Is there any secular reason why being gay is bad?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Bullshit. If the society seeks to chastise you on a matter it really has no place chastising you on, then you are being victimized.

And you think that society has no place to do so?
It certainly has on many accounts.

In a truly free society, yes, you could do drugs in open public. And are you being made to wear clothes or act like gays? If not, then no one is forcing their sexual identity on you. But if you force them to dress "straight" then you are forcing your sexual identity on them.

Such a free society is a society slave to it's most base needs.
Besides, no one can force me to wear clothes or act like gays.
If gays were the majority, I could tell you this, they would do the same.
But then again, there would be no society left at all.

Why? I can speak for them AND they can speak for themselves. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

He spoke for himself. look at his posts. Either you want to live in harmony with society or not. You can't force the majority to change it's standards of harmony according to your own needs. Doing so would be to incite the wrath of the public.
These are simple sociological facts. You people live in a dream world. I don't. Neither would I want to.

[genkaus]

And you think that society has no place to do so?
It certainly has on many accounts.

Read again. Society has no place chastising you on many accounts. Non-disruptive public behavior is one of them.

Such a free society is a society slave to it's most base needs.
Besides, no one can force me to wear clothes or act like gays.
If gays were the majority, I could tell you this, they would do the same.
But then again, there would be no society left at all.

No, actually, such a society would be above its base needs. Its your kind of society that has the nature of an animal. Something that apparently cannot control itself and has to be beaten into place by the stick of public decency.
And you last argument seems to be "They'd do it too, so its okay if we do it". Well, your forcing gays to act straight is wrong, just as them forcing you to act gay would be wrong.

He spoke for himself. look at his posts.

Apparently, he didn't get through to you, since you are repeating the same old tripe.

Either you want to live in harmony with society or not. You can't force the majority to change it's standards of harmony according to your own needs. Doing so would be to incite the wrath of the public.
These are simple sociological facts. You people live in a dream world. I don't. Neither would I want to.

You are forgetting the third option - don't give a fuck. For example, I don't give a fuck about living in harmony. When and where its convenient for me, I'm open to "harmony", when and where it isn't I don't cooperate. You know what protects me from the "wrath of the public" - my rights.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Read again. Society has no place chastising you on many accounts. Non-disruptive public behavior is one of them.

Well, if you are not distruptive, you're not chastsized by the society.
Homosexuals who live out openly, and demand extra rights for themselves, distrupt various things.
It's not exclusive to them however. Obviously, religious fundamentalists do this too. They are also, very distruptive to how society should work out.

No, actually, such a society would be above its base needs. Its your kind of society that has the nature of an animal. Something that apparently cannot control itself and has to be beaten into place by the stick of public decency.
And you last argument seems to be "They'd do it too, so its okay if we do it". Well, your forcing gays to act straight is wrong, just as them forcing you to act gay would be wrong.

The nature of an animal?
We control ourselves, friend. We do not need the police to force us into a line. If you cannot, maybe you need a wife or a mum to help you with that.
Whatever I do, or the society does, is not wrong. It is just the way things work.
It all comes down on how you accept it.

Apparently, he didn't get through to you, since you are repeating the same old tripe.

I am repeating myself due to the fact that you make me repeat things.

You are forgetting the third option - don't give a fuck. For example, I don't give a fuck about living in harmony. When and where its convenient for me, I'm open to "harmony", when and where it isn't I don't cooperate. You know what protects me from the "wrath of the public" - my rights.

There is no such world, friend. If you do not want to live in harmony with others, you obviously will run into people. You will step on toes. If you are un-cooperative with others, even the law won't protect you, for the law must be in harmony with the people. No law that has not been in harmony with the people survived to this day.

[genkaus]

Well, if you are not distruptive, you're not chastsized by the society.
Homosexuals who live out openly, and demand extra rights for themselves, distrupt various things.
It's not exclusive to them however. Obviously, religious fundamentalists do this too. They are also, very distruptive to how society should work out.

How exactly is wearing a sleeveless tank-top and cut-off jeans while making out with your boyfriend is being disruptive? And what "extra" rights are they demanding?

The nature of an animal?
We control ourselves, friend. We do not need the police to force us into a line. If you cannot, maybe you need a wife or a mum to help you with that.

That, right there, is the nature of an animal. Even a dog will control himself when he sees his master holding the stick. If your society could actually control itself, then you wouldn't care if a person walks around the streets naked or snorts coke in the public park, because then the members of the society would have enough self-control not to be affected by that. Then you would not have to trumpet around your "public decency" argument.

Whatever I do, or the society does, is not wrong. It is just the way things work.
It all comes down on how you accept it.

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? So if your society decides tomorrow to execute every gay man, then they are doing nothing wrong, its simply the way things work.

I am repeating myself due to the fact that you make me repeat things.

You are repeating yourself because you have no refutations for the arguments made.

There is no such world, friend. If you do not want to live in harmony with others, you obviously will run into people. You will step on toes. If you are un-cooperative with others, even the law won't protect you, for the law must be in harmony with the people. No law that has not been in harmony with the people survived to this day.

My existence disproves that. Short of anything illegal, I've practically flouted every other "public decency" tenet we have here, including public displays of affection and public nudity.

[kılıç_mehmet]

How exactly is wearing a sleeveless tank-top and cut-off jeans while making out with your boyfriend is being disruptive? And what "extra" rights are they demanding

If not in public, it's not distrupting anything.
Extra rights? Well, depends on how you define "extra".
If I were demanding the right to education in a country, I'd be demanding a fundamental right. If I demanded the right to "Turkish education" in a non-turkish speaking country, I'm demanding an extra right. I guess it's pretty self-explanatory.

