Being Gay is Wrong

[Purple Robot Queen]

So many other people have had fun taking a crack at these, so I guess I'll share my typical responses when confronted with these issues in a debate. I'll focus on the first two, since I think #1 and #4 are part of the same basic argument, while #3 obviously doesn't warrant a great deal of energy.

#1. "Being gay is not natural."

This is of course the biggest and most common argument we hear. Many people have pointed out that numerous animal species engage in homosexual behavior, and many have also pointed out that "unnatural" also includes things like cars and shoes. Additionally, the idea that sex is purely for procreation runs into a wall pretty fast given that non-reproductive heterosexual sex would be equally condemned under those terms. Thus, I'll just let those statements stand and try instead to expand on those ideas a little.

The first item I would point to is not just the existence of homosexuality in animals, but its prevalence in specific species. The bonobo, one of our two closest genetic relatives along with the common chimpanzee, has actually been shown to exhibit higher instances of homosexual activity than heterosexual activity. Thus, homosexual behavior is not confined to some distant part of the animal kingdom, but rather it proliferates in the other members of our specific genetic branch.

The second item I would note has to do with biologically dictated population control, which I'll get to in a moment, after first giving a brief history lesson.

A common ally of the "unnatural" argument is the question "If being gay is natural, why has it suddenly become so common when it never was before?" Of course we all know that there have been homosexuals throughout human history, with the ancient Greeks being the most commonly cited. Greek culture did not actually commonly have or accept anything like our current conception of male homosexuality, though with women it was somewhat more commonly accepted. An*l penetration was considered extremely taboo, and it was not seen as acceptable for two grown men to engage in romantic activities with one another. Instead, acceptable recipients of sexual attention were considered to be females and adolescent boys and one such individual needed to be a part of the coupling. So, the Greeks had no problem with a man falling in love with a young boy, but two grown men in a romantic relationship was not the commonly accepted practice that many people today believe it was.

With this in mind, it would indeed be fair to say that all existent data does indicate an increase in the 20th and 21st centuries of homosexuality in humans. So what does this mean? While some may believe this is a result of more people "choosing to be gay" due to its increasing social acceptability, I think there is actually a good biological explanation for this pattern. Earlier, I mentioned the idea of biologically programmed population control. It has been proven that in some apex predators, like the timber wolf, when the local population nears the carrying capacity of their habitat, the collective population will greatly decrease the frequency of its procreative sexual interaction. Basically, the animals born into dangerously high population levels are biologically programmed, through hormonal exposure in the womb, not to engage in heterosexual sex. In 1900, the human population on this planet was approximately 1 billion individuals. It took all of human history to reach that plateau. Now, only 112 years later, the Earth's population has just passed 7 billion. Many experts predict that the human population will stabilize at around 9 billion, which they believe to be the approximate maximum carrying capacity of our global habitat. As humans are this planet's prime example of an apex predator, it would seem reasonable, and perhaps even necessary, for those survival traits found in other apex species to also exist in our own biological makeup. Therefore, not only is an increased instance of homosexuality a highly probable biological reaction to the recent dangerous increase in human population levels, it is perhaps a logical necessity.

#2. "The Bible says so [Not only in Leviticus]."

This is true. In fact, such statements are not even solely confined to the Old Testament, as Paul mentions homosexuality in Romans as well. There are four main arguments which can be made against the anti-gay biblical assertions, so I'll just touch on each of them as succinctly as I can.

A: The Bible's core message is one of love and acceptance. Jesus told us to judge not, that we be not judged. To love our neighbors and even our enemies. That God is love and that to be one with God was to be filled with love for Him and for your fellow human souls. On this basis, using the Bible to spread hatred on the basis of sexual orientation flies in the face of that book's core message.

