This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Homosexuality is wrong.
Homosexuality is wrong.
I've been extensively searching for arguments in favour of homosexuality for a while now, and have yet to ind anything of substance. I know that proponents frequently put forward the argument that homosexuality should be tolerated because it is the "choice" of the participants, and that they cannot "help" who they love, but is this really the case?
Taking emotion away from the argument, I just don't understand how it can be conceived to be 'right'. What is the ultimate purpose of a penis? What is the ultimate purpose of a vagina? Anus? Pardon me for being so graphic, but if one looks at it from a graphic, physical perspective, the idea of a man being with a man and a woman being with a woman does not stand up. The sexual organs were created primarily for procreation, so how can homosexuality then be deemed correct? It seems as though the practice of homosexuals is born more out of lust than any natural urge.
I do not dispute the fact that individuals of the same sex may have feelings for one another, but having feelings does not make the practice correct. Tolerating something and agreeing that something is right are two different things, though the line between the two has unfortunately become blurred given the swamp of suffocating propaganda imposed upon the citizens of Western societies over the past few decades.
Another argument put forward by proponents is that homosexual practice in animals has been detected, therefore it is 'natural' for humans to engage in such a practice. Again, this argument does not hold up. Our intellect is what makes us superior to animals, so it would be naive to use examples from the animal kingdom to substantiate human practices. Because a male penguin mates with another male penguin does not mean homosexuality is correct. Such instances are anomalies. Even still, there are numerous things animals do which we would deem wrong, so we cannot extrapolate isolated instances to substantiate the practice of homosexuality.
Tolerating something and accepting that something is right are two different things.
I've been extensively searching for arguments in favour of homosexuality for a while now, and have yet to ind anything of substance. I know that proponents frequently put forward the argument that homosexuality should be tolerated because it is the "choice" of the participants, and that they cannot "help" who they love, but is this really the case?
Taking emotion away from the argument, I just don't understand how it can be conceived to be 'right'. What is the ultimate purpose of a penis? What is the ultimate purpose of a vagina? Anus? Pardon me for being so graphic, but if one looks at it from a graphic, physical perspective, the idea of a man being with a man and a woman being with a woman does not stand up. The sexual organs were created primarily for procreation, so how can homosexuality then be deemed correct? It seems as though the practice of homosexuals is born more out of lust than any natural urge.
I do not dispute the fact that individuals of the same sex may have feelings for one another, but having feelings does not make the practice correct. Tolerating something and agreeing that something is right are two different things, though the line between the two has unfortunately become blurred given the swamp of suffocating propaganda imposed upon the citizens of Western societies over the past few decades.
Another argument put forward by proponents is that homosexual practice in animals has been detected, therefore it is 'natural' for humans to engage in such a practice. Again, this argument does not hold up. Our intellect is what makes us superior to animals, so it would be naive to use examples from the animal kingdom to substantiate human practices. Because a male penguin mates with another male penguin does not mean homosexuality is correct. Such instances are anomalies. Even still, there are numerous things animals do which we would deem wrong, so we cannot extrapolate isolated instances to substantiate the practice of homosexuality.
Tolerating something and accepting that something is right are two different things.
Scroll to see replies
ok then.
Logically it doesnt seem that there is anything wrong with that argument haha, although a lot of emotional people here will react violently bcos of the media focus on being homophobic in the past few years.
But if you are talking about human behaviour, then yeah it is to put a penis into a vagina cos thats our basic instinct but just because its a biological reaction it doesn't mean that it is right on all levels either.
In another point of view, having sex with somone or being in a relationship with them is deeper than the pleasure of sex, its two beings trying to be one.
My point is you can't really label something like this right or wrong, just depends what level of thinking you are using.
But if you are talking about human behaviour, then yeah it is to put a penis into a vagina cos thats our basic instinct but just because its a biological reaction it doesn't mean that it is right on all levels either.
In another point of view, having sex with somone or being in a relationship with them is deeper than the pleasure of sex, its two beings trying to be one.
My point is you can't really label something like this right or wrong, just depends what level of thinking you are using.
I don't agree with your arguments at all, but I can appreciate the relative politeness in which you've put forth your question. So, let's do this.
