be reproduction. But I don’t see how an atheist would accept that a man should somehow be obliged to ensure that the various parts of his body be used in accordance with their natural functions.

The natural function of the male organ (setting aside elimination of urine) is to allow for sexual intercourse. In less intelligent species this may be restricted to reproduction, but in rational social creatures, such as primates and humans, sexual intercourse may (and seems to) have other ends.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

dale

**The natural function of the male organ (setting aside elimination of urine) is to allow for sexual intercourse. In less intelligent species this may be restricted to reproduction, but in rational social creatures, such as primates and humans, sexual intercourse may (and seems to) have other ends. **

If by “other ends” you mean pleasure, pleasure is necessarily a secondary end. If the primary end, reproduction, was not dominant, there would be nobody around to have pleasure.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Baelor
**
There is no God. There are no gods. There is absolutely nothing supernatural. We are humans, and humans are animals. There is no teleology. We evolved in a particular way. This does not matter at a moral level, because there are no morals. Why would shooting you in the face be wrong? What “right to life” do you have? None. “Nature” should not even be described as a force or in any spiritual terms whatsoever, and therefore no moral connotations whatsoever can exist to going for or against nature since it is totally irrelevant. Ergo, natural law does not exist. **

That is not proof. Every one of those statements are assertions without proof. The secularist cannot prove there is no God. He cannot prove we are merely animals. He cannot prove there is no teleology. He cannot (you speaking for him) prove there are no morals. He has not proven there is no right to life. He has not proven sodomy is moral. Etc., etc.

All you have offered on his behalf are raw statements of belief, not proof.

Where’s the beef?

 

[Dale_M]

If by “other ends” you mean pleasure, pleasure is necessarily a secondary end.

No, I was referring to what I mentioned earlier: that sex is sometimes used to defuse conflict, to promote social cohesion and more equitable resource distribution. All of those things can have a beneficial effect for the social group, as well as for the individual. Such behavior is known to occur among primates and humans.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kch
**
But I don’t see how an atheist would accept that a man should somehow be obliged to ensure that the various parts of his body be used in accordance with their natural functions. **

Well, that’s the problem of atheism, isn’t it? Almost anything can be accounted as natural if there are no moral obligations? This is one of the reason often given for choosing atheism, as the Marquis de Sade gladly argued in his “Dialogue of a Dying Man with a Priest.”

If there is no God, everything is permitted. (Dostoevsky)
There is no God. (Nietzsche)
Everything is permitted. (Hitler)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

dale

**No, I was referring to what I mentioned earlier: that sex is sometimes used to defuse conflict, to promote social cohesion and more equitable resource distribution. All of those things can have a beneficial effect for the social group, as well as for the individual. Such behavior is known to occur among primates and humans. **

Nature devised the sex organ for reproduction. Any other use of it is secondary. Some by-products of sexual activity have been discovered or invented, such as therapy or sexual dominance or social cohesion. But the sexual organ is biologically for excreting liquid wastes and making babies. Even pleasure is secondary, because a woman who is being raped is not experiencing sex for pleasure, though she may conceive a child.

 

[kch86]

If there is no God, everything is permitted. (Dostoevsky)
There is no God. (Nietzsche)
Everything is permitted. (Hitler)

Brilliant.

Almost anything can be accounted as natural if there are no moral obligations?

Pretty much. We’re just purposeless agglomerations of atoms accidentally arranged in such a way as to give rise to a fleeting consciousness before disagglomerating back into the randomness of chaos.

We differ from rocks only in that we have consciousness. There are no absolute morals. At best, morality is a negotiated compromise between the competing wills of multiple consciousnesses. Once consciousness arises, pain is to be avoided whenever possible and no-one should interfere with the consciousness’s will provided it does not interfere with the will of other, similar consciousnesses.

We’re just matter in a material universe. Whatever concepts of morality we invent are just there to make our brief flicker of conscious existence slightly more bearable.

 

[Dale_M]

Nature devised the sex organ for reproduction. Any other use of it is secondary.

The evolutionary origin of the sexual organs were for reproduction. And that seems to be their only function in creatures governed by instinct. However, this doesn’t mean that such organs didn’t acquire additional purposes for creatures which more complex reason and social interactions.

 

[buffalo]

In what way? They will eventually get old and die?

Exactly, and no one will take their place.

 

[buffalo]

Wait, are you seriously suggesting homosexuals are neither male nor female?

no.

 

[Baelor]

That is not proof. Every one of those statements are assertions without proof.

This thread is not a discussion of atheism. It is a discussion of gay sex in the context of secular argument. I will rephrase my argument in a different format that will permit you to identify exactly what the problem is.

ASSUMPTION 1: There is no god. There are no gods. There is no spirituality or supernatural.