B: Discounting the Old Testament (which all Christians essentially do, as it also prohibits eating bacon and shaving), a biblical argument against homosexuality must be manufactured from the New Testament. As I mentioned, Paul did comment briefly on it in the book of Romans. How brief exactly was his remark? It did not even warrant its own sentence, instead being merely mentioned in passing along with a collection of other items. As for the remainder of the New Testament, it is nowhere to be found. Jesus never spoke of homosexuality, nor did his disciples in any of the gospels. It was also never mentioned in the 10 Commandments or the Seven Deadly Sins, which are perhaps the only Old Testament items which the modern Christian faith observes. In short, homosexuality was such an insignificant consideration in the Bible that in the course of the entire New Testament, not a single complete sentence was ever dedicated to it.

C: The Bible says that if you have committed one sin, then it is as though you have committed them all. It also says that to look at a woman with lust in your heart is to commit adultery, and that to lie (under any circumstances and to any degree) is a sin, and that all people are born with original sin. Therefore, in the eyes of God, all living people are equally guilty of all sins. The Bible also teaches that Jesus is the sole means of redemption from sin, and that, save for the single unforgivable sin of blaspheming against the Lord, all sins will be forgiven equally. This means that, from a Christian perspective, a homosexual Christian will be forgiven and go to heaven, while a straight non-Christian (regardless of the goodness of any conduct in life) will go to Hell. On this basis, therefore, sexual orientation is in no way related to the Christian plan of salvation.

D: For those who do not strictly adhere to the Bible's teachings, none of these previous items are relevant. The Bible is not, after all, universally accepted as truth. Nor have its contents ever been systematically proven in any significant historical or scientific way. The Bible is not binding upon legislation, it is not accepted as an academic work by secular institutions, and it is not the only (or the oldest) holy book with millions of followers and believers. Thus, for any non-Christians, what the Bible says about anything is irrelevant, and that includes sexual orientation.

#3. "It's just gross."

So are pickles. And vaginas, in my opinion.

#4. "It's a choice."

See #1.

EDIT: I had not noticed, when I wrote this, that the bonobo correlation had already been mentioned earlier in this thread. Oh well.  

[kali ravenlock]

This is how I would argue the point:

Being gay is totally natural. Most of the time, you can tell if a child will be gay long before that child even knows what it is; it is pretty hard to choose what you don't know.

Finding someone to love can't be wrong. It's love! There are many things that I would rather spend my time doing than trying to keep people from loving eachother (except I still don't want to see people making out on the streets, and this goes for gay, straight, anybody).

I know the Bible says that it is wrong to be gay, but there are many people in this country that don't believe in the Bible (I would be one of them), and that is why we have this wonderful thing called "Separation of Church and State." Religion should have nothing to do with whether a person is gay or straight, and certain people should just let others be. Gay people are not trying to force others to be gay, but by condeming them because of it is an attempt to force a religion they may or may not believe in upon them.

A couple being gay does not hurt anyone else. It does not affect anyone else's life. It is for people to figure out for themselves and to find the perfect match for themselves. A person who knows what they are looking for in a partner can find it, whether it be a man with a man, a woman with a woman, or a man with a woman, it doesn't matter. Love is love, no matter how the couple is built, and it should be respected as such.  

[Vinsmokin]

xX S P L I T Xx

It's not a choice it's a chemical reaction in the brain or a biological disorder. Take your pick.

theres actually a gay gene. its been tested and proven in animals, but they wont test any humans, because they dont want to know the answer, they want the "right"to hate.  

[Taeryyn]

Lexi_Claire

theres actually a gay gene. its been tested and proven in animals, but they wont test any humans, because they dont want to know the answer, they want the "right"to hate.

Since this is the Extended Discussion, out of curiosity, do you have any evidence to back up your post?  

[Vinsmokin]

Taeryyn

Lexi_Claire

theres actually a gay gene. its been tested and proven in animals, but they wont test any humans, because they dont want to know the answer, they want the "right"to hate.

Since this is the Extended Discussion, out of curiosity, do you have any evidence to back up your post?

what kind of evidence would I have? Im not the scientist.  

[Taeryyn]

Lexi_Claire

what kind of evidence would I have? Im not the scientist.

