Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

[Baelor]

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

Fine. Then simply answer my questions, which are those that are necessary in order to progress.

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.

Irrelevant to this discussion. Atheism is assumed.

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.

Are you kidding? You know that everyone can see your post, right? And mine? And all the previous ones? On this page, I posted the following proof that a secular conception of natural law cannot exist:

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.

1. Given A1, nature is not teleological.

1. 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.

1. Given 3), natural law cannot exist.

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.

See above.

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.

Assertion, assertion, assertion. I already assumed your responsibility by providing a proof that natural law is not secularly justifiable, even though the onus was in fact on you to prove that it was. Now you refuse to engage with the very proof for which you asked? Leave this to the adults and go discuss something that requires a third-grade education if you are going to continue posting at that level.

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.

Uh…Obviously not true. Utilitarianism rejects natural law totally, and none of those people are in “loony bins”

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

Again, very obviously not true. Perhaps you should consider going back to school.

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.

Hardly. I can very easily reconcile those two issues by eliminating the morality component of the rights and simply asserting that they help promote total utility.

 

[Christine85]

That is not a complete argument; see my posts above.

you said the above in regards to my opinion. Pardon what you may think is ignorance, but I dont understand what you are trying to achieve. People have given you various secular arguments which you are trying to rebut, the point is you are on a Catholic forum, what are your intentions?

I gave you what I believe to be the integral secular argument, yet you still said thats wrong. Im confused.

 

[Christine85]

my final post in regards to this topic is

“God is not the author of confusion” ~ The Holy Bible. I hope this makes things clearer for everyone.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Baelor

And all the previous ones? On this page, I posted the following proof that a secular conception of natural law cannot exist:

Blah, blah, blah. You keep saying you have proven the naturalist’s case and it keeps getting pointed out to you that the points you make for him are assertions, not proofs.

When are you going to start reading my posts?

For example, when I point out to you that common sense tells us natural law and morality exist, you keep saying, “Where’s the proof?”

There is no “proof” for common sense. As in mathematics, you cannot prove axioms. They are the starting point for all mathematical logic. So also common sense is the starting point for every discussion. Common sense is the first axiom of all logic. A is A. You cannot prove A is A. It’s a given.

But you cannot say there is no God. That is not a given. That is an assertion that requires proof. You cannot say there is no morality. Common sense tells us there is. The whole world believes it. It is the fundamental axiom of all our behavior toward each other. Only an insane person would say there is no such thing as right and wrong.

 

[kch86]

But you cannot say there is no God. That is not a given. That is an assertion that requires proof. You cannot say there is no morality. Common sense tells us there is. The whole world believes it. It is the fundamental axiom of all our behavior toward each other. Only an insane person would say there is no such thing as right and wrong.

This thread did not claim to provide an argument that proves the secular perspective wrong. It claimed to provide a moral argument against homosexuality from a secular perspective, one that might be convincing to a person who believes the secular perspective to be true.

The secular perspective, however, is that there is no God, no natural law, no objective morality. So a secular argument must not make reference to these three things, or it will not be secular and will not make sense or be convincing to a secularist.

Given that from a secular perspective there is no God, no natural law, no objective morality, I am led to believe that providing an argument for why homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective is an impossibility.

It is an impossibility in the very wording, since the secularist does not accept any form of absolute morality. For this reason, the very word, “wrong” is nonsensical. You cannot prove something to be wrong from the perspective of somebody who does not believe that “wrong” exists.

 

[buffalo]

This thread did not claim to provide an argument that proves the secular perspective wrong. It claimed to provide a moral argument against homosexuality from a secular perspective, one that might be convincing to a person who believes the secular perspective to be true.

The secular perspective, however, is that there is no God, no natural law, no objective morality. So a secular argument must not make reference to these three things, or it will not be secular and will not make sense or be convincing to a secularist.

Given that from a secular perspective there is no God, no natural law, no objective morality, I am led to believe that providing an argument for why homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective is an impossibility.

It is an impossibility in the very wording, since the secularist does not accept any form of absolute morality. For this reason, the very word, “wrong” is nonsensical. You cannot prove something to be wrong from the perspective of somebody who does not believe that “wrong” exists.

Not quite - very few American atheists will support the Holocaust as being good.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Exactly, and no one will take their place.

This isn’t true. Many homosexual couples adopt children or use sperm banks, as do many heterosexual couples who (for whatever reason) can’t have children. My mother had a hysterectomy. She already had two children, but she also adopted me.

 

[kch86]

Not quite - very few American atheists will support the Holocaust as being good.

It wasn’t “wrong” strictly in the objective sense as there is nothing “wrong” about incinerating matter.

The reason an atheist might disagree with the Holocaust is pretty simple:
The Jews did not want to be killed.
The Jews were killed.

 

[Serious]

This thread did not claim to provide an argument that proves the secular perspective wrong. It claimed to provide a moral argument against homosexuality from a secular perspective, one that might be convincing to a person who believes the secular perspective to be true.

The secular perspective, however, is that there is no God, no natural law, no objective morality. So a secular argument must not make reference to these three things, or it will not be secular and will not make sense or be convincing to a secularist.