Our sexual organs were very probably intended for the purpose of procreation, yes. The instinct to ensure the survival of our species, and so forth. Our feet were intended for travelling distances, getting from one place to another, just as our hands were probably ultimately intended for the purposes of eating, picking up things, defending ourselves, etc. Yet we use our hands to write, to paint, to play Fruit Ninja on our phones. I like to think that we are allowed and have the right to use their body parts for whatever we wish. We have art, for god's sake. We have culture. We philosophize about fate and free will and higher powers. I like to think humans have evolved beyond the rigid biological imperatives of food-sex-sleep-survive. To say that any act is wrong simply because that wasn't what our organs were made for is ridiculous.
So just to clarify, your belief is that homosexuality is simply a result of a lack of self-control? I don't disagree that lust is involved in, or in some cases even the primary motivator of some homosexual acts. I disagree with the implication that lust is the only motivator, or that lust plays more of a hand in homosexual acts than in heterosexual acts. But you then continue on to admit that two men or women may have feelings for each other, so I will assume that you have managed to arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is not just a result of lust, and spare you a paragraph of text.
Now, feelings. Let's briefly move back a paragraph.
Your first error is in taking emotion away from the argument at all. The question you're trying to answer deals with the relationship between two people - how can emotion possibly be separated from that? Let's not even talk about how the capability for emotion, complex or otherwise, is a big part of what humanity's about. So while I understand your attempt to approach this from a standpoint purely based on reason, you can't subtract love or feeling from the equation, not completely.
At this point then, the only argument that you've put forth for why it isn't correct, I've already countered. So yes, you're right, feelings don't necessarily make things correct. But in this case there has been no reason to think why homosexuality should be wrong at all, and therefore countless people who simply want to be able to be with the people they love, without fear or risk of harm, can't. And that is wrong.
Honestly, even if they hadn't discovered this, it wouldn't have affected my viewpoint whatsoever.
I agree with this statement. I could use it to argue my own point. So let's pretend they never found such cases within the animal community. Humans do many, many things that animals don't. We invent things, manipulate and control nature to a certain extent to harness their energy/resources and make our lives easier. Global warming aside, doing things that animals don't doesn't make those actions wrong, because we're not animals.
You want a solid, reason-based explanation for why homosexuality is right? I won't be able to give you one. People have barely figured out the finer points of morality in society, and even that line between right and wrong wavers with the change in generations. What matters, or should matter, is that at the end of the day, people aren't getting harmed by two men or women in a relationship with each other. This isn't global warming. So what gives any of us the right to decide whether what two people decide to do between themselves is right or wrong?
Our sexual organs were very probably intended for the purpose of procreation, yes. The instinct to ensure the survival of our species, and so forth. Our feet were intended for travelling distances, getting from one place to another, just as our hands were probably ultimately intended for the purposes of eating, picking up things, defending ourselves, etc. Yet we use our hands to write, to paint, to play Fruit Ninja on our phones. I like to think that we are allowed and have the right to use their body parts for whatever we wish. We have art, for god's sake. We have culture. We philosophize about fate and free will and higher powers. I like to think humans have evolved beyond the rigid biological imperatives of food-sex-sleep-survive. To say that any act is wrong simply because that wasn't what our organs were made for is ridiculous.
It seems as though the practice of homosexuals is born more out of lust than any natural urge.
So just to clarify, your belief is that homosexuality is simply a result of a lack of self-control? I don't disagree that lust is involved in, or in some cases even the primary motivator of some homosexual acts. I disagree with the implication that lust is the only motivator, or that lust plays more of a hand in homosexual acts than in heterosexual acts. But you then continue on to admit that two men or women may have feelings for each other, so I will assume that you have managed to arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is not just a result of lust, and spare you a paragraph of text.
Now, feelings. Let's briefly move back a paragraph.
Taking emotion away from the argument, I just don't understand how it can be conceived to be 'right'.
Your first error is in taking emotion away from the argument at all. The question you're trying to answer deals with the relationship between two people - how can emotion possibly be separated from that? Let's not even talk about how the capability for emotion, complex or otherwise, is a big part of what humanity's about. So while I understand your attempt to approach this from a standpoint purely based on reason, you can't subtract love or feeling from the equation, not completely.
I do not dispute the fact that individuals of the same sex may have feelings for one another, but having feelings does not make the practice correct.
