Homosexuality a non religious issue?

[DanieltheDragon]

I think this is all smoke screen. Forget religion Z, I do a lot more than you think. Disagreeing with homosexual marriage is not about religion but reality.

Homosexuality is a non religious issue. Nobody has any benefit in a great range of activities from homosexuality to head butting a brick wall. No one wants to be a homosexual, just like no one wants to be blind. So why enshrine homosexuality?

Since that is true then really what is the motive behind gay marriage?

Mostly it's about sacrificing one group of people to our own needs. I want to live a certain way and so I will fight that they can live how they want as well.

The fact that God in the Bible is for traditional marriage is a bonus.

Is there a secular reason to be against homosexuality?

Do homosexuals hate their homosexuality?

Is the reason for gay marriage sacrificing one group for our own needs?


From:http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 91&start=0

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 20 by Wootah]

I don't need to argue from evolution if you can't present a secular argument against homosexuality.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 13 by Clownboat]

Skin colour is not a good argument. Apart from horrid undertones of implying racism, skin colour falls under a range of genetic phenotypes such as height or hair color that have little effect on behaviour.

It means you are arguing for determinism. And if you really believe in determinism then you have to be fair and accept that others may be wired for murder or rape. It's worse than that of course. You have to believe we are not responsible for anything.

Please be honorable and respond to what I did say, not allude to some argument that I did not make.

The part you are purposefully avoiding and likely why you chose not to quote my words was:
Therefore, to call something we are that we can't control, that doesn't harm others, "not normal", is unjustified it seems. Also cruel IMO.

See that bold part? Does murder and rape harm others? How about pedophilia, does that harm anyone? Please contrast this with 2 consenting adults in a loving relationship, you know, something you likely enjoy with the person you love.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 20 by Wootah]

I don't need to argue from evolution if you can't present a secular argument against homosexuality.

The secular argument is that homosexuality fails at basic pattern matching.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 13 by Clownboat]

Skin colour is not a good argument. Apart from horrid undertones of implying racism, skin colour falls under a range of genetic phenotypes such as height or hair color that have little effect on behaviour.

It means you are arguing for determinism. And if you really believe in determinism then you have to be fair and accept that others may be wired for murder or rape. It's worse than that of course. You have to believe we are not responsible for anything.

Please be honorable and respond to what I did say, not allude to some argument that I did not make.

The part you are purposefully avoiding and likely why you chose not to quote my words was:
Therefore, to call something we are that we can't control, that doesn't harm others, "not normal", is unjustified it seems. Also cruel IMO.

See that bold part? Does murder and rape harm others? How about pedophilia, does that harm anyone? Please contrast this with 2 consenting adults in a loving relationship, you know, something you likely enjoy with the person you love.

Once you argue for determinism there are many other actions that await their time to argue they can't be controlled. Then if you add in evolution you should be willing to logically accept that murder and rape may well be part of evolution.

Why isn't that evident from your current argument to you?

But my argument against homosexual unions here is simply a pattern matching issue. In any non emotional context given standard rational human intellect we would expect people to pattern match correctly and say they were in error if they did not.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wootah]

Can you explain that. Last I checked penises fit anuses, oral and manual stimulationof the clitorus are more effective than just the penis, and the prostate produces sexual satisfaction from anal stimulation.

If the penis fits you must aquit.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah]

Can you explain that. Last I checked penises fit anuses, oral and manual stimulationof the clitorus are more effective than just the penis, and the prostate produces sexual satisfaction from anal stimulation.

If the penis fits you must aquit.

Honestly I think you can think of more things the penis fits and more things that might fit in an anus if you tried and the more you try the more self evident the truth is. It's a pattern matching error.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 26 by Wootah]

If there are plenty of things that fit, isn't that pattern matching?
Do hermaphrodites get a free pass to bisexuality?
Is it better to use sex toys than have intercourse, given that they probably match much better?

Why would anyone care about patterns matching while having sex?
Do people only have sex to fulfil their geometrical fantasies?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wootah]

My wife seems to like it so I reckon that is pattern matching. I also reckon that people are not identical what works for some doesn't work for others.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 13 by Clownboat]

Skin colour is not a good argument. Apart from horrid undertones of implying racism, skin colour falls under a range of genetic phenotypes such as height or hair color that have little effect on behaviour.

It means you are arguing for determinism. And if you really believe in determinism then you have to be fair and accept that others may be wired for murder or rape. It's worse than that of course. You have to believe we are not responsible for anything.

Please be honorable and respond to what I did say, not allude to some argument that I did not make.

The part you are purposefully avoiding and likely why you chose not to quote my words was:
Therefore, to call something we are that we can't control, that doesn't harm others, "not normal", is unjustified it seems. Also cruel IMO.

See that bold part? Does murder and rape harm others? How about pedophilia, does that harm anyone? Please contrast this with 2 consenting adults in a loving relationship, you know, something you likely enjoy with the person you love.

Once you argue for determinism there are many other actions that await their time to argue they can't be controlled. Then if you add in evolution you should be willing to logically accept that murder and rape may well be part of evolution.

Why isn't that evident from your current argument to you?

But my argument against homosexual unions here is simply a pattern matching issue. In any non emotional context given standard rational human intellect we would expect people to pattern match correctly and say they were in error if they did not.

You left "harm" out of my argument when you responded. Your slippery slope argument fails because harm removes both the slipping and the slope. I trust that the readers understand this and cannot find a reason to harp on it further at this time.

If you want to start posts on whether we should allow humans to strip babies of their flesh for example, I would first suggest you consider "is harm being done to others". It is key and in fact some people live their lives by doing to others what they would like done to themselves. Heck, even those dirty atheists do this.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 23:

The secular argument is that homosexuality fails at basic pattern matching.

Such a condition relies on choosing what patterns are important.

I find their humanity the most important "pattern".