If religion didn't exist would homosexuality be wrong

Homosexuality good or bad

gay/lesbian-"good"	41.6%	[ 32 ]
gay/lesbian- "bad" 0.0	5.2%	[ 4 ]
straight- "good"	11.7%	[ 9 ]
straight- "bad"	3.9%	[ 3 ]
bi-"good"	6.5%	[ 5 ]
bi- "bad"????	0.0%	[ 0 ]
none of the above	31.2%	[ 24 ]
Total Votes:			[ 77 ]

[Herald of Lies]

Gho the Girl

Herald of Lies

Gho the Girl

Herald of Lies

Gho the Girl

It can be. Not in any rational way, but it can be.

Proof there is no rational way it can be?

I can't prove a negative. How about you provide a rational one?

Please don't argue from ignorance at me. And you can prove a negative. I can prove that gravity on Earth does NOT equal 100 m/s^2. I can, if we were in the same room, prove that I am not 9 feet tall.

But we're arguing absolutes/existance of something.

Meaning, I'd have to first find every single possible argument against homosexuality and post it, then show how each one isn't rational, and that wouldn't prove that there isn't anyway. The only way you can falsify my claim that there aren't any rational arguments against homosexuality, is to provide one that its rational.

Or you could prove that is must be acceptable by showing that logically any alternative but the one you propose would be internally inconsistent or illogical in another manner. This does not require you to find every argument against it, it requires you to find something they must all have in common. Like I don't need to show such and such is a property of every even number, I just need to show the inherent properties of an even number make something true or false.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Oh and please define what exactly you mean by rational and an example of what you would say is a rational belief concerning right and wrong and why it is.

Why? As long as you follow logic and rationality in your argument I'd consider it rational.

That's a rather recursive way to state it. And it doesn't tell me what I want to know. Some people tell me things like that one's desire for life is a good basis on which to construct a set of morals. I find it irrational to just grab it. Others, apparently, do not. What I think is rational is likely very different from what you consider rationl.

Maybe I should find the definition of "rational" and we'll use that.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

People have varying views on it and I'd hate to have to deconstruct our accepted premises farther than I have to.

I'll accept anything logical and rational as opposed to emotional or religious. Also, I'd prefer ethical arguments over moral ones, but as long as you stick to logic, I'll be fine.

*sigh* My problem is what premises are accepted. I personally find it rational to accept none unless they're backed by fact or undeniable logic and as such I do NOT consider any ethics or morals rational except within a certain from of reference.

As I said, anything logical would suffice. You don't have to use ethics/morals if you don't want. Can you provide one?

Can I provide one? It depends on what you would accept as a premise from which to start on deciding what is right or wrong.

[Shaviv]

GuardianSoulX

Homosexuality defies nature in the sense that nature confirms the purpose of sexual organs...

Homosexuality has become more so an issue of health. Statistics show a larger amount of diseases in the homosexual male when compared to the heterosexual male. Nature embraces the inhabitants of the earth that are alligned with what it was commanded to do. You may be thinking something like : "But other people get diseases as well." True, sometimes disease spread and innocent people contract diseases. That's just the way things work, but the diseases of homosexuality have been proven by science to be a direct cause of their activity. They have defied nature and science by using their sexual organs improperly...

There is order in the universe, and order is understood in terms of nature. I'm sorry to say but both nature and science disagree with homosexual love. I would say that homosexuality is a psychological disorder at best.

"Science" is value-neutral, as anyone who bothers to actually read scientific publications (even scientific publications aimed at a general audience, like Scientific American, Science, Nature, or Technology Review) would know. I gather you don't study the natural sciences much.

To top that off, you are using the fallacious reasoning that what is most common in nature is good, and therefore what is uncommon is bad; and that what we observe today is necessarily the nature of all future phenomena. You are also mistaking the reality that the greatest people at risk for infections such as HIV are heterosexual women.

The problems of sexually-transmitted infection come, in part, from promiscuity; for infections that require fluid-to-fluid contact, like HIV, it's not just promiscuity but lack of use of protection against such contact (e.g., condoms). Now, for better or for worse, some infections can be transmitted through sex or through casual contact - requiring only skin-to-skin or fluid-to-skin contact to be transmitted. Herpesviruses are like this. These are probably only going to be reduced, not eliminated, because of their high transmission potential.