Another argument put forward by proponents is that homosexual practice in animals has been detected, therefore it is 'natural' for humans to engage in such a practice.
Honestly, even if they hadn't discovered this, it wouldn't have affected my viewpoint whatsoever.
Our intellect is what makes us superior to animals, so it would be naive to use examples from the animal kingdom to substantiate human practices.
I agree with this statement. I could use it to argue my own point. So let's pretend they never found such cases within the animal community. Humans do many, many things that animals don't. We invent things, manipulate and control nature to a certain extent to harness their energy/resources and make our lives easier. Global warming aside, doing things that animals don't doesn't make those actions wrong, because we're not animals.
You want a solid, reason-based explanation for why homosexuality is right? I won't be able to give you one. People have barely figured out the finer points of morality in society, and even that line between right and wrong wavers with the change in generations. What matters, or should matter, is that at the end of the day, people aren't getting harmed by two men or women in a relationship with each other. This isn't global warming. So what gives any of us the right to decide whether what two people decide to do between themselves is right or wrong?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Underd0g
Taking emotion away from the argument, I just don't understand how it can be conceived to be 'right'. What is the ultimate purpose of a penis? What is the ultimate purpose of a vagina? Anus? Pardon me for being so graphic, but if one looks at it from a graphic, physical perspective, the idea of a man being with a man and a woman being with a woman does not stand up. The sexual organs were created primarily for procreation, so how can homosexuality then be deemed correct? It seems as though the practice of homosexuals is born more out of lust than any natural urge.
Another argument put forward by proponents is that homosexual practice in animals has been detected, therefore it is 'natural' for humans to engage in such a practice. Again, this argument does not hold up. Our intellect is what makes us superior to animals, so it would be naive to use examples from the animal kingdom to substantiate human practices. Because a male penguin mates with another male penguin does not mean homosexuality is correct. Such instances are anomalies. Even still, there are numerous things animals do which we would deem wrong, so we cannot extrapolate isolated instances to substantiate the practice of homosexuality.
Tolerating something and accepting that something is right are two different things.
Taking emotion away from the argument, I just don't understand how it can be conceived to be 'right'. What is the ultimate purpose of a penis? What is the ultimate purpose of a vagina? Anus? Pardon me for being so graphic, but if one looks at it from a graphic, physical perspective, the idea of a man being with a man and a woman being with a woman does not stand up. The sexual organs were created primarily for procreation, so how can homosexuality then be deemed correct? It seems as though the practice of homosexuals is born more out of lust than any natural urge.
Another argument put forward by proponents is that homosexual practice in animals has been detected, therefore it is 'natural' for humans to engage in such a practice. Again, this argument does not hold up. Our intellect is what makes us superior to animals, so it would be naive to use examples from the animal kingdom to substantiate human practices. Because a male penguin mates with another male penguin does not mean homosexuality is correct. Such instances are anomalies. Even still, there are numerous things animals do which we would deem wrong, so we cannot extrapolate isolated instances to substantiate the practice of homosexuality.
Tolerating something and accepting that something is right are two different things.
My main issue with what you are arguing is these two points in conjunction. Firstly you argue that homosexuality is wrong because of the natural design of the human body, then you explicitly tell us to ignore an instance of homosexuality in nature because our intellect is superior and we have moved beyond that. Why is "our intellect is superior to that of animals" not an equally valid way of accepting homosexuality beyond the basic biological design?
Moreover, I want to turn your question on its head. You said that you had struggled to find arguments in favour of homosexuality. What arguments are there that it is a bad thing? Your OP mostly seems to try to find flaws in arguments that say it is a good thing, without addressing the title of the thread and saying why it is a bad thing.
Homosexuality is neither wrong nor right. It just is.
The primary use of our sexual organs is for procreation, as well as getting rid of waste, but pleasure is derived from the act of sex meaning animals and us humans do it for pleasure. We do lots of things for pleasure such as eat foods which are bad for us, drink alcohol and gamble. If something feels good we're likely to do it, even if it is misbegotten, has no functional purpose, or is just plain wrong.
I'm pretty sure everyone knows homosexuality is wrong, no need to tell us.
So, men and women should only have sex when they're trying for a baby? Good luck with that.