Given that from a secular perspective there is no God, no natural law, no objective morality, I am led to believe that providing an argument for why homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective is an impossibility.

It is an impossibility in the very wording, since the secularist does not accept any form of absolute morality.

Up until this point your argument is impeccable.

For this reason, the very word, “wrong” is nonsensical. You cannot prove something to be wrong from the perspective of somebody who does not believe that “wrong” exists.

But here you made a mistake. Of course there is “right” and “wrong” from the secular perspective. They are not “absolute” however, which would mean that they are wrong under each every circumstances. In the secular “world” acts cannot be separated from their environments. The same act under some circumstances can be justified, while under other circumstances it cannot be justified.

 

[Serious]

It wasn’t “wrong” strictly in the objective sense as there is nothing “wrong” about incinerating matter.

Not correct. The composite of matter which constitutes a human being is more than the sum of its parts. If you wish to argue as a secularist, please investigate how a secularist really thinks.

The reason an atheist might disagree with the Holocaust is pretty simple:
The Jews did not want to be killed.
The Jews were killed.

Not bad, but not good enough either. I can imagine some very farfetched and hypothetical scenario, where a genocide could be justified from a secular perspective. Suppose that a group of people would carry a virus which would wipe out the whole human race, if allowed to proliferate. Since the survival of the human race takes precedence over the survival of a sub-group of humans, in this scenario, it would be justified to obliterate that specific sub-group. Of course I know that under your value system it is not justified.

 

[kch86]

But here you made a mistake. Of course there is “right” and “wrong” from the secular perspective. They are not “absolute” however, which would mean that they are wrong under each every circumstances. In the secular “world” acts cannot be separated from their environments. The same act under some circumstances can be justified, while under other circumstances it cannot be justified.

Not correct. The composite of matter which constitutes a human being is more than the sum of its parts. If you wish to argue as a secularist, please investigate how a secularist really thinks.

You’re right on the first count. I should have said “absolutely wrong” or something to that effect to express what I meant accurately, which was that an argument that homosexual activity was wrong under all circumstances is futile because it would have to be based on moral absolutes.

However, I did say “wrong in the objective sense” in the second comment. There is no objective or absolute sense of morality from the secular point of view. Anyway, that comment was a little tongue-in-cheek.

Not bad, but not good enough either. I can imagine some very farfetched and hypothetical scenario, where a genocide could be justified from a secular perspective. Suppose that a group of people would carry a virus which would wipe out the whole human race, if allowed to proliferate. Since the survival of the human race takes precedence over the survival of a sub-group of humans, in this scenario, it would be justified to obliterate that specific sub-group. Of course I know that under your value system it is not justified.

That’s a good point.

 

[Serious]

However, I did say “wrong in the objective sense” in the second comment. There is no objective or absolute sense of morality from the secular point of view. Anyway, that comment was a little tongue-in-cheek.

We could have a discussion about the difference in “absolute” and “objective” morailty if you are so inclined. But since it was “tongue-in-cheek”, there is no need. By the way, I DO value your commets. Just wanted to make sure you know it.

 

[Baelor]

you said the above in regards to my opinion. Pardon what you may think is ignorance, but I dont understand what you are trying to achieve.

I have stated exactly what my goals are. They are to develop a secular argument against gay marriage. That is, the purpose of this thread as stated by the OP. Pointing out flaws in proposed arguments is a way to do this.

People have given you various secular arguments which you are trying to rebut, the point is you are on a Catholic forum, what are your intentions?

The arguments are not secular, which I have demonstrated. See above re: my intentions.

Blah, blah, blah. You keep saying you have proven the naturalist’s case and it keeps getting pointed out to you that the points you make for him are assertions, not proofs.

They are not assertions. The point is that my proof is valid: each statement follows from each previous statement. In other words, I claim you cannot point out a step in this argument that does not follow from the previous one:

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.

1. Given A1, nature is not teleological.

1. 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.

1. Given 3), natural law cannot exist.

Note that although you claim all I make are assertions, you still have not pointed out where my argument is flawed.

For example, when I point out to you that common sense tells us natural law and morality exist, you keep saying, “Where’s the proof?”

Baelor:

This is because, as I very clearly mentioned, common sense is explicable. Not touching a hot stove is common sense, but can also be independently verified through chemistry. In any intellectual discussion, only the underlying reason matters.

There is no “proof” for common sense. As in mathematics, you cannot prove axioms.

Baelor:

This is because, as I very clearly mentioned, common sense is explicable. Not touching a hot stove is common sense, but can also be independently verified through chemistry. In any intellectual discussion, only the underlying reason matters.

Yes, common sense is provable.

They are the starting point for all mathematical logic.

But axioms are not true. You are asserting that common sense is true. Axioms are starting assumptions which may or may not be true. This page has info on this.

So also common sense is the starting point for every discussion.

Baelor:

This is because, as I very clearly mentioned, common sense is explicable. Not touching a hot stove is common sense, but can also be independently verified through chemistry. In any intellectual discussion, only the underlying reason matters.

Common sense is the first axiom of all logic. A is A. You cannot prove A is A. It’s a given.

