Why Homosexuality is wrong from a secular perspective

[stiffkittenbabe]

Whatever dude. You are clearly abusing our great religion to promote your own agenda of hatred /discrimination against gays, and the subjugation of women. (In other words your belief that we are obliged to produce children.)
I’m have reason to believe that isn’t part of God’s plan for me. And I don’t give a monkey’s whether you think I’m worthless because of it. Maybe fighting injustice is my purpose in life. Right now I’m noticing Him giving me a lot of signs that it is.

 

[ReginaCoeli]

The justification that homosexuality is wrong and disordered does not have to have a basis in religious doctrine and moral law. One of the first areas of attack used by the LGBT supporters is to single out and attack the doctrine and beliefs of the Catholic Church, but this whole issue of LGBT rights has more depth why it is illogical and disordered in biology and secular reasoning. Using this explanation, it’s much easier to justify why homosexuality is disordered to those who are not Christian and those that are atheist, and show them how Catholic beliefs and doctrine actually correlate with biological law.

Here is the reason why homosexuality is nothing but a condition belonging to a whole classification of disorders of sexual preference, including incest, pedophilia, and zoophylia.

1. The main purpose and function of sexual expression and sexuality is for procreation. Even my anatomy and physiology lecturer at university stated that “all you young people think that sex was created for fun, but it’s not. Sex was created for procreation. If there was no need for procreation, there would be no need for sex, and it would not exist.”. Males and males can’t naturally procreate, nor can humans procreate with animals. So if natural procreation is not possible between a male and male, or female and female, this makes homosexuality a disorder of sexual preference and an unnatural act. Just like pedophilia and zoophilia are unnatural acts.
2. Our sexuality was created to be expressed between the male and female genders as they are both biologically compatible with each other and can procreate. This compatibility noted by the differences in the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the male and female bodies. Females produce eggs and males produce sperm which fertilize the eggs. Males and males are not anatomically, physiologically and biologically compatible with each other. Therefore any sexual expression between people of the same gender is disordered and unnatural. Nature has provided the two genders to express sexually between each other. If homosexuality was normal and natural, there would only be one gender.
3. In reality the only acceptable sexual relationship is between people of opposite genders(male and female), of appropriate age(where procreation is possible and the parents are mature enough to raise a child) and the persons procreating are not related(so no negative effects of inbreeding occur). If all these criteria are met, these all lead to procreation of healthy child and family. This is the way nature intended and not any other way.
4. Once the definition of what is an appropriate sexual relationship goes outside the boundaries of natural law( how nature intended) and is based on peoples opinion like those used to justify LGBT relationships, than one can justify any form of sexual relationship. Even people in incestuousness relationships have a right to love each other sexually, can be used to justify incestuousness relationships in the future. This is why the definition of what is an appropriate sexual relationship, should only ever be based on biological law and never on opinion as opinions change, biological law does not.

5)LGBT demand for the right to marry. How can LGBT demand rights that never existed in the first place. It’s like a man demanding the right to get pregnant. Both go against natural law. It’s like demanding the right to marry your dog. Marriage is an expression of natural law in our human society, so it can’t include disordered sexual relationships which are not natural.

That was the most straight-forward, common sense, fact based rebuttal to the argument for same-sex marriage “rights”. Bravo!!! And even though I am a devout Catholic, I appreciate that none of your points is religious in nature. Like you said, the minute we go there we are dismissed as “fanatics”. Bravo Again!!!

 

[eliminate1337]

I saw this on an announcement board by the Presbyterian church once and I love quoting it:

Bigotry and hate wrapped in religion is still bigotry and hate.

 

[Weareyoung]

Why homosexuality (in general) is wrong from a secular perspective? Well this is really easy if you mean secular in the truest sense, which to me means ignoring any religion. People who have religion believe they can gain immortality through an afterlife. If you really think about it and want to think about this in a truly secular way, the only way to achieve relative immortality without the belief in a religion or something similar is to have at least one biological child. The only way to do this apart from cloning is practicing some form of heterosexuality. You can say this is possible through artificial insemination or something similar. But if it is your sperm and an egg, it is still technically heterosexuality. Being exclusively homosexual would mean permanent biological doom. It might not be necessarily wrong for society but without beliefs in spirituality it’s definitely wrong for you, although you might not realize it.

 

[Beautiful_Rose]

Interesting point, and I agree, it’s not something that is biologically meant to be, but it exists and it doesn’t mean we should go around gay bashing just because they exist. They’re people with certain sexual preferences that need help in choosing the right moral path. However, it is not your duty to judge nor discriminate these people. Honestly, some people should remember that they aren’t God and have no right to judge others. The most we can do is help them out to live good and clean lives.

