Why are you Against Homosexuality (to theists)

[Jesster]

Many ethical systems base their ethic on obtaining the function of the human body (for instance, using science to understand the function of the body and hence the purpose or goal of it).

Homosexuality seems contrary to the function of the human reproductive system. It does not support life. As a result, there are (ethically significant) aberrations, such as men having sex with hundreds of partners (because of the way that the male reproductive system processes lust). This is something that societies are not used to having dealt with. As well, there are consequences for raising children with two men or two women because this is different from the way that humans are used to relating to a biologically driven process of mothering and fathering.

I've definitely heard that one before. I even used to believe it when I was a Christian. Statistics state that homosexual parents are just as good as heterosexual parents, though. There's nothing scary going on there. I'll trust the numbers over the rumors.

[robvalue]

Many ethical systems base their ethic on obtaining the function of the human body (for instance, using science to understand the function of the body and hence the purpose or goal of it).

Homosexuality seems contrary to the function of the human reproductive system. It does not support life. As a result, there are (ethically significant) aberrations, such as men having sex with hundreds of partners (because of the way that the male reproductive system processes lust). This is something that societies are not used to having dealt with. As well, there are consequences for raising children with two men or two women because this is different from the way that humans are used to relating to a biologically driven process of mothering and fathering.

Who cares what the "function" of such and such is? Are we slaves to evolution? Also, have you considered that we are generally hugely overpopulated and having less offspring might actually be desirable?

If you want to use your dangly bits in a certain way just because that's what you think "evolution would like", then go ahead. But just don't tell anyone else what to do with theirs.

Homosexuals have more partners than heterosexual people? Do you have a citation for this? Even if they do, what does it matter to anyone else?

You're quite wrong about the raising children part too.

[bennyboy]

Many ethical systems base their ethic on obtaining the function of the human body (for instance, using science to understand the function of the body and hence the purpose or goal of it).

Homosexuality seems contrary to the function of the human reproductive system. It does not support life. As a result, there are (ethically significant) aberrations, such as men having sex with hundreds of partners (because of the way that the male reproductive system processes lust). This is something that societies are not used to having dealt with. As well, there are consequences for raising children with two men or two women because this is different from the way that humans are used to relating to a biologically driven process of mothering and fathering.

I've definitely heard that one before. I even used to believe it when I was a Christian. Statistics state that homosexual parents are just as good as heterosexual parents, though. There's nothing scary going on there. I'll trust the numbers over the rumors.

There are definitely individual implications of homosexuality on a local level.  If a woman marries and is forced to stay in a monogamous relationship with a man who is gay, then she is obviously likely to have fewer (or no) offspring.

However, and this is speculation, I think that homosexual people fill in a lot of gaps of a more polarized sexuality.  Gay men seem more socially sensitive and (at least I think so) intellectual than average men.  Gay women seem (and again this is just my bias) stronger and tougher than average women.

In other words, I think homosexuality adds a great versatility of skills to the general population, perhaps at the risk of reduced genetic fitness at the most local scale (i.e. less chance to reproduce personally).

[robvalue]

I don't know what people even think the alternative is. Kill gays? Force gays to live alone? Force gays to pretend to be straight?

Especially for religious people, it's weird how they are criticizing their god's continued design choices.

[Jesster]

I've definitely heard that one before. I even used to believe it when I was a Christian. Statistics state that homosexual parents are just as good as heterosexual parents, though. There's nothing scary going on there. I'll trust the numbers over the rumors.

There are definitely individual implications of homosexuality on a local level.  If a woman marries and is forced to stay in a monogamous relationship with a man who is gay, then she is obviously likely to have fewer (or no) offspring.

However, and this is speculation, I think that homosexual people fill in a lot of gaps of a more polarized sexuality.  Gay men seem more socially sensitive and (at least I think so) intellectual than average men.  Gay women seem (and again this is just my bias) stronger and tougher than average women.

In other words, I think homosexuality adds a great versatility of skills to the general population, perhaps at the risk of reduced genetic fitness at the most local scale (i.e. less chance to reproduce personally).

Well that's mostly just relying on the stereotypes, which doesn't paint an accurate picture at all.

As far as homosexuals in heterosexual marriages, this is what Christianity has forced on people before. That's the actual problem. There's nothing wrong with two homosexuals being married and raising kids. That's what I'm actually promoting here.

As for the issue with reproducing, we really don't need to be focusing on reproducing more right now. That's taking care of itself and then some. The world's human population is in no danger.

[bennyboy]

Well that's mostly just relying on the stereotypes, which doesn't paint an accurate picture at all.

Any time you try and draw inferences about groups of people (like homosexuals) in a cultural context, you are relying on stereotypes. However, I think it's reasonably safe to say that on average, gay men behave differently than straight men and have different physiology than women. I'd say, for example, that gay men are on average more likely to do yoga than straight men, or to be vegan, and less likely to get into bar fights over big-breasted women.

As far as homosexuals in heterosexual marriages, this is what Christianity has forced on people before. That's the actual problem. There's nothing wrong with two homosexuals being married and raising kids. That's what I'm actually promoting here.

There's nothing wrong at all with it, and in fact at least in Western countries, there are some real statistical benefits. Gay men who adopt are likely better educated, more cultured, and better bread-earners than the average American couple. (again stereotyping, but I'm pretty okay with doing that in this case)

As for the issue with reproducing, we really don't need to be focusing on reproducing more right now. That's taking care of itself and then some. The world's human population is in no danger.

That's right. However, when looking to WHY there are so many gay people (I've heard numbers between about 3% and 10% of the population worldwide), I'd assume there are real benefits to genetic fitness in having gay people around. Those numbers are statistically huge, too much so to be accidental in evolutionary terms IMO.

Now, since gay people cannot naturally reproduce (at least with each other), I'd look for secondary effects on genetic fitness-- a gay uncle successfully fighting off an attack against his nieces and nephews in tribal times, for example. I'd also look for reasons why that duty was particularly suited to the gay uncle and not the straight one-- in other words, some narrative in which being gay turned out to be advantageous, not "in spite of" but "because of."

[Little Rik]

1) You keep on mentioning a God that according to you does not exist.
If he doesn't exist why then he suppose to do this or that?
Yours is an obsession.  

2) Not all theists are against gays.
I am one of those.
My policy is live and let live.

I don't believe in god, you believe in him though.
I acknowledge the existence of his ideology. But he never showed himself.

I'm not obsessed with him. But in a day and age where people are spouting bullshit at me everyday about the magical sky daddy, I have to learn to defend myself...
Now don't I?

It's your burden to tell me what he's supposed to do.
It's my burden to disapprove him (with logic).

Theists believe that homosexuality is wrong in someway, isn't that true?

And please stop reading the bible, like I said it is a bullshit forgery, please read the ingel or Quran if you're gonna believe in this crap.

You are 100% wrong.
From beginning to the end.
You have no evidence of whatsoever that God hate gays.
Many religions hate gays but who said that religions represent God?

Would you like that somebody pretend to talk for you without your approval?
Religions do this all the time.

Get real boy and do it fast before is too late.  

[The Grand Nudger]

Reading comprehension ftl, eh Rik?

[bennyboy]

Reading comprehension ftl, eh Rik?

It's kind of cute, isn't it?  I vote we make Little Rik our mascot and pat him on the head every day for trying.

[Minimalist]

Perhaps you should post this in a theistic forum?

Seems like the ideal spot, really.