It's not about the sex acts you perform with your partner.
It's not about the sex or gender of your partner.
It's about whether or not you observe basic safety precautions with your partner, and whether or not you are careful enough to have regular sexual health checkups. You know, I think it's somewhere between half and two-thirds of all Americans who carry herpes viruses, and a fair number of them are virgins. If they were instructed to begin sexual health screenings at a relatively early age, regardless of whether they are sexually active or not, they would be forewarned about what pathogens they might be carrying and which they might transmit to potential sexual partners, if they do not wear their goddamn condoms while ********.

tl;dr you're using your ignorance to justify your bigotry. You're also stupid or think we're stupid. Seriously, lrn2epidemiology, eh?

[Eria_Tarento]

Shaviv

GuardianSoulX

Homosexuality defies nature in the sense that nature confirms the purpose of sexual organs...

Homosexuality has become more so an issue of health. Statistics show a larger amount of diseases in the homosexual male when compared to the heterosexual male. Nature embraces the inhabitants of the earth that are alligned with what it was commanded to do. You may be thinking something like : "But other people get diseases as well." True, sometimes disease spread and innocent people contract diseases. That's just the way things work, but the diseases of homosexuality have been proven by science to be a direct cause of their activity. They have defied nature and science by using their sexual organs improperly...

There is order in the universe, and order is understood in terms of nature. I'm sorry to say but both nature and science disagree with homosexual love. I would say that homosexuality is a psychological disorder at best.

"Science" is value-neutral, as anyone who bothers to actually read scientific publications (even scientific publications aimed at a general audience, like Scientific American, Science, Nature, or Technology Review) would know. I gather you don't study the natural sciences much.

To top that off, you are using the fallacious reasoning that what is most common in nature is good, and therefore what is uncommon is bad; and that what we observe today is necessarily the nature of all future phenomena. You are also mistaking the reality that the greatest people at risk for infections such as HIV are heterosexual women.

The problems of sexually-transmitted infection come, in part, from promiscuity; for infections that require fluid-to-fluid contact, like HIV, it's not just promiscuity but lack of use of protection against such contact (e.g., condoms). Now, for better or for worse, some infections can be transmitted through sex or through casual contact - requiring only skin-to-skin or fluid-to-skin contact to be transmitted. Herpesviruses are like this. These are probably only going to be reduced, not eliminated, because of their high transmission potential.

It's not about the sex acts you perform with your partner.
It's not about the sex or gender of your partner.
It's about whether or not you observe basic safety precautions with your partner, and whether or not you are careful enough to have regular sexual health checkups. You know, I think it's somewhere between half and two-thirds of all Americans who carry herpes viruses, and a fair number of them are virgins. If they were instructed to begin sexual health screenings at a relatively early age, regardless of whether they are sexually active or not, they would be forewarned about what pathogens they might be carrying and which they might transmit to potential sexual partners, if they do not wear their goddamn condoms while ********.

tl;dr you're using your ignorance to justify your bigotry. You're also stupid or think we're stupid. Seriously, lrn2epidemiology, eh?

not to mention since when is being prone to a disease proof of being in the wrong. I really don't understand how one could argue that a person getting disease is morally wrong with out religion saying "god sent disease x to smite so and so"

[IcarusDream]

Jewpanesey

Homosexuality isn't wrong in the first place. Just because some dudes that wrote some books some thousand years ago were homophobic doesn't give anyone the right to deny someone their rights as a human.

You're right; what gives them that right is the democratic process.

[Striga]

IcarusDream

Jewpanesey

Homosexuality isn't wrong in the first place. Just because some dudes that wrote some books some thousand years ago were homophobic doesn't give anyone the right to deny someone their rights as a human.

You're right; what gives them that right is the democratic process.

You mean the democratic process that ostensibly protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority?

[Eria_Tarento]

Striga

IcarusDream

Jewpanesey

Homosexuality isn't wrong in the first place. Just because some dudes that wrote some books some thousand years ago were homophobic doesn't give anyone the right to deny someone their rights as a human.

You're right; what gives them that right is the democratic process.

You mean the democratic process that ostensibly protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority?

democracy fails...maybe plato had something with those philosopher kings of his

[Jewpanesey]

Striga

IcarusDream

Jewpanesey

Homosexuality isn't wrong in the first place. Just because some dudes that wrote some books some thousand years ago were homophobic doesn't give anyone the right to deny someone their rights as a human.