No, I mean some sort of documentation. An article in a scientific publication, or even a news article from a reputable source.  

[Vinsmokin]

Taeryyn

No, I mean some sort of documentation. An article in a scientific publication, or even a news article from a reputable source.

I don't, but i'll search for one.  

[loonaboots]

i'd actually like to point something out about leviticus here (it's a bit off-topic, but..) :


so basically, it was saying don't claim men as your property.  

[Call Me Arizona]

Wrong is a societal construct. The way I judge wrong is in the harm done to others or myself. Homosexuality doesn't harm me or anyone else, therefore I don't think it's wrong.

Natural: That's a naturalistic fallacy, assuming natural = good and unnatural = bad. Computers are unnatural, therefore computers are bad. Also homosexuality is displayed in humans (which are animals), penguins, and many many other species.

Bible: Who cares? I'm an atheist.

Gross: So are turnips. Your point?

Choice: I doubt it. I've always felt attraction to pretty much anyone I've found attractive, regardless of gender identity. There may be a very small percentage of people where it is a "choice" but I don't think that's the case with the overwhelming majority.  

[Call Me Arizona]

Dancehall Hysteria

i'd actually like to point something out about leviticus here (it's a bit off-topic, but..) :


so basically, it was saying don't claim men as your property.

There's another apologetic for that verse, that there were temples where men were available as prostitutes, so the law is really just forbidding that.

Personally I don't buy either interpretation.  

[Aeri_Adore]

Hello, I'm straight and I'm here to prove you wrong. Being gay is perfectly natural occurance due to different hormonal balance levels. In some cases it may be a choice, yes, but if I were raped by a group of guys or something extreme like that I'd probably start swinging for the other team too. 99% of the time it has a whole lot to due with hormonal balances.

I'm no scientest though, so I'm actually here to appeal to any homophobes out there on an emotional level. Have you ever heard of osteogenisis imperfecta? It's commonly known as brittle bone disease. There are many types, and most victims of this disease will not live past their 2nd birthday. My auntie and her WIFE (go Alberta! They even had a church wedding, and it was beautiful) adopted a foster child with brittle bone. They've had him since he was just a baby. He is now 6 years old. He will never be able to walk, but my aunties do everything they can to give him a normal life. They are the most compassionate and amazing mothers I've ever met, and I'm a mother myself. They have kept him alive, and more importantly, the little darling is extremely happy and wants for nothing. He's one of the most intelligent children I've ever met.

If the alberta gov't had not allowed a lesbian couple to become foster parents, my daughter's best friend in the world would probably be dead. His biological parents were broken up, young, and very party oriented. No one can say that straight couples are better parents by default. Just look at those screw ups, they have nothing and no one. They brought a high medical needs child into the world and abandoned him. Then look at my aunties, who've been in a faithful relationship for almost 30 years now, who built ramps all over their house so their child can get around on his own.

Which of these couples would you trust more with your own kids?

On a lighter note, I think that the homophobic men out their should be greatful that gay men are more into each other than the ladies in the world. 9 times out of 10 they dress better, cook better, actually enjoy shopping with us, and are really good listeners. Most of these boys could steal your gfs in a heart beat if they wanted to wink  

[Taka-tan]

Hm, I can argue this

For one thing, it never said in the Bible that being gay was actually wrong. Many people are read to from the bible, but very few read it themselves to realize that Jesus never said anything against gays. The same goes with other religions being wrong and a certain race being better than the other. None of these where actually stated in the bible. If it is, show me the citation. Then you'll show me I must have missed something.
Being gay is both natural and not a choice: Science has discovered evidence that hormone imbalances cause which sexuality you prefer (read more at http://www.redding.com/news/2008/jun/17/are-we-born-gay-science-suggests-yes/ ) Forcing yourself into a heterosexual relationship will not make a gay man straight. It's like trying to make a left handed person right handed, it never will fully work.  

[sikntwistd87]

This is a really unique way of arguing the statement that is made by so many different ignorant people. I love this guild already.