Either way, it’s not like straight couples can go around having sex unmarried, and when married it’s not like straight couples can have sex just because, they must truly want a child. Both science and religion support these facts, so there you go. Good post, it doesn’t sound pretentious or full of hatred.

 

[Cbus]

I don’t support gay marriage for the simple reason that I don’t believe gay marriage exists or can exist no matter what law we pass or don’t pass. That being said, I cannot find any justifiable reason why someone, regardless of gender, should be legally prevented from saying “this person is special to me. What’s mine is theirs and what is theirs is mine,” and then be allowed to enter in a legal agreement that enforces their wishes. If they want to call it marriage, that is up to them.

I don’t understand how anyone can seriously argue that allowing gay people to enter into a legal domestic partnership endangers traditional marriage. No one who is not already gay will enter into a gay “marriage.” No matter what anyone says, it is not a choice. As a straight man, I can honestly say that it would not be possible for me to choose to enter into an intimate gay relationship. Without getting too graphic, my body just wouldn’t cooperate. I’m not saying this to be cute or to insult anyone who feels this way, but I honestly believe that only a bisexual could argue that homosexuality is choice.

Please be clear, I’m not arguing in favor of gay marriage. I just think that the fears of it endangering traditional marriage are way overblown. Legalized gay “marriage” is not going to influence anyone to become gay. However, the way things like divorce and adultery are treated in popular culture and entertainment will certainly endanger traditional marriage, but I don’t hear anyone talking about outlawing that. Why not?

 

[mitex]

Archbishop Mahony spoke of support for limited rights to nontraditional households in a social justice context. I wouldn’t call it an endorsement homosexuality; just pointing out that there were existing structures for same-sex couples to be recognized.

As we have come to learn over these past decades, there are many groupings of
people residing under one roof across California. Some of these groupings are related
family members, while others are companions and friends. There are now seventeen
rights for such companions and friends specifically included in the State of California’s
legal structure.

And that was in “A Pastoral Message to Homosexual Catholics in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles” which was released after proposition 8.

And the Bishops in England endorsed civil unions from a social justice context as well.

Why even NOM has endorsed civil unions as a compromise. I don’t know as a gay man I could get behind civil unions.

The New Zealand Catholic Bishops have supported civil partnerships from a social justice context as well.

But we supported “the concept of a process of registration as a means for same-sex couples to gain access to certain legal rights and benefits which are available to married partners”. We said this referred to “proprietorial and civic rights only”. Unfortunately, the comparison with married partners did lead to some misunderstanding.

In a letter to the Attorney General, we emphasised that “the clear distinction between the marriage relationship and other relationships must not be blurred”, and we “opposed legislation that could confer on de facto and same-sex relationships even the appearance of equal status and validity as marriage.”

In a submission to the Justice and Electoral Parliamentary Committee, we said that the property rights of “people living in what constitutes a ‘domestic relationship’ other than marriage· should be protected” in legislation that remains “separate from the Matrimonial Property Act for the protection of the rights of husband and wife.”

In the same submission we emphasised that no government has the right to “change the accepted meaning of marriage”. And we repeated that “we do not approve the choices of those who enter de facto and same-gender relationships”.

We believe that most New Zealanders will have recognised our two-fold concern: to uphold the essential difference between marriage and every other kind of relationship, and to uphold equity in law for all citizens.

Our task might have been easier if it had concerned only those whose actions we can condone. But sometimes we have to talk about the rights and responsibilities of those who are doing wrong. To uphold the virtues of justice and equity is not to condone such people’s sexual relationships.
2. Further clarifications

It seems that even comparisons with marriage made only for the purpose of civil effects carry at least a perception of ambiguity. And so the following clarifications seem desirable:

a. In legislation of this kind, the first duty of society and its government is to promote the unique status of marriage and the well-being of family life. This is a basic requirement of the common good, and cannot be construed as constituting “unjust discrimination” against those who make other choices.

b. We do not propose that same-sex relationships as such constitute a basis for entitlements in law. Rather, it is the rights of people as individuals, based on their dignity as persons and their rights to equity, that is the basis for their entitlements in law.

Insofar as their living together affects their individual rights, including their proprietorial rights, we see the need for some legally enforceable method of upholding those rights. No doubt this is what gave rise to the Justice Department’s reference to “registration”. If registration were the only way of protecting important individual rights, some would then see it as a necessary and legitimate way of protecting those rights.

c. If, however, there is some legal device other than registration that would enable the Courts to uphold the rights of individuals in same-sex and de facto relationships, that other device would have to be preferred in order to prevent the negative effects of legislating for registration. We share the view that a nation’s laws shape and influence a people’s thinking. The higher obligation to uphold the uniqueness of marriage makes it necessary to avoid creating a culture in which people more easily slip into thinking that same-sex and de facto relationships are equivalent to marriage.

