free12thinker

Homosexuality is a victimless "sin" if ever there was one. No xtian has ever given me a strong argument surrounding it's supposed immoralities, and none ever will.

I've recently had a conversation with a xtian, and it wen't something like this:
Me: What is wrong with homosexuality?
Xtian: It's a sin
Me: But what is sinful about it
Xtian: It goes against gods wishes
Me: But what does god have against it
Xtian: It does not lead to procreation
Me: So is all sex that does not lead to procreation sinful?
Xtian: Don't be silly.
Me: Your justification doesn't add up
Xtian: You don't understand the workings of the devil
Me: So the devil makes people gay?
Xtian: Of course
Me: Well, he must know that God just won't stand for it.
Xtian: Yes
Me: But why won't god stand for it

(You can guess where the conversation went from here. It was a complete reinvention of the wheel)
It always is. And it doesn't appear as thought anyone LuvLuv, WJ, etc... are going to weigh-in.

pug846

The person in question doesn't have to be an atheist; theists do post in this forum. All I'm looking for is a series of reasons that they think are airtight. Most reasons that I hear are more than "the bible says it is wrong." It is either "unnatural" or "the parts don't fit" or "it isn't for reproduction" or "homosexuals molest little boys," etc.

So...anyone interested in doing a formal debate over the topic?

pug846

99%, you backed into that one.

Captain Pedantic

jubilex is kind of right as far as I know - back when religion took the place of science, and medicine was more or less anyone's guess, there was a whole bunch of guff about sex which was believed by everybody. Such as: a man only has a finite amount of sperm, which comes from energy in the brain. Therefore, it must be conserved to protect a man's mind. There were whole bunches of stories about how masturbation makes men "feeble-minded" (these things can still be found today, fact fans). Homosexual activity was seen as worse than masturbation, because it "wasted" two sets of sperm. Female homosexuality tended not to be considered back then, as few people gave a toss what women did sexually until surprisingly recently.

Also, there was the stuff from St. Paul, who (as we all know) didn't much like sex, and decided that people shouldn't go around having lots of it - they should restrict it to marriage if they must have it (I suppose he considered that heterosexual procreation is necessary for the continuation of the human race). The condemnation of gay sex kind of got caught up in that.

Plus, there are some parts in the Bible, which may well be mistranslated - but that doesn't stop anybody. Go to <a href="http://www.truluck.com" target="_blank">this page</a> for more info, if you like.

In the meantime, I can't help you with the debate in any other way, because I'm a queer atheist. One of the great things about being an atheist, I find, is that it gives me the chance to look at the world and decide what is and is not harmful for myself without having to content myself with a dubious tome of verse telling me not to eat lobster and stuff.

Radcliffe Emerson

I don't see any problem with homosexuality. It's just sex, after all.
I have a much bigger problem with all the violence and hate in the world.

cheetah

I just find it ridiculous that conservatives, esp. libertarian leaning conservatives, want the government to be small and not regulate businesses so much and stay out of gun issues, etc. But, when it comes to sex, not only do they want government to stick it's head in big-time, they want to make giving these people any human rights illegal!

Because sex is something the government should regulate but guns, businesses, etc. is not???

Sometimes I lurk on unitedconservatives.com and I just bust up laughing whenever I read one of their threads on homosexuality. The most recent I read, one of the admins, no less, was squealing about homsexuality being wrong because it will destroy the human species! She was literally using exclamation points and large letters as if it is already TOO LATE! The human species is DOOMED! Because, you see, if gays are allowed, the species will dwindle and that's the end of our species. Of course, one has to ignore the fact that making homosexuality more acceptable in our world doesn't mean that a vast majority of people would become homosexual which is what would be required to actaully reduce the human reproduction rate down to below 2 all over the planet. One must also ignore the fact that the population is still growing on this planet and is in no imminenet danger whatsoever of dwindling.

C'mon conservatives! There are way more pressing issues to worry about!

I do like the creed, "An it hurts no one, do what thou wilst." Which I have heard is Wiccan, though I am an atheist myself. However, conservatives seem to have a big argument with it. I don't know why....that's another question I'd liek to see an answer for...but that's another topic!

-RRH-

When I've heard people try to use secular means of discrediting homosexuality, they usuallt cite some kind of connection to disease, or that homosexual relationships aren't emotionally stable and/or satisfying. But, at worst, that would not make homosexuality immoral, just inadvisable. And even if you accept homosexuality as a detrimental factor, to what extent can we let that dictate what relationships we can and cannot have? I have heard similar arguments that inter-racial marriages are less stable than racially pure ones.

So, can we really call a relationship immoral just because it is problematic?

This same could be applied to other choices, such as polygamy, relations between two parters of very different age, S & M, etc.

99Percent

Contrary to what you may believe, I don't worship Ayn Rand

I didn't even know she was against homosexuality. However <a href="http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faqs/dmoskovitz_faq-moral-homosexual.asp" target="_blank">Neo-Objectivists</a> agree that there is nothing immoral with homosexuality as long as it is voluntary.

Veil of Fire

The more I think about it, the less I comprehend it.

I sleep with women. Who cares?

Joe sleeps with men. Who cares?

What gives here? What's the big deal? It's all just friction on nerve endings combined with emotional response. Physiologically, it's the same as masturbation. The only difference is the emotional component. Are emotions THAT dangerous to Christianity?


Forgive the pun, but where's the beef?

SmashingIdols

What if :

Joe sleeps with Men,
and Joe sleeps with Women.
He doesn't tell either about his other sexual preference.
He doesn't use protection.
He tells each one "I love you, we are monogamous..."

Is Joe moral?

Is it the same as masturbation?