What is a valid NON-RELIGIOUS arguement against homosexuality?

Question

Same thing for abortion?

Answer 1

I don't see any.
None of those that attempted to propose an argument presented anything other than straw man arguments.
For the species to survive it is not an imperative that every person of breeding age actually have a child.
There is no evidence that acceptance of homosexuality has actually increased the number of homosexuals relative to the increase of the population.
Anal sex has been practiced by both heterosexuals and homosexuals for thousands of years with little negative impact.
The spread of STDs among sexually promiscuous heterosexuals is equal to that of promiscuous homosexuals(with the exception of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, of course).
As far as personal distaste/disgust, there are no requirements that force anyone to partake of any sexual practice that they do not enjoy.
So........
Not one valid argument.

Answer 2

I knew an athiest who was a huge homophobe. I also met a lot of religious people who were tolerant of homosexuals. I think the argument (both religious and secular) is that it goes against the social order, and this is dangerous to those in power. Because gay people can't form traditional families and reproduce (creating more humans to take over when we die), they endanger the social order. The argument could also be made that while some primates do engage in homosexual behavior, their ultimate goal is still reproduction and forming a family unit with the opposite sex. If an animal can't procreate then the band will die off or their territory would get taken by another group. I'm not saying homophobia is genetic but it's a socially learned survival skill.

That homophobia is decreasing over time results from the fact that the current market based society we have doesn't require the family unit. Men and women both work and people are having less kids now, since they don't see kids as a form of labor and inheritance now. This results in increased tolerance of alternative families in these societies.

So homophobia is basically like this vestigial trait that our society has from earlier times, and over time it WOULD be eliminated, were it not for religion. Because of the belief that religion is unchanging and for all time, religious arguments have stayed in the system for centuries, and now most of the arguments that are made against homosexuals in our society are from a religious viewpoint...so it could be religious or cultural or both

Answer 3

There isnt one. Homosexuality is legal though. Just marriage is a problem. Because some people think they are better then the gays. And do not want them on the same level they are. That is not a mean or cynical statement that is really how most of them feel. And abortion isnt really banned for religious reasons. It was not discussed in the bible. Because it is fairly new. But the argument for that would be that it is murder. Which its not really murder of a human being but of cells that will eventually make up one. Is it okay to kill something that will become something else. Well we eat eggs. But with humans i dont know if anyone is prepared to answer that question. At a non emotional level it would be better for the parent and our ever increasing population. At an emotional level you are hindering the future fetus.

Answer 4

There can be societal pressures against it that are not based on religion. In Japan homosexuals aren't ostracized or persecuted, but the culture does see it as a childish experimentation and that homosexuals should basically grow up and get a real family.

Answer 5

There isn't any non-religious argument against it, only (maybe) against adoption in case of homosexual couples...

About abortion is different, because, in fact, abortion is to kill. It doesn't matter if exist soul or any other thing, it's about killing a baby that if you someone doesn't want or can't take care, she can give him in adoption... (This is the argument, but I'm agree with abortion...)

Answer 6

I love how people use procreation as an argument against homosexuality when there are far too many people on this planet already! Imagine a world where there were NO unplanned pregnancies. Diseases would decrease, starvation would decrease. Poverty would decrease. Unemployment would decrease. Birth defects would decrease because the crack whores wouldn't be having babies. Schools would be better because there would be less children. Frankly, a world in which it was impossible to get pregnant unless you were REALLY trying would be a much better place.

Answer 7

To answer a question with one, whats a valid NON-BIOLOGICAL arguement for homosexuality? Same thing for abortion.....

Answer 8

We are animals, not too different from the others, but humans are the only species that practice homosexuality.
Another good reason is that if homosexuality was natural, all people would practice it. Human life would come to a screeching halt. So it boils down to, if homosexuality is natural - - then straights are freaks - - - or the other way around.
The disease thing is another reason.

Answer 9

I think the only "valid" argument is non-propogation of the species, but given the technology of today where we can grow babies in test tubes and have surrogacy-- that really can't be called valid.

But I use the term valid very loosely. . .

Answer 10

Sexuality and reproduction is dependant upon both genders sharing DNA via their respective apparatus.
Perpetuation of the species is, after all, the primary objective of any living creature...humans included.
Same sex 'coupling' cannot produce new members of the species, therefore it is counter-productive. According to the evolutionary decree of survival of the fittest, same sex 'mates' will die without progeny, thus eliminating that trait from the gene pool.