It was for this reason that we opposed legislation that could confer on those relationships “even the appearance of equal status and validity as marriage” and opposed the words “of the nature of marriage”.

Our position comes down to this: we support legislation that protects the actual rights of people in homosexual relationships; we do not support legislation that would make their homosexual relationship the basis of their rights. In this respect, their relationship is different from marriage.

Quite frankly why can’t we just ban same-sex marriage and then have some kind of domestic partnership or civil union for same-sex couples?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Quite frankly why can’t we just ban same-sex marriage and then have some kind of domestic partnership or civil union for same-sex couples?

Why can’t we have domestic partnerships for couples in general, banning SSM and (no fault) divorce?

 

[mitex]

Why can’t we have domestic partnerships for couples in general, banning SSM and (no fault) divorce?

Because they devalue marriage by “siphoning away” heterosexuals who will go for the partnership and not the marriage.

I can see where they’re coming from (kind of). In France the PACS the French civil union is more popular than marriage (this is straight couples).

But if we take the social justice argument of Bishop Mahony, the British Bishops, and New Zealand Bishops as long as a distinction is made that a civil union is not equal to a marriage (no same-sex adoptions etc) then what’s wrong with civil unions for same-sex couples?

From a legal and social justice perspective they correct a wrong that same-sex couples don’t have access to joint taxes, property, inheritance, healthcare decisions, etc.

I can’t think of anyone on here who would be cruel enough to deny same-sex partners rights such as hospital visitation, and inheritance rights.

 

[mitex]

Why can’t we have domestic partnerships for couples in general, banning SSM and (no fault) divorce?

I can get around banning same-sex marriage if there was something of limited recognition for same-sex couples such as a civil union or a domestic partnership. But there needs to be a distinction made between same-sex marriage and a civil union that they’re not equal.

And of course adoption needs to be made for married couples only.

But I think after marriage is protected and adaption saved I don’t think anyone here would be opposed to civil unions for same-sex couples. As long as there were provisions for religious freedom and protection (like in the proposed New Hampshire bill) and it was clear it wasn’t the same as marriage.

 

[sw85]

Why can’t we have domestic partnerships for couples in general, banning SSM and (no fault) divorce?

The purpose of “civil unions” is to give people all the benefits that are presently given to married couples but which do not accrue necessarily as a result of marriage.

But if they do not accrue as a result of marriage there is no need to give them exclusively to “couples” of any orientation. There is no reason why I should not be able to enter into a partnership with my entire office, all fifteen of my coworkers. It should be a purely asexual arrangement in principle.

After all, these benefits are in no way related to marriage. They’re things like inheritance rights, visitation rights in the hospital, etc. If they’re not related to marriage there’s no reason to limit them to two people.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Because they devalue marriage by “siphoning away” heterosexuals who will go for the partnership and not the marriage.

I can see where they’re coming from (kind of). In France the PACS the French civil union is more popular than marriage (this is straight couples).

But if we take the social justice argument of Bishop Mahony, the British Bishops, and New Zealand Bishops as long as a distinction is made that a civil union is not equal to a marriage (no same-sex adoptions etc) then what’s wrong with civil unions for same-sex couples?

From a legal and social justice perspective they correct a wrong that same-sex couples don’t have access to joint taxes, property, inheritance, healthcare decisions, etc.

I can’t think of anyone on here who would be cruel enough to deny same-sex partners rights such as hospital visitation, and inheritance rights.

What about all those heterosexuals couples who don’t really commit until death winding up divorcing because “the love is all gone” or “he’s not the man I married” which demeans the institution of marriage?

I agree, they should expand beyond “couples” to include nonsexual relationships. It should still be limited if it allows joint filing of taxes as that would make a legal mess. If there is no commitment to one person why should there be any benefits? The benefits should be a result of mutual support as it is a partnership in domestic life.

 

[mitex]

The purpose of “civil unions” is to give people all the benefits that are presently given to married couples but which do not accrue necessarily as a result of marriage.

But if they do not accrue as a result of marriage there is no need to give them exclusively to “couples” of any orientation. There is no reason why I should not be able to enter into a partnership with my entire office, all fifteen of my coworkers. It should be a purely asexual arrangement in principle.

After all, these benefits are in no way related to marriage. They’re things like inheritance rights, visitation rights in the hospital, etc. If they’re not related to marriage there’s no reason to limit them to two people.