Baelor:

This is because, as I very clearly mentioned, common sense is explicable. Not touching a hot stove is common sense, but can also be independently verified through chemistry. In any intellectual discussion, only the underlying reason matters.

But you cannot say there is no God. That is not a given.

OP:

Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

It is a given in this discussion.

That is an assertion that requires proof.

OP:

Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

You just finished talking about axioms. Atheism is an axiom in this discussion.

You cannot say there is no morality.

Fine. Establish a morality system with proof.

Common sense tells us there is.

Baelor:

This is because, as I very clearly mentioned, common sense is explicable. Not touching a hot stove is common sense, but can also be independently verified through chemistry. In any intellectual discussion, only the underlying reason matters.

The whole world believes it.

Argumentum ad numerum, therefore invalid.

It is the fundamental axiom of all our behavior toward each other. Only an insane person would say there is no such thing as right and wrong.

Baelor:

This is because, as I very clearly mentioned, common sense is explicable. Not touching a hot stove is common sense, but can also be independently verified through chemistry. In any intellectual discussion, only the underlying reason matters.

 

[buffalo]

This isn’t true. Many homosexual couples adopt children or use sperm banks, as do many heterosexual couples who (for whatever reason) can’t have children. My mother had a hysterectomy. She already had two children, but she also adopted me.

Let’s try again - 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.

 

[buffalo]

It wasn’t “wrong” strictly in the objective sense as there is nothing “wrong” about incinerating matter.

The reason an atheist might disagree with the Holocaust is pretty simple:
The Jews did not want to be killed.
The Jews were killed.

The other place it fails is when we say - we want to kill you.

 

[kch86]

The other place it fails is when we say - we want to kill you.

Well, secular morality is dominated by a combination of the negative Golden Rule and the idea of consent. I could phrase it as, “Don’t do unto others that which you wouldn’t want done unto yourself, unless they consent,” or, even more simply, “Do no harm without consent.”

So the Nazis wanted to kill the Jews, which is harmful.

If all the Jews desired to be collectively euthanised then nothing untoward would have happened from the secular perspective. The Holocaust would have just been a really, really big mercy killing.

However, the Jews did not consent to this, and so the Holocaust was wrong in the atheist’s eyes.

 

[buffalo]

Well, secular morality is dominated by a combination of the negative Golden Rule and the idea of consent. I could phrase it as, “Don’t do unto others that which you wouldn’t want done unto yourself, unless they consent,” or, even more simply, “Do no harm without consent.”

So the Nazis wanted to kill the Jews, which is harmful.

If all the Jews desired to be collectively euthanised then nothing untoward would have happened from the secular perspective. The Holocaust would have just been a really, really big mercy killing.

However, the Jews did not consent to this, and so the Holocaust was wrong in the atheist’s eyes.

Harm? Who sets the parameters for harm?

 

[lauraabarlow]

Eating chocolate is “disordered” behavior too.

The purpose of eating is for nourishment. Eating for pleasure is disordered and not what nature intended.

Look at all the misery the chocolate lifestyle creates! Expanding tummies, diabetes…

Chocolate must go.

Makes you gassy, too…

 

[stiffkittenbabe]

Has this guy got any idea how offensive it is to compare perverts that have sex with animals and children to gays??
So sex is only for procreation? I suppose he would have us believe that it is wrong for infertile couples to make love, seeing as procreation is impossible!

The reason incest is wrong is because it destroys families. The reason pedophilia and zoophilia are wrong is because they do great and unnecessary harm other sentient beings. It isn’t rocket science!

And, by his definition, since only sexual maturity matters in terms of morality, that means Ephebophilia (meaning pedophilia but basically with teenagers who have reached puberty) is ok??
There is a time and place for religion, and a time and place for common sense. I think that time and place has arisen.

 

[trdchubi]

On a secular standpoint on this issue, here are some questions that come to mind:

How can homosexuality defenders be on the right when they were the unfortunate by product of the heterosexual behavior of a male and female union?

How can a sexual disorder be justified and given rights and priorities like it is the normal thing to do. Should we consider sexual desires towards children(pedophilia)and animals (bestiality)normal as well?

Is it discrimination or bigotry when we say that a normal society is against physiological diseases or psychological disorders? Or is it practicality?

Why does 2.8% of men and 1.5% of women get to have this kind of leverage compared to the rights of 97.2 percent of men and 98.5 percent of women who prefer heterosexual relationships?

Will it benefit a country when its population decided not to procreate, i.e Europe, and instead prefer to have “unproductive” marriages legalized by its government?

Sociology defines the family as the basic unit of a society. It is comparable to a single biological cell in a healthy body. In order for this body to maintain being healthy every single cell should be satisfactorily healthy as well - meaning every family should function properly or satisfactorily according to the established “straight” norms, standards and traditions of that given society.

When “abnormal” cells are introduced within this body, it create imbalances and diseases, poisons the rest of the healthy cells and eventually, sooner or later, destroy the whole body. A society who subscribes to the whims of this gay rights movement is like injecting carcinogens to its own healthy body. It’s opening itself to a very unhealthy, impractical and toxic norm that invites more social ills and contributes to its own decay.