I didn't choose to be gay, I just am. It's consensual and doesn't harm anyone, so I don't care if you think it's wrong.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I didn't choose to be gay, I just am. It's consensual and doesn't harm anyone, so I don't care if you think it's wrong.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Again with people using the word "logic" to justify their rather poor arguments.
We have sex in order to reproduce. Yes the penis is used for reproduction but not only for reproduction. A spoon might be created in order to eat but there's nothing immoral with using it to dig ditches or whatever. We have evolved in order to remain alive and increase our reproductive fitness. So what? no moral implications arise from this fact. Equally, there are no moral implications that arise from the fact that our genitals evolved for reproduction and health. Why is it immoral if someone chooses to use them purely for pleasure? it just doesn't make any sense.
You claim that those who disagree wtih you are "emotional" when your argument is extremely inadequate.
I am not even gonna bother with the "natural" stuff. It's the same fallacy all over again. What if homosexuality was natural? cancer is natural. What in the world does this have to do with morality?
We have sex in order to reproduce. Yes the penis is used for reproduction but not only for reproduction. A spoon might be created in order to eat but there's nothing immoral with using it to dig ditches or whatever. We have evolved in order to remain alive and increase our reproductive fitness. So what? no moral implications arise from this fact. Equally, there are no moral implications that arise from the fact that our genitals evolved for reproduction and health. Why is it immoral if someone chooses to use them purely for pleasure? it just doesn't make any sense.
You claim that those who disagree wtih you are "emotional" when your argument is extremely inadequate.
I am not even gonna bother with the "natural" stuff. It's the same fallacy all over again. What if homosexuality was natural? cancer is natural. What in the world does this have to do with morality?
Original post by Nocteliv
Our sexual organs were very probably intended for the purpose of procreation, yes. The instinct to ensure the survival of our species, and so forth. Our feet were intended for travelling distances, getting from one place to another, just as our hands were probably ultimately intended for the purposes of eating, picking up things, defending ourselves, etc. Yet we use our hands to write, to paint, to play Fruit Ninja on our phones. I like to think that we are allowed and have the right to use their body parts for whatever we wish. We have art, for god's sake. We have culture. We philosophize about fate and free will and higher powers. I like to think humans have evolved beyond the rigid biological imperatives of food-sex-sleep-survive. To say that any act is wrong simply because that wasn't what our organs were made for is ridiculous.
Yes, but my query revolves around whether homosexuality is natural. If it's a choice, it's a different story. If it's the choice of two consenting individuals, then it's a completely different ball-game entirely.
So just to clarify, your belief is that homosexuality is simply a result of a lack of self-control? I don't disagree that lust is involved in, or in some cases even the primary motivator of some homosexual acts. I disagree with the implication that lust is the only motivator, or that lust plays more of a hand in homosexual acts than in heterosexual acts. But you then continue on to admit that two men or women may have feelings for each other, so I will assume that you have managed to arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is not just a result of lust, and spare you a paragraph of text.
I'm not saying lust is the key motivation behind homosexual practice. As per my previous point, I'm trying to look for scientific arguments in favour of homosexuality.
Your first error is in taking emotion away from the argument at all. The question you're trying to answer deals with the relationship between two people - how can emotion possibly be separated from that? Let's not even talk about how the capability for emotion, complex or otherwise, is a big part of what humanity's about. So while I understand your attempt to approach this from a standpoint purely based on reason, you can't subtract love or feeling from the equation, not completely.
I agree, you can't. But what's stopping two individuals from remaining friends? What drives the need to engage in sexual practice? The penis was not meant to be inserted into the anus, and vice versa. You can argue that the purpose of one's sexual organs should be upto the inidvidual concerned, which I do not dispute, but as mentioned previously, I'm trying to approach this as objectively as possible. And objectively, the function of the penis is for procreation.
At this point then, the only argument that you've put forth for why it isn't correct, I've already countered. So yes, you're right, feelings don't necessarily make things correct. But in this case there has been no reason to think why homosexuality should be wrong at all, and therefore countless people who simply want to be able to be with the people they love, without fear or risk of harm, can't. And that is wrong.
Can paedophilia be included in this category?
