Homosexuality....an intelligent debate?

Question

I feel like there are no intelligent discussions because anyone who feels homosexuality is wrong is immediately labeled a "homophobe." I believe homosexuality is wrong. This does not make me a hatelful person by any means. I don't hate gay men or women. I just believe homosexuality is a sexual perversion. Here are some of the arguments for and my opinion refuting it:

1)Homosexuality is "natural" because it happens in nature.......So does rape, murder, and the eating of feces, yet those aren't accepted.

2) Homosexuality is not a choice, why would someone choose that lifestyle?......Homosexuality is a choice, because it is the act of being with someone from the same sex. You must choose to do that. Now the feelings may be there, but many people grow up feeling the want to have sex with children or animals. Our expectations as humans is that those people have to repress those feelings because they are not natural. Why is homosexuality different.
Again, intelligent response

Thank you for those who responded with discussion points, not name calling (though I knew that would happen).
I ran out of space in the first post so I had to edit. In no way do I put homosexuality and pedophilia on the same level. I understand the differences. Only pointing out that what you DO is a choice.
The fact that there is no victim is a great point. But why do people feel the need to "come out?" Who you are with is a personal choice and no one else's business. Why must we know that John Amaechi (former NBAer)is gay? Why is that significant. And it's not because I'm a homophobe and don't want to hear it. I don't care who Michael Jordan was sleeping with either.
Overall, it's a difference of beliefs. My beliefs are based on my morals as well as the belief that we are with other people to have children. I respect others beliefs, I only wish some of you did the same. Again, thank you for the few who made points and were willing to have a discussion.

Answer 1

Well, I'm glad someone wants an intelligent debate. I'm all for that.

1) You're right. Just because something happens in nature does NOT make it okay. So we need to look at something other than 'naturalness' to determine morality. For me myself, my reference for morality is whether or not it harms a person or others, or infringes on the rights of others. Consensual sex between adult members of the same sex hurts nobody nor infringes on anyone's rights, hence to me, I see nothing wrong with it.

2) You're right again, that homosexual behavior is a choice. All sex is a choice. However, the feelings underneath it are not a choice; you cannot choose whom you feel an attraction to. Again, whatever you naturally feel and can't change doesn't automatically give you the right to do it. However, since I don't see homosexuality as immoral, I think that it's okay to act on the feelings (unlike having sex with children or animals, which isn't okay).

Hope that makes sense, and would love to keep having an intelligent debate with you if you'd like.

Answer 2

1)Homosexuality is "natural" because it happens in nature.......So does rape, murder, and the eating of feces, yet those aren't accepted.

actually, I have never heard of a dog raping another dog, or a cat raping another cat, a gorrilla raping it's mate, etc....in the wild, it isn't murder. There are 3 reasons why animals kills: 1. to eat, 2. to defend it's young, and mate, 3.when animals kills humans, it is because the human is in their territory, usually threatening them.

Eating feces however, alot of animals do this because they can get additional nutrients from their feces that does not immediatly go into their body from the food........that is normal. Gross, yes, but normal

2) Homosexuality is not a choice, why would someone choose that lifestyle?......Homosexuality is a choice, because it is the act of being with someone from the same sex. You must choose to do that. Now the feelings may be there, but many people grow up feeling the want to have sex with children or animals. Our expectations as humans is that those people have to repress those feelings because they are not natural. Why is homosexuality different.

While the act is a choice. The feelings aren't. If you deni these feelings you are bound to be miserable. Therefore voiding it as an actual choice.

Again, the rape, murder thing is same as above, those are not natural.
The molestation of children. While many think it is unacceptable (MYSELF INCLUDED) back in the 12-1800's children were married off as young as 10 yrs old, some were even sent to be with their future husbands as young as toddlers so they could grow up in the household to know immediatly what was expcected of them and what kind of behavior was acceptable.
The "protect the children" type deal started more in the late 1800's middle 1900's when there came an age limit for alchol, marriage, ciggarettees, etc....etc....

The reason many people get flammed and called biggots and other names is because of the way they present themselvs. Though you and I disagreee greatly on what we think of homosexuals and the like, I respect the way you presented your side of how you think.
Thank you for not judging, nor including religion.

I can't wait to read the other responses.

Answer 3

You ask: "Now the feelings may be there, but many people grow up feeling the want to have sex with children or animals. Our expectations as humans is that those people have to repress those feelings because they are not natural. Why is homosexuality different."

We repress those feelings because in the case of children, they are unable to give informed consent and thus unable to protect themselves from the harm that sex with adults can often cause.
In the case of animals, it's a red herring to lump that in as if it affects any significant percentage of people.

So to proclaim something is natural yet at the same time unnatural belongs in the category of argument known as reductio ad absurdum.

Why is homosexuality different? If the acts are consensual and not harmful, and admittedly stem from natural urges, why isn't the difference obvious?

And to have an intelligent debate, you need at least the semblance of an intelligent proposition to start it off. And some sign that the invitation comes from an intelligent source.

Answer 4

1) Most mammals don't murder the same way people do, for one. For another, it being "natural" isn't a reason FOR homosexuality, but it's a common reason thrown against it that simply isn't true. It's NOT "unnatural".

2)Now we're getting into semantics. There's sexual orientation, and then there's behavior. Heterosexuality is a choice too, and all Catholic clergy by your defninition choose not to be heterosexual. The biggest difference here is consent. Children cannot give informed consent, because they aren't old enough to know what they're consenting to. Animals...I don't think I even need to tell you why they can't give consent. Two grown adults, however, CAN exchange informed consent. And ultimately, when they do, why should it be any of your business? The people you mentioned, btw, aren't expected to suppress their feelings because they're unnatural; they're supposed to suppress their feelings because they are harming other entities. As mentioned above: homosexuality is NOT unnatural.