That, right there, is the nature of an animal. Even a dog will control himself when he sees his master holding the stick.

The dog will not control himself even for his master when you set before him his food.

If your society could actually control itself, then you wouldn't care if a person walks around the streets naked or snorts coke in the public park, because then the members of the society would have enough self-control not to be affected by that.

Not to be affected by such an ugly action in public?
The only self-control we'll be able to exercise would not to lynch him in public for snorting such stuff in front of our children.

Then you would not have to trumpet around your "public decency" argument.

Public decency is something you obviously not value. These values and rules are there fore a reason.

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? So if your society decides tomorrow to execute every gay man, then they are doing nothing wrong, its simply the way things work.

Yes, of course. But they also could decide for the exact opposite. I still would have to go with it, or leave. That is the way things work, friend.

You are repeating yourself because you have no refutations for the arguments made.

There are no other refutations. I've made the necessary refutations in another thread already.

My existence disproves that. Short of anything illegal, I've practically flouted every other "public decency" tenet we have here, including public displays of affection and public nudity.

Public nudity is just one example. There are many other ways you can flout public decency laws.
But I guess you just can't.

[WalkingBySight]

The only reason homosexuals aren't able to live in harmony with the majority is because people like you won't let them.
Thieves and Murderers can't live in harmony with the majority because they're assholes who directly harm others with there actions.

And for good reason. I rather have the people out there with a reasonably harmonious identity, than with their deviant sexual identities.
Just as I do not go out and introduce myself to people as a "heterosexual", I do not want people to go out and introduce themselves to others as being homosexual. But I know that people who suffer from minority complex are very passionate about whatever that makes them a minority, and want everyone else to know that they are a "minority". The "coming out" process, essentially leaving behind whatever identity you have, to adopt your sexuality as your prime identity.

Just like thieves and murderers, any sexual deviants are directly harmful to society by the way they act. Is a provocator that agitates people to acts of arson and riot not harmful? Yet he only uses words, nothing else.

It seems to me that the crux of your argument rests on the way homosexuals deviate from the norm, what you describe as their “deviant sexual identities” which “are directly harmful to society”. Yet, you don't seem to realise that it's people like you who define homosexuality as deviant, and thus set homosexuals apart from everyone else.

First you need to understand how deviance works. Consider this quote from Howard Becker's 1963 book “Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance”:

“Social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying these rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an 'offender'. The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied. Deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label.”

Anyone who studies deviance will immediately see this to be true. Deviance is not an objective entity. Consider that racism and misogyny have been defined as deviant behaviours only very recently in world history. The behaviours on which the label of deviance is bestowed are influenced by culture, time period and a myriad of other factors. The least important factor influencing what behaviours get defined as deviant are the actual behaviours themselves. Therefore, by defining homosexuality as deviant, you and others like you are the ones responsible for any destabilising effect on society.


In one of your later posts, you said that homosexuals make homosexuality their primary identity. Well guess what? This is another consequence of labelling them deviant. A primary effect of the labelling process is that it reduces the power of those labelled as deviant. They lose acceptability, respectability and moral standing. This leads to the 'deviance' becoming seen as their primary identity in a number ways. Firstly, when homosexuality is considered bad, if someone is 'discovered' to be a homosexual, it will obviously alter the way others see them. If homosexuality was considered normal, then there would be no 'discovering' and homosexuality would only be seen as part of their identity.

Secondly, if people are treated as outsiders because they belong to a particular group, them they are going to naturally gravitate towards that group, whether because they are excluded from other groups, or because there is safety in numbers. For example, they may band together for political reasons.

Thirdly, this directly leads to the “coming out' process you mentioned so disparagingly. If there was no labelling as deviant, there would be no coming out process. No one would see it as something that needed announcing.

In conclusion, truly are bigots the architects of their own misery.

[genkaus]

If not in public, it's not distrupting anything.
Extra rights? Well, depends on how you define "extra".
If I were demanding the right to education in a country, I'd be demanding a fundamental right. If I demanded the right to "Turkish education" in a non-turkish speaking country, I'm demanding an extra right. I guess it's pretty self-explanatory.

No, its not. Firstly, yes the action is taking place in public. Now, what are they disrupting? And second, I asked you specifically what extra rights are gays asking for that are not guaranteed to other citizens of your country. Stop running around and answer the question.

The dog will not control himself even for his master when you set before him his food.

Maybe your dog can't. I had a better one.

Not to be affected by such an ugly action in public?
The only self-control we'll be able to exercise would not to lynch him in public for snorting such stuff in front of our children..

Ooohh... moral outrage now? Tell me, why would any of those actiona make you want to kill him?

Though, I must say, all those fundamental right things, they are guaranteed to people to protect them form thugs like you.

Public decency is something you obviously not value. These values and rules are there fore a reason.

Whatever excuses your ancestors made for them are no longer applicable now.

Yes, of course. But they also could decide for the exact opposite. I still would have to go with it, or leave. That is the way things work, friend.

Atleast you are consistent n your immorality.

There are no other refutations. I've made the necessary refutations in another thread already.

Which didn't stand and neither did you.

Public nudity is just one example. There are many other ways you can flout public decency laws.
But I guess you just can't.

I can and have. Anything else?

[michrelvoik]

Is there and Secular reason why being gay is bad. not religious reasons, any not religious arguments?

The only thing I can think of is that being gay means that you're not going to reproduce, which is bad in terms of propagating the species.

[Gooders1002]

Is there and Secular reason why being gay is bad. not religious reasons, any not religious arguments?

The only thing I can think of is that being gay means that you're not going to reproduce, which is bad in terms of propagating the species.

well were overpopulated anyway.

[michrelvoik]

I don't agree with that.