You are not allowed to discuss these assumptions; they are to be taken as givens due to the fact that secular arguments cannot involve any of those concepts.

1. Given A1, nature cannot be influenced by anything other than random processes.
2. Given A1, nature is not teleological.
3. Given A1, nature cannot be discussed in a moral context because that idea presupposes that A1 is false. I cannot have an “ordered” (morally) nature if nature is random and divorced from any absolute morality.
4. Given 3), natural law cannot exist.

Point out which step does not follow.

The secularist cannot prove there is no God.

The secularist assumes there is no God, which is the starting point of this thread.

He cannot prove we are merely animals.

The secularist assumes we are merely animals, which is the starting point of this thread.

He cannot prove there is no teleology.

The secularist assumes there is no supernatural teleology, which is the starting point of this thread.

He cannot (you speaking for him) prove there are no morals.

Put forward any secular morality system. Go.

All you have offered on his behalf are raw statements of belief, not proof.

See above.

Where’s the beef?

You refuse to contribute. As mentioned, you are turning this thread into something both unproductive and irrelevant – a discussion of atheism. It is not. Atheism is a given in this thread because that is what the OP asked for. Please do not drag everyone down to your intellectual level. If you do not or cannot contribute, that is fine. No one is judging you. But please let those who can and want to actually think do so.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Baelor
**
You refuse to contribute. As mentioned, you are turning this thread into something both unproductive and irrelevant – a discussion of atheism. It is not. Atheism is a given in this thread because that is what the OP asked for. Please do not drag everyone down to your intellectual level. If you do not or cannot contribute, that is fine. No one is judging you. But please let those who can and want to actually think do so. **

You’ve said all this before and it’s no more valid now than it was then. You are becoming tedious.

Secularism assumes atheism. But anyone can assume anything without proof. The atheist is supposed to be big on demanding proof, but he can’t even prove his own assumption of atheism.

Where is the atheist’s proof? You have failed to supply any proof on his behalf that there is no such thing as natural law. Dig it up and show it to us. Other wise stop behaving as if the atheist has an ironclad logical reason for not believing in natural law, God, morality, or anything else.

The argument for natural law and morality is self evident. It’s common sense. The non-existence of natural law and morality is obviously false. We all go about our daily lives talking about natural law and morality. Where do you suppose the secularist thinks those notion come from … thin air? He knows very well where they come from … life experience. He can twist and distort his life experience, tease it this way and that, contort his logic into pretzels of insanity. It gets him nowhere.

The man who believes there is no such thing as natural law ends up in a loony bin, where he can make his own universe and his own laws.

The man who believes there is no such thing as morality ends up in the jail.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The evolutionary origin of the sexual organs were for reproduction. And that seems to be their only function in creatures governed by instinct. However, this doesn’t mean that such organs didn’t acquire additional purposes for creatures which more complex reason and social interactions.

No, as I posted earlier, reproduction had already been solved. The sex organs were evolved for some other purpose.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Baelor
**
You refuse to contribute. As mentioned, you are turning this thread into something both unproductive and irrelevant – a discussion of atheism. It is not. Atheism is a given in this thread because that is what the OP asked for. Please do not drag everyone down to your intellectual level. If you do not or cannot contribute, that is fine. No one is judging you. But please let those who can and want to actually think do so. **

You’ve said all this before and it’s no more valid now than it was then. You are becoming tedious.

Secularism assumes atheism. But anyone can assume anything without proof. The atheist is supposed to be big on demanding proof, but he can’t even prove his own assumption of atheism.

Where is the atheist’s proof? You have failed to supply any proof on his behalf that there is no such thing as natural law. Dig it up and show it to us. Other wise stop behaving as if the atheist has an ironclad logical reason for not believing in natural law, God, morality, or anything else.

The argument for natural law and morality is self evident. It’s common sense. The non-existence of natural law and morality is obviously false. We all go about our daily lives talking about natural law and morality. Where do you suppose the secularist thinks those notion come from … thin air? He knows very well where they come from … life experience. He can twist and distort his life experience, tease it this way and that, contort his logic into pretzels of insanity. It gets him nowhere.

The man who believes there is no such thing as natural law ends up in a loony bin, where he can make his own universe and his own laws.

The man who believes there is no such thing as morality ends up in the jail.

The last three paragraphs of this post, I think, sum the issue up quite well.

Secular morality is an exercise in futility. The option to deny is in unlimited availability.
If these debates were boxing matches, the secularist would be standing outside of the ring while the moralist swings at thin air, criticizing his technique.

The secularist’s dismissal of absolute morality alongside his expectation of certain rights, (e.g. to not be robbed or murdered, to be free, etc.) is the very definition of paradox. He is all too happy to assume the existence of natural law when it comes to his own happiness.