You want a solid, reason-based explanation for why homosexuality is right? I won't be able to give you one. People have barely figured out the finer points of morality in society, and even that line between right and wrong wavers with the change in generations. What matters, or should matter, is that at the end of the day, people aren't getting harmed by two men or women in a relationship with each other. This isn't global warming. So what gives any of us the right to decide whether what two people decide to do between themselves is right or wrong?
Questions of morality are subjective. The reason why I'm looking for scientific arguments in favour of homosexuality is because if there are, then Uganda, Russia and other such States which have adopted restrictive legislation against the practice, will, by and large, be in the wrong. If there aren't then it's a case of perspective, is it not? Who are we to lecture the world on issues of morality?
Original post by Handonpenis
I'm pretty sure everyone knows homosexuality is wrong, no need to tell us.
Pretty sure there's nothing wrong with it.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Cornelius
We have sex in order to reproduce. Yes the penis is used for reproduction but not only for reproduction. A spoon might be created in order to eat but there's nothing immoral with using it to dig ditches or whatever. We have evolved in order to remain alive and increase our reproductive fitness.
So homosexuality is a by-product of evolution? Do you have a source? I would genuinely love to have a read if you do.
So what? no moral implications arise from this fact. Equally, there are no moral implications that arise from the fact that our genitals evolved for reproduction and health. Why is it immoral if someone chooses to use them purely for pleasure? it just doesn't make any sense.
I'm not disputing the morality of homosexual practice, I'm merely attempting to find scientific arguments which comprehensively support the practice.
You claim that those who disagree wtih you are "emotional" when your argument is extremely inadequate.
"Emotional" was a clumsy word, I admit, but I was trying to direct the discussion towards reason and rationale.
I am not even gonna bother with the "natural" stuff. It's the same fallacy all over again. What if homosexuality was natural? cancer is natural. What in the world does this have to do with morality?
Has this been proved?
Original post by DJMayes
My main issue with what you are arguing is these two points in conjunction. Firstly you argue that homosexuality is wrong because of the natural design of the human body, then you explicitly tell us to ignore an instance of homosexuality in nature because our intellect is superior and we have moved beyond that. Why is "our intellect is superior to that of animals" not an equally valid way of accepting homosexuality beyond the basic biological design?
My point was that using examples from the animal kingdom to justify human behaviour is to a large extent frivolous. One could use examples for anything and everything. Unless it is a commonly accepted, routine practice, I don't think we should use animal behaviour to justify things like homosexuality.
Moreover, I want to turn your question on its head. You said that you had struggled to find arguments in favour of homosexuality. What arguments are there that it is a bad thing? Your OP mostly seems to try to find flaws in arguments that say it is a good thing, without addressing the title of the thread and saying why it is a bad thing.
I'm merely looking for scientific arguments in favour of the practice. If it is a moral choice, then it's a different story; I don't think we would have a leg to stand on when we attempt to lecture states such as Russia and Uganda on this issue.
Original post by Underd0g
So homosexuality is a by-product of evolution? Do you have a source? I would genuinely love to have a read if you do.
I'm not disputing the morality of homosexual practice, I'm merely attempting to find scientific arguments which comprehensively support the practice.
"Emotional" was a clumsy word, I admit, but I was trying to direct the discussion towards reason and rationale.
Has this been proved?
I'm not disputing the morality of homosexual practice, I'm merely attempting to find scientific arguments which comprehensively support the practice.
"Emotional" was a clumsy word, I admit, but I was trying to direct the discussion towards reason and rationale.
Has this been proved?
Your title is "Homosexuality is wrong". Wrong here can only mean morally wrong.
---> Troll.
Find a hobby sir.
Original post by Underd0g
You....you just went there...
Latest
Last reply 11 minutes ago
Government Social Research Placement interview questionsLast reply 17 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 33 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 43 minutes ago
Standard Chartered Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 43 minutes ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 46 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 46 minutes ago
narrowly missing offer conditionsLast reply 51 minutes ago
St dominics, henrietta barnett, RMS, parmiters or girls grammar??Last reply 52 minutes ago
2024 entry A100 / A101 Medicine fastest and slowest offer sendersMedicine
857
Last reply 55 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 56 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 57 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 58 minutes ago
What are your thoughts on poverty eradication programs in the worldTrending
Last reply 46 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 46 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
