What harm do homosexuals actually cause?

Since when does a thought in someones mind cause harm?

I didn't say that it did?

Misread

Either way, they how we feel.

It is possible and if I do, i'll let you know.

You serious? Yes it does its called education and has profound effects, like global warming deniers have declined through the generations.

A large priest population can be partly responsible for fewer babies being born and therefore a society in which a large elderly population has to be financed by a smaller workforce.

Oh and, they don't pay taxes either.

Priests or gays?

Cool. Be sure to make it a documentary.



You serious? Something is OK is different from something that should not do (eg polluting the environment).

In most cultures all over the world, homosexuality had been condoned all through the highest levels of authority, and exactly 0 culture went extinct for that.

I didn't say I agreed, but i'm just putting the case across. Business and others like Nigle Farrage would argue its ok.
Do those cultures still exist or thrive?

These cultures tend to be tolerant and do not use force to make people agree with them, like the imperialistic christianity and islam do.

But say, they still do exist and thrive. Chinese culture, buddhism, and hinduism are all still operational, just unfortunately with a 'westernised' twist to some.

What does Hinduism and Buddhism say about it? Quote? I've heard that they are tolerant and that but no actual quotes, in fact I hear more are against it .

Harm is a broad concept; nonetheless, I fail to see how harm is caused to any third party by two anonymous men having relations behind closed doors.

Men are doing this now, in fact, what harm, under any definition of the term, are they directly causing you?

As to your first comment, that is wholly subjective and relative. If disabled people being able to go out their business is wholly immoral and indecent to me, should it become unlawful? At least the harm principle has some objectivity to it.

How is that comparable to two gay people having sex in a private bedroom somewhere? What people view or even know about this? It's a flawed analogy and society looks down on public nakedness due to the subjective norms of the time not because it necessarily causes real harm.

You would think that the reason so many societies condemn homosexuality is because it causes much more harm than good. Indeed, a large amount of humanity's rules and principles are based on the notion that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to others.

So what harm do homosexuals, and homosexuality as a concept, cause to warrant such condemnation?

Again, many people (including I) do not base what is moral and what is immoral solely on harm. Harm is certainly a factor, but not the end all be all.

It is true, that what two consenting people do behind closed doors bears no harm on me. But just because it doesn't harm me doesn't mean that I can't consider it to be immoral. It's a question of values.

If it's subjective and relative, then clearly you can't imply that it's wrong or incorrect.

Secondly, nobody is advocating the illegalization of homosexuality. It's always been legal and always will be. Being against gay marriage doesn't mean that I want to criminalize homosexual behavior.

There is absolutely nothing objective about the harm principle - it's every bit as relative as any other moral principle. This should especially be evident as it isn't even consistently applied (nudism, masturbating in public, having sex in public or any other gross thing that doesn't harm anyone).

It is comparable in the sense that a lot of people justify homosexual behavior with the harm argument - that since homosexual behavior harms nobody, there's no reason to be against it.

This same argument can be applied to the examples which I provided. Since publicly masturbating harms nobody, there's no reason to be against it. It's not a question of analogy, it's a question of whether people are being intellectually consistent with the principles and arguments they rely on to justify homosexual behavior. Practice shows, however, that people are not consistent with these arguments - they are applied when it suits their purposes and they're conveniently discarded or dismissed when used to justify practices they consider to be disgusting.

Self harm

Within hinduism there are male gods who give each other handjobs in their religious paintings.

Buddhism has been apathetic but the Dalai Lama supports same-sex marriage, among many other monks.

India has buggery law only after Britain colonised it.

This one time my girlfriend took me to a gay bar with her friends and within the first 5 minutes a guy walked past behind me running his hand across my shoulders, then when we found a place to sit I had a hand in my back pocket that wasn't mine or Tori's..

Mind you I'm convinced this guy was on something because something wasn't quite right with his eyes.


Then while I was avoiding him for the rest of the night [[By being glued to Tori]], Tori and her friend went to get a drink from the bar, I kept the table.. Then they started sending guys towards me I mean REALLY? I could hear them struggling to breathe at the bar ><

But yeah, apart from maybe making me feel a little uncomfortable with an interaction like that I don't think there's anything particularly threatening that makes them more harmful than anyone else.

You would think that the reason so many societies condemn homosexuality is because it causes much more harm than good. Indeed, a large amount of humanity's rules and principles are based on the notion that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to others.

So what harm do homosexuals, and homosexuality as a concept, cause to warrant such condemnation?