I can get onboard with that. My Mom had to add her father on her health insurance since he didn’t qualify for Medicare; and she had to go through all these legal and technical roadblocks before she could do it.

A civil union or domestic partnership from a legal standpoint that you guys are pointing out makes alot of sense.

 

[sw85]

I can get onboard with that. My Mom had to add her father on her health insurance since he didn’t qualify for Medicare; and she had to go through all these legal and technical roadblocks before she could do it.

A civil union or domestic partnership from a legal standpoint that you guys are pointing out makes alot of sense.

I would say that health insurance coverage is not something that should be included in such unions.

My wife gets covered under my insurance because it is necessary for me to discharge the marital duty. Likewise with my kids. There is no similar reason for my parents, siblings, neighbors, mail carrier, maid, or whoever else to get covered by my insurance.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I would say that health insurance coverage is not something that should be included in such unions.

My wife gets covered under my insurance because it is necessary for me to discharge the marital duty. Likewise with my kids. There is no similar reason for my parents, siblings, neighbors, mail carrier, maid, or whoever else to get covered by my insurance.

If two people are living together (codomiciling), one working a job and the other taking care of the home, why would it be unreasonable for the second person to receive health insurance coverage?

 

[mitex]

I would say that health insurance coverage is not something that should be included in such unions.

My wife gets covered under my insurance because it is necessary for me to discharge the marital duty. Likewise with my kids. There is no similar reason for my parents, siblings, neighbors, mail carrier, maid, or whoever else to get covered by my insurance.

But my grandpa NEEDS health insurance. And my mom is willing to provide that for him. But the insurance company made it difficult. Such a civil union or a domestic partnership between them would make the company have to offer the insurance.

They are sharing a common household. One needs to be cared for. How is that unreasonable. No one is making you enter such an arrangement. But for some people that arrangement would help.

 

[sw85]

If two people are living together (codomiciling), one working a job and the other taking care of the home, why would it be unreasonable for the second person to receive health insurance coverage?

This question misses the point.

Why does the state compel health insurance companies to extend my coverage to my immediate family (i.e., my spouse and our children)?

Again, my wife gets my health insurance coverage because it is necessary in order for me to discharge my duty to her as my husband and for her to discharge her duty to me as my wife. And my kids get that coverage because they too are the objects of such a duty.

I have no immediate duty to care for anyone else – therefore there is no compelling interest in mandating the extension of insurance to others.

Otherwise, any shmuck could move in with his mailman and thereby get free health insurance.

There is no rational basis to compel such extensions according to any other arrangement than family, because family formation alone is a matter of compelling public interest.

But my grandpa NEEDS health insurance. And my mom is willing to provide that for him. But the insurance company made it difficult. Such a civil union or a domestic partnership between them would make the company have to offer the insurance.

They are sharing a common household. One needs to be cared for. How is that unreasonable. No one is making you enter such an arrangement. But for some people that arrangement would help.

Your grandpa, evidently, got health insurance without the state compelling them to be joined to a “civil union,” so I’m afraid I don’t see your point.

 

[livingwordunity]

I would be interested to see how people who disagree would argue against these points.

I imagine, however, that from the modern secular perspective, many of those points are irrelevant. Many people seem to have the idea, which is a parody of the Golden Rule, that provided you do not harm anybody else without their consent, you have done no wrong.

This parody of the Golden Rule is taught in witchcraft or “Wicca”. Here’s the difference between the Christian Golden Rule and Wicca:

The Christian “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” calls us to help others in need. But the Wicca teaching of “do what ye will and harm ye none” allows one to be totally selfish. It allows a person to just stand and watch, doing nothing, as others in need suffer while we “do what ye will” enjoying our material success. Satanism is whatever diametrically opposes the teachings of Christ, and selfishness is the opposite of Christ’s teaching and example of total self-sacrifice to others. Selfishness is what Wicca has in common with Satanism. Even though people who practice Wicca might not realize it, the teachings of Wicca are essentially the same as Satanism. It may be packaged differently, but it’s the same. I left Wicca and converted to Christianity when I realized this.

I believe that part of the reason why the “gay” agenda has gone hand in hand with the contraception agenda is because the homosexual act is the ultimate form of contraception. And this comes down to a self-centered, flesh-driven culture. Heterosexuality unites the two sexes, but homosexuality divides them.

 

[Gods_Peace]

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.

They are just stating what they believe, your the one who needs to be less hostile. People should never be ashamed of what they believe, and you don’t have to mock us by saying that this isn’t common sense, which it is. If you had a pure conscience, a well formed conscience, you would realize homosexuality and contraception is wrong.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

the issues that spurred them are often no longer "hot" or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.