Before I start, please bear in mind that I am not advocating any side of the homosexuality issue; I just want to get people's opinions and hopefully make them think a bit.
Some people say that homosexuality is wrong because gays cannot procreate (i.e. have kids). Do those of you who say that say the same thing about straight people who don't have kids for whatever reason, be it by choice or chance?
2006-12-03 09:58:43 · 11 answers · asked by I'm Still Here 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
And if so, why? (give explanation, please)
2006-12-03 09:59:05 · update #1
Good point. If a women gets ovarian cancer and has a hysterectomy, should she stop sleeping with her husband? She no longer has ovaries, so there is no way they can have kids.....
2006-12-03 10:01:41 · answer #1 · answered by the guru 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Actually, that "argument" is based on the erroneous assumption that sex was intended solely for procreation. As I feel it is not, that there is nothing wrong with sex for sex, then this whole argument does not hold water.
You would have to consider all those people out there who have sex without the specific intention of getting pregnant, not just those who never have kids. I'd imagine that, for the vast majority of Americans, at least, not each and every incidence of sex is instigated with the intention of having a child, even those hard-core Christians out there.
Thus, this argument has been invalidated, and I hope no one continues to use it, given the obvious flaws.
2006-12-03 18:05:41 · answer #2 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, to answer your question, I think I first need to ponder some meanings and definitions.
Sexual Intercourse - the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman
So, by dictionary definition, sexual intercourse is merely for sexual procreation. What about people that have sex just for sex? What about people that use condoms and birth control to prevent procreation? They are having sexual intercourse for mere pleasure. So, an alternate definition of sexual intercourse could be the act of engaging in a loving union with another human being.
Now, let's see. I am going to give you two viewpoints and then tell you which I believe.
1) If I believe that sexual intercourse is JUST the act of procreation, then any sexual intercourse that is not intended for procreation (whether the result is a child or not, cannot be determined before sexual intercourse is committed) can be considered wrong. Therefore, since homosexual intercourse cannot be intended for procreation, homosexuality is wrong.
2) If I believe that sexual intercourse is more of a union or bond that is created between two lovers and is brought about by physical, psychological, and emotional attraction, and is committed as an act of pleasure, then any sexual intercourse between two loving human beings is considered right. Whether this union results in procreation or not, the union or bond itself is right. Therefore, homosexuality, is not wrong.
I believe more of #2 because sexual intercourse isn't just for making babies. I believe it is more of that physical bond and connection between two loving adults/individuals.
Given my opinion, in conclusion, people who do not have kids, whether by choice or chance, are no more wrong than homosexual individuals engaging in a loving act with someone they deeply care about or two heterosexual newlyweds looking for a romantic evening.
2006-12-03 18:13:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
So they can't reproduce, so what? Do you know how many kids there are in the orphanage? Don't they deserve to be in a family themselves and feel the love as a kid with parents? And it's not like everyone's gonna suddenly turn homosexual and stop having kids, there's only a small percentage of this world who are gay, it's not gonna cause the human race to go extinct
2006-12-03 18:03:10 · answer #4 · answered by J 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it's wrong because of that. There's nothing wrong with not having children. I don't want kids, but I'm not a crazy mutation. The world is getting over populated as it is, the last thing we really need is people forcing gays to "be straight" and bring more uneeded people in the world. Yes... this opinion is harsh but , hey, it has a point.
2006-12-03 18:03:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't think the procreation argument is a very good one - unless it is used to show that nature didn't intend homosexuality originally (I'm saying "nature" in order ot remain religiously neutral here, even though I am far from being religiously neutral! lol
2006-12-03 18:03:40 · answer #6 · answered by Mr Ed 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Bible says that children are a blessing from God. God has His own reasons for allowing people to become or not become parents. Sometimes those reasons are revealed much later down the road. Sometimes we won't find out until Heaven. He is all-knowing. We are not. Who are we to stand in judgment of God's choices in whom to bless?
Homosexuals are dooming themselves from the chance to become a natural parent by his/her choice of sinful lifestyle.
2006-12-03 18:05:21 · answer #7 · answered by Pamela 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Well the world is already so damn over populated that the more people NOT having children, the better. No matter the reason.
2006-12-03 18:00:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
And you expect an intelligent answer from the evangelicals? They couldn't reason their way out of a wet cardboard box. All they really have is "Its disgusting" and "The people who wrote the Bible thought it was disgusting too".
2006-12-03 18:02:39 · answer #9 · answered by Wise1 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I understand that some straight people cannot have kids. But still, homosexuality is not natural.
Yeah, some people will say, "Some animals are homosexuals," but we're not ANIMALS we're HUMANS and we know right from wrong unlike animals. All animals know is instinct.
God gave us the ability to use discernment and know right from wrong, making us better than animals.
2006-12-03 18:03:30 · answer #10 · answered by . 7 · 2⤊ 6⤋