The reason people come out is because everyone assumes you're straight. If people automatically assumed you were gay, you'd correct them wouldn't you? It wouldn't be "coming out", in that it wouldn't be anywhere near as big a deal as people make it out to be now if society weren't so anti-gay-people.

Answer 5

1) Rape, murder, and the eating of feces all hurt people. Being gay does not.

2a) You seem to think one is only gay if one has gay sex. This is incorrect. Homosexuality is not a thing a person DOES, it is a quality inherent to a person. One is homosexual even if one abstains from sex, much as one is left-handed even if one abstains from writing.

2b) Trying to compare sex between consenting adults to sex with children or animals is illogical. An adult can give consent. A child and an animal cannot.

1 vs. 2) Your argument in point 1 depends on the idea that homosexuality is natural, yet in point 2, your argument depends on the idea that homosexuality should be repressed because it is NOT natural.

I give you a lot of credit for wanting to discuss the topic calmly and rationally, because that is VERY rare here. But it looks like you will need to polish your positions a bit more.

Rather than trying to draw comparisons between homosexuality and unrelated things that are harmful, I would suggest you try to focus your argument on the inherent dangers of being gay.

If you can offer evidence that being gay is, in itself, harmful to people, you will have a solid argument.

Answer 6

Actually, considering the numerous IDs you have had here it isn't surprising that you'd try again to get a grip on your personal homophobia and attempt to understand it a bit better. Homosexuality is not wrong. It is no different overall than someone who likes cream cheese on their toast instead of butter.It is not an abberation or a perversion, it simply is.

1. Your examples do NOT occur in nature. rape, yes it has been known for one animal to sexually force itself on another, murder, no animals are not known to kill simply because of emotional or physical issues, eating of feces, those animals that do so have been proven to have dietary issues and eating of feces are not a commonly practiced way of life that does not include some sort of medical reasoning behind it other than particular species of insects .

2. Homosexuality is not a choice. When you choose sexual partners you do not have mental control over to the partners you are attracted to when considering their gender. Wanting t have sex with children or animals is an abberation of the sexual attraction one would feel for a gender(male or female or in the case of bisexuals, both), it is an extension of a sexual attraction , not a sexual attraction unto itself.

Answer 7

The difference between being gay and being a pedophile is that being gay doesn't hurt anyone. Well, it doesn't hurt anyone except the people that are closed-minded towards homosexuality....
Your orientation is NOT a choice. If I could have feelings for guys, I would, but I can't help who I love. Seriously, my life would be so much easier if I was straight, but I can't help it.
It's a bit like being left-handed, you just are. And people should accept it.
Orientation isn't about sex, it's about who you love (romantically).
...Like I said, the difference between homosexuality and rape/murder is that me being in love with my girlfriend doesn't hurt anyone.

ps - What's the definition of "natural"? Human beings are a pretty weird bunch in general, no?
and
I don't label people who think being gay is wrong as "homophobic". I have an acquaintance (I was going to say "friend", but...) who doesn't support same-sex marriage, but we get along fine. He playfully makes fun of me and my girlfriend, and my girlfriend and I pretend we're married just to make him uncomfortable. Not in a mean way

Answer 8

You have every right to your opinion, everyone does, that's the whole point of freedom of speech. And, since I have no idea who you are or what you have done in your life I don't have any right to base my entire opinion of you on the beliefs you hold on this issue. Understand that by critiquing your argument I am not saying that your values are wrong, but simply debating your counter arguments as you've given them here.

First, it seems that you are creating a straw man argument. The arguments that you have chosen to refute are in fact, in and of themselves, weak arguments for anything. They also distract from the main issue that unlike "rape, murder, and the eating of feces" or those who "have sex with children or animals" homosexual sex, when practiced consentually, does not cause direct, intentional harm to anyone.

Second, you contradict yourself. In your first refute you acknowlage that things such as "rape, murder,and the eating of feces" as well as homosexuality occur in nature. However, in your second argument, you say that the urges of people who "want to have sex with children or animals" as well as of those who engage in homosexual sex should be repressed "because they are not natural." In doing this, you have negated one or both of your arguments.

Answer 9

See, you say, "I want an intelligent response," but you have yet to present an intelligent argument!

All, and I mean ALL of your refutations are based on faulty logic. Every single one of them. If it were a "choice" then I COULD be attracted to women, and YET, I HAVE NEVER BEEN. ON THE SAME COIN, if being Gay were a choice, then being STRAIGHT would have to be a CHOICE ALSO!!! So, can you imagine yourself being with another man? What? You can't? Then what makes you think on God's green Earth, that I can "pick and choose" to be with a Woman??? I mean, dang, if it were just THAT EASY to coast through life I WOULD! But I can't, and because of people like you, it really doesn't bother me.

Your a sick and twisted person and no amount of rational, sane explaining will help you see. God himself could explain it to you and you still wouldn't buy it. Why? Because, as the Bible says, you "want to have your ears tickled." Meaning as long as people tell you what YOU want to hear, your happy. If anyone disagrees with you, YOU IGNORE THEM.

So, what color is the sky in your world, REALLY?

Answer 10

Good Lord, are you that wilfully blind of your own bias or do you honestly not understand the concept of hate.

In your 1) you compared natural sexual orientation with rape, murder and eating feces (a practise that is not exclusively gay by the way).

In your 2) you then proceed to compare homosexuality with paedophilia and bestiality.

Your truly are a prime example of someone so inanely stupid, and I'm sorry but stupid is word, that it boggles the mind that you can even form sentences.

You really are oblivious to the things you say aren't you. Well all I can say at this point is WOW, just WOW.