You're right; what gives them that right is the democratic process.

You mean the democratic process that ostensibly protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority?

This is exactly why James Madison opposed the creation of large factions, because then the minority finds their rights oppressed and their voices drowned out.

[DarkKing123]

This question is incredibly vague. That aside, yes, it could and would be perceived as "wrong" even in the absence of religious dogma. East Asian cultures for example view homosexuality as wrong (although maybe not as strident as the West) yet there isn't any religious entity specifically saying homosexuality is wrong. Chinese culture for example does view homosexuality as a deviance yet you could not argue that any religious idea guides that opinion.

[Herald of Lies]

Striga

IcarusDream

Jewpanesey

Homosexuality isn't wrong in the first place. Just because some dudes that wrote some books some thousand years ago were homophobic doesn't give anyone the right to deny someone their rights as a human.

You're right; what gives them that right is the democratic process.

You mean the democratic process that ostensibly protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority?

The democratic process of this country does not protect someone's 'rights as a human' just their rights as given by the Bill of Rights. All else is subject to change by democratic process.

[Shaviv]

Rights as given in the Bill of Rights or, in the absence of specific legislation, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

[iXenu]

GuardianSoulX

why would diseases be given to homosexual men that frequently have "intercourse" with one another? If one is arguing that homosexuality is their nature, how do you explain this phenomenon?

Dude... Gohnerrea, Syphillas, Crabs (also known as pubic lice). Anyone, any genders, can get and transmit disease.

If I was to have sex with a guy, and he gave me AIDs, would that have meant that heterosexual relations is unnatural (aside from the making of babies, so let's assume I'm infertile)?

What makes you assume that cute gay men do it "frequently"? I know some fruit cup virgins waiting for the right guy.... it really isn't that different.

As to the OP, I don't think it would have had as big of a negative side if religion didn't happen, but I don't think I know how to imagine religion not being in the picture, it's been around too long and pissed me off too much.

[Shaviv]

Maybe GuardianSoulX rejects the germ theory of disease, which is that infectious disease is caused by minute organisms or, in a few cases, self-replicating molecules, being passed from one individual to another, but without caring about the moral or ethical consequences of any human act.

Does a pathogenic prion know who eats what? Does a virus care whose T-cells it infiltrates? Surely not; such things have no brains, much less minds, to conceive of such things.

[cyropi]

GuardianSoulX

Now, I know......I know. I've just been stating the obvious. I have a question: why would diseases be given to heterosexual women that frequently have "intercourse" with men? If one is arguing that heterosexuality is their nature, how do you explain this phenomenon? Things are difficult to explain at that rate. So basically nature would be commanded to cause death to the natural? Why haven't the heterosexual women developed an immunity to further establish their claim to their acts being natural?

Heterosexuality has become more so an issue of health. Statistics show a larger amount of diseases in the heterosexual female when compared to the homosexual female. Nature embraces the inhabitants of the earth that are alligned with what it was commanded to do. You may be thinking something like : "But other people get diseases as well." True, sometimes disease spread and innocent people contract diseases. That's just the way things work, but the diseases of heterosexuality have been proven by science to be a direct cause of their activity. They have defied nature and science by using their sexual organs improperly.

Fix'd.

Heterosexual women are much more likely to contract sexual diseases than homosexual women. By your own logic, female heterosexuality is unnatural and improper.

[Eria_Tarento]

DarkKing123

This question is incredibly vague. That aside, yes, it could and would be perceived as "wrong" even in the absence of religious dogma. East Asian cultures for example view homosexuality as wrong (although maybe not as strident as the West) yet there isn't any religious entity specifically saying homosexuality is wrong. Chinese culture for example does view homosexuality as a deviance yet you could not argue that any religious idea guides that opinion.

and yet that fails to answer ethics of it...gross=/=unethical so a society thinking it gross has nothing to do with right or wrong

[Shaviv]

cyropi

Heterosexual women are much more likely to contract sexual diseases than homosexual women.

Or homosexual men.

Quote:

By [GuardianSoulX's] own logic, female heterosexuality is unnatural and improper.

I don't think he's using much logic. It's more just letting his brain fart onto the keyboard.