"Homosexuality is a choice" and its paradox

[Esquilax]

I think you could argue that the privilege of accepting your parents' investment in you (i.e. by making you) gives you some moral obligation to match that investment with one of your own. Hearing, "Ewww girls are icky" isn't very encouraging for parents hoping for grandchildren.

Hmm... flawed on several counts. For one, nobody has an obligation to repay a debt they never consented to incur. And even if we were to accept this, who says my parents would want payment in the form of grandchildren?

More than that, how does this even relate to the marriage issue? Plenty of married couples go childless, either through choice or otherwise, and nobody is prodding them with this moral obligation of theirs.

And hey, it's not like the foster system isn't overflowing with children in need of good, permanent homes; those grandchildren aren't so impossible afterwards. Surrogacy is also an option.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Agreed, which is why rather than hearing about how unnatural it is, I'd rather hear arguments about why homosexuality is immoral, preferably without recourse to religion at all. "God says so," isn't a great argument in a supposedly secular government, after all; is there even a single non-religiously motivated argument for denying this right?

I think you could argue that the privilege of accepting your parents' investment in you (i.e. by making you) gives you some moral obligation to match that investment with one of your own. Hearing, "Ewww girls are icky" isn't very encouraging for parents hoping for grandchildren.

*bolding mine.

No it doesn't. No one chooses to be born, so we are not responsible for whatever our parents have thought out for us. I wonder if you'd say the same thing about parents who don't want grandchildren, that we're obligated not to have children for them? There are those, my parents do not want grandchildren.

[Bad Writer]

Agreed, which is why rather than hearing about how unnatural it is, I'd rather hear arguments about why homosexuality is immoral, preferably without recourse to religion at all. "God says so," isn't a great argument in a supposedly secular government, after all; is there even a single non-religiously motivated argument for denying this right?

I think you could argue that the privilege of accepting your parents' investment in you (i.e. by making you) gives you some moral obligation to match that investment with one of your own. Hearing, "Ewww girls are icky" isn't very encouraging for parents hoping for grandchildren.

So when a father molests his children, do they have a moral obligation to this behavior?

[Tonus]

Hearing, "Ewww girls are icky" isn't very encouraging for parents hoping for grandchildren.

Except that "ewww girls are icky" has been uttered by every single heterosexual male many times prior to age 12.

[FallentoReason]

Hearing, "Ewww girls are icky" isn't very encouraging for parents hoping for grandchildren.

Except that "ewww girls are icky" has been uttered by every single heterosexual male many times prior to age 12.

BOYS RULE; GIRLS DROOL!

[genkaus]

*Playing devil's advocate for a bit.*

The question you specifically asked was "is there even a single non-religiously motivated argument for denying this right?". Benny is right - however flawed you might consider this argument, it is, nevertheless, a non-religiously motivated argument against both same-sex marriage and homosexuality. As for the argument itself, depending on your view of morality, it is not as flawed as you might think.

For one, nobody has an obligation to repay a debt they never consented to incur.

Most people would disagree. Most people would think that when someone does you a favor, you are morally obligated to return the favor irrespective of whether or not you sought it out in the first place.

And even if we were to accept this, who says my parents would want payment in the form of grandchildren?

That's the assumption here. One assumes that the reason why your parents had kids in the first place was for the continuation of their family name and/or bloodline. Thus, it makes sense for them to want grandchildren.

More than that, how does this even relate to the marriage issue? Plenty of married couples go childless, either through choice or otherwise, and nobody is prodding them with this moral obligation of theirs.

Within this view of morality, the couples choosing to go childless would be considered immoral for not meeting their moral obligations. Those who cannot would be considered unfortunate.

And hey, it's not like the foster system isn't overflowing with children in need of good, permanent homes; those grandchildren aren't so impossible afterwards. Surrogacy is also an option.

Except those grandchildren wouldn't be blood-related to atleast one set of grandparents - thus defeating the purpose of wanting those grandchildren in the first place.

No it doesn't. No one chooses to be born, so we are not responsible for whatever our parents have thought out for us.

The point of contention here is not whether you did choose it but if you would've chosen it. For example, if I find you unconscious by the side of the road and help you out by giving you CPR and taking you to the hospital - would you owe me or not? The fact here is that you never consented to my help. But, if you were lying there as a result of an accident, the assumption is that you would've consented which means you would owe me. But if you were there as a result of a suicide attempt, you wouldn't have asked for help and therefore would not owe me.

I wonder if you'd say the same thing about parents who don't want grandchildren, that we're obligated not to have children for them? There are those, my parents do not want grandchildren.

Good question. The answer to this lies in how one's view of morality and moral obligations relates to one's desires.

Suppose you accept the view that morality is a social contract. That the values and virtues a society holds form the terms and conditions of this contract. That the rights and liberties given to you within that society are the means to facilitate that contract and are applicable only so far as they facilitate its execution. And if you find yourself living in this society and wish to continue living in it, then you are bound by that contract irrespective of where your other desires lie. Whether or not you ever chose to be born and grow up in that society or if you have the option of another one is irrelevant. If that is the reality you find yourself in, those are the rules for you to live by.

Now, the society I grew up in holds these values: Every one has a moral obligation to carry on his family name and bloodline. The most common justification for this is "Your parents want to see the name and bloodline continue - which is why they chose to give birth to you. So, in order to justify your existence, respect their wishes - marry and have kids". Should the parents in question show no such desire, the justification simply shifts to the previous generation - "Someone among your ancestors wanted to have a long family line and if he/she didn't want it, you wouldn't exist. Therefore you owe your existence to them and have a moral obligation to respect their wishes".

Another value is that human sexuality is a taboo subject. Basically, you don't talk about it, you don't think about it before marriage and even after marriage, you do what you have to do in a dark room at night and never, ever, put any aspect of human sexuality in the public eye or risk bringing shame upon your family.

Now, what do you think would be the position of gay rights and same-sex marriage within such a society? Given its view of human sexuality, they'd say that if you are gay, never come out of the closet. If you must have sex with other men, never let anyone else know that you do. And the question of marriage is doesn't come up at all. You have a moral obligation to marry (you are immoral if you stay single beyond a certain age), to marry someone your family approves of (you are immoral if you go against their wishes) and to start having kids as soon as you do (you are immoral if you don't).

[Ryantology]

I personally find considerable humor in Christians suggesting that 'worshiping' evolution means accepting the fact that we are robots programmed primarily to reproduce, yet who squawks the loudest about any behavior which runs contrary to our being programmed primarily to reproduce? It is we who much more frequently suggest that it is okay to act against your reproductive imperatives. Who's really 'worshiping' evolution?

[Captain Colostomy]

Hearing, "Ewww girls are icky" isn't very encouraging for parents hoping for grandchildren.

Except that "ewww girls are icky" has been uttered by every single heterosexual male many times prior to age 12.

I still utter it...but then my wife just pushes my head down and I make the best of it.

[bennyboy]

Hearing, "Ewww girls are icky" isn't very encouraging for parents hoping for grandchildren.

Except that "ewww girls are icky" has been uttered by every single heterosexual male many times prior to age 12.

Right. And every single male's parents hope that at age 13, they change that tune to "OMG, I have to get some of that sweet, sweet, poontang, hopefully right after I finish my doctorate," thereby heralding a chance for grandchildren.

[Cato]

What you meant to title this thread was:

"Homosexuality is a choice" and its a 'pair of dykes'. Right?