Homosexuality, God, procreation, etc?

Question

This has probably been asked here before, but I'm still fairly new, so sue me. LOL

In arguments against homosexuality, specifically against homosexual marriage, a common theme comes up: procreation. God (the Christian God, in this case) intended sex is for procreation...since homosexuals can't procreate by having gay sex, it's unnatural, and therefore wrong. Sex is only to be within a marriage, and its purpose is to have children. You get the idea.

For those who use this argument, how does this apply to the infertile? Is a marriage not valid or "less than" if it cannot produce children? What if a couple -- gay or straight -- adopts rather than having biological children?

witwwats -- I'm asking about a specific argument I've heard used against homosexuals and homosexuality. Of course I've heard numerous others...it's this one in particular that I'm curious about. I'm not "singling out one aspect" and "using it to condemn the whole". Nice try though.

Answer 1

my opinions are that infertile people are infertile through whatever reasons and thank god for modern medical science which can enable people to produce a life in a loving marriage or partnership.
As for homosexuality I dont see any reason why a loving couple should not be able to bring up children as long as those children are balanced and loved it is fine, lots of fertile so called 'normal ' people have children and are terrible parents.

Just my opinion, homosexuality isnt abnormal its a fact of life thats been around for millions of years, why shouldnt they have the beautiful experience that having children brings, if thats what they want?

live and let live!

Answer 2

I have asked this very same question, because by this reasoning, it is sinful for a post-menopausal woman to have sex, or a woman who's had a hysterectomy, a pregnant woman, or an infertile man, etc.
But the stuff about a valid marriage--they don't much care about the "marriage:" it's having sex that cannot possibly produce a child that they've got their undies in a twist about. An adopted child would have been born because someone else had sex--presumably, the adoptive couple who cannot produce a child should not have sex.
I KNOW we're going to get some interesting and convoluted explanations, but, really, if you're going to say homosexual sex is sinful because it is not done for procreation, then it follows, logically, that any sex that cannot possibly end in conception is also forbidden.

Answer 3

The children are severely harmed if they are adopted by a gay couple because they would have either no mother or no father. Kids need both, and many studies have shown that. Bottom line, marriage was designed by God and it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, or Madam and Eve. When you get away from God's design, you run into problems. Sex is not just for procreation. It was also meant to be fun (what other explanation could there possibly be for a woman's clittoris?) and it bonds people together in a way that is only proper within marriage (Genesis 2:24, I Corinthians 6:13-20) because when the bond breaks, it is very devastating to the couple and to any children they produced. And lastly, if gays can "marry," how would you define marriage? Who else can marry? People and animals? Groups of three or more? Adults and small children? (*In some countries, like Holland, the legal age for a boy to give a man his consent for sex is 12.) There was no legal precedent for gay marriage before Massachusetts, but there is legal precedent against it. Therefore, it is unconstitutional. If I were in Congress, I would suggest a law banning the courts from ruling on this issue at all because there are too many stupid judges who wouldn't rule according to American legal precedent, but would rather use other countries' precedents to our country's hurt.

Answer 4

I don't use such an argument. In giving up Christianity I also gave up the Bible along with it, including it's unfounded and illogical views regarding human sexuality, among other things. Homosexuality is completely natural, and is found in nature. Religion is found only in humans, so in this respect religion is unnatural. Sex is not only for marriage or to have children. Sex is also good for the sake of pleasure (it feels good) and as long as it's done by consenting and responsible adults who cares. Homosexuality will continue to exist with or without religious arguments for or against it. This irrational fear of everyone becoming gay and the human species will die out because no one will reproduce has the reasoning of a 5 year old. No intelligent adult would believe in this.

Answer 5

In GOD's great wisdom he made man and gave him for companion the great gift of women, of which he made women with those aspects or traits which man lacked together they are a perfect harmony of characteristics necessary for procreation. A child has different feelings for it's parents male or female and they play different roles in their upbringing at different times in that process.
Yes it is true some can't conceive, but it is also true none of the homosexuals, I repeat none of the homosexuals can conceive. so that is not even a logical argument, besides the children who are adopted still need this natural mixture of male and female throughout their process. It is the nature of family, human or animal it is the design of success. and the only way to further and or improve ones family generation after generation or to continue ones family tree.
Go forth and multiply .......after their own kind....for generation after generation......

There is no logical argument for not following these guidelines.

Answer 6

nicely, i'm now an Atheist yet was once Christian..in case you think of roughly it the Bible states that God made Adam and Eve. One guy and one lady. God did no longer make 2 adult men. God additionally would not % you to have intercourse or infants out of wedlock. So my interpretation is that God meant people to love the choice intercourse. i'm hoping you detect the answer your searching for. i'm very lots for each man or woman who needs love. same intercourse or opposite. All religions have it extremely is problems.

Answer 7

Infertile couples obviously cannot reproduce--and therefore not pass on the 'infertility' gene.

Likewise, persons who engage solely in homosexual acts will never reproduce naturally--which means that IF (I said IF) homosexuality is a genetic characteristic it will not be passed on either.

Answer 8

Homosexual behavior is rampant in the (non-human) animal world. Even the most rabidly conservative farmer knows to watch for heifers mounting other heifers to determine estrus. That's just one of many examples.

For our homo-centric theists, may I point out that there are numerous incidences of parthenogenesis (female reproduction without males - doesn't that make you sexist, self-righteous males feel special?) in nature.

There are also many incidences of homosexual couples, threesomes, rampant promiscuity, prostitution and killing of mates among our non-human, animal brethren.

Truth is, as we are discovering so often today (but always really knew) all of these are prevalent among those judgmental souls who hypocritically condemn most of the rest of us for these and other imagined transgressions that give them a feeling of (unjustified) superiority.

Answer 9

My argument against that (other than that the idea of god is idiotic) is that nature has obviously determined that there are too damn many people on this planet and she's using natural means to try to make us stop having so bloody many kids.

Homosexual marriage is no more a threat to the sanctity of marriage than Britney Spears 55 hour marriage.

Answer 10

Christian, Jewish and Moslem attitudes about homosexuality are not based on procreation or even raising children, but rather on the specific, direct, simply worded prohibition spelled out in the old testament. A religion which accepts the old testament as divine, has a hard time accepting a practise which is so clearly forbidden.