Give me some arguments why homosexuality is wrong and should be declared illegal.

[Atreus21]

What about gay people with children? I was raised by lesbian mothers. So was my brother and one was his biological mother. Why shouldn't our parents have been allowed to get married? Isn't the whole point of encouraging stable relationships as it pertains to children to give couples a stable environment for raising the child, not just conceiving it? Gay couples can raise children too.

I don't dispute that they can raise children as well as any straight couple. So can any one of a number of types of relationships. But straight marriages are the optimum. They are by far the most likely to produce and raise children. And on that basis society should restrict the costly benefits of marriage to them alone.

 

[TheVrolok]

Well, this is going exactly as anticipated.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So they can be Married as long as it is a different word?

Ridiculous.

If it's ridiculous, why is it a big deal then? I feel the same way.

Why do you care what they call it when 2 homosexuals get a social contract?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I don't dispute that they can raise children as well as any straight couple. So can any one of a number of types of relationships. But straight marriages are the optimum. They are by far the most likely to produce and raise children. And on that basis society should restrict the costly benefits of marriage to them alone.

What about straight marriages that fail to produce children? Should they be forced to divorce? Or should we mandate that couples have children before they're allowed to marry, just to take any chance of someone gaming the system off the table? If the point of the benefits of marriage is solely for reproduction and the raising of children, then surely those benefits should be off-limits to straight couples who do not raise children?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Nature also explicitly states that seals should have sex with penguins:

(in other words, you are full of shit.)

Why are we talking about what nature says?

If we listen to what nature says, then I should be able to freely fuck little boys, little girls, a raccoon, my dog, a transexual, and penguins - are all of those socially acceptable? Can I get married to those, too?


Your nature argument is invalid unless you agree to everything I just said.

 

[Retro Rob]

Should gay marrigae be illegal?

Probably not.

Am I free to see gay marriage as wrong? You betcha!

I would venture to say that as long as I'm not being forced to accept it, and can live my life free from being forced to somehow incorporate gay marriage into my own life and lifesyle, then I would have no problem with it being legal as both parties are free to continue their lives free of interruption with this.

However, if I am somehow e being forced to accept it, then you'll have a fight on your hands.

Other than that, we can all get along fine.

 

[brycejones]

Homosexuality shouldn't be illegal. Gay marriages should be illegal on grounds that they cannot produce children, which is fundamentally why society regulates marriage in the first place.

When you are agreeing with the toaster lover...you really need to look at your position.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why are we talking about what nature says?

If we listen to what nature says, then I should be able to freely fuck little boys, little girls, a raccoon, my dog, a transexual, and penguins - are all of those socially acceptable? Can I get married to those, too?

Nature is only an arguement used when it's convienient, or we have clear justification for muder and rape (as those go on in abundance in the animall kingdom too!!!)

However, they'll argue that our intelligence overcome that sort of behavior, yet, that same intelligence also overcomes sexual desires too.

Can't have it both ways, but they still try to.

 

[brycejones]

Should gay marrigae be illegal?

Probably not.

Am I free to see gay marriage as wrong? You betcha!

Fair enough, doesn't change that you're wrong. But you have a right to be wrong in this country.

 

[sandorski]

I think your problem is you think favorite colors and sexual orientation can be compared directly. The natural order of things is to have males attracted to females (and the other way around too) to reproduce, that is the natural order of things. Lets assume everyone on the planet was suddenly attracted to their own sex, what would happen in 100 years? Thats right............the human race would be over, all because we denied our instincts.

.

No 2 different things can be compared directly. However, you are determining "Natural" as meaning what You find attractive, in regards to Sexuality. Using that same criteria, those who find a colour attractive that You don't are going against Nature. It is your argument as to what is Natural that is flawed.

Ya, and if they did, it would not mean that it wasn't Natural. You presume to Know what the "Natural Order" is without any indication that such a thing even exists. You are merely asserting its' existence, then asserting very specific details of it, even though examples that contradict your assertions have already been shown to you.

 

[ghost recon88]

Should gay marrigae be illegal?

Probably not.

Am I free to see gay marriage as wrong? You betcha!

I would venture to say that as long as I'm not being forced to accept it, and can live my life free from being forced to somehow incorporate gay marriage into my own life and lifesyle, then I would have no problem with it being legal as both parties are free to continue their lives free of interruption with this.

However, if I am somehow e being forced to accept it, then you'll have a fight on your hands.

Other than that, we can all get along fine.

Quoting this to save for my own reply down the road if someone asks :thumbsup: Could not have said it better.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Here's a catch, however. The arguments made against homosexuality and same sex marriage must be scientific and non-religious in nature. Therefore, please do not make arguments like "The bible considers it a sin".

Start.

Seems like a dumb "catch" to me.

What's the "scientific basis" for outlawing bank robbery? What law of science does it violate?

Damn few laws are based in science. Scientific studies cane be used to support 'safety' type laws, such as requiring seat belts. But the seat belt law is not driven by science. Laws exist to help society function, not science.

BTW: I've seen no effort to make homosexual behavior illegal. It's marriage. These are two different things. Laws against homosexual sex were declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS many years ago.

Fern

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Nature is only an arguement used when it's convienient, or we have clear justification for muder and rape (as those go on in abundance in the animall kingdom too!!!)

However, they'll argue that our intelligence overcome that sort of behavior, yet, that same intelligence also overcomes sexual desires too.

Can't have it both ways, but they still try to.

Gay people didn't start using the "it happens in nature" argument as a means to achieve gay marriage; they used it because for centuries, doctors and scientists referred to homosexuality as "unnatural." No one is suggesting that everything animals do should be codified as law. But it's ridiculous that people are still claiming homosexuality is unnatural when we have verified accounts of it happening outside our own species.

 

[sandorski]

If it's ridiculous, why is it a big deal then? I feel the same way.

Why do you care what they call it when 2 homosexuals get a social contract?

Equal Treatment for one. To deny the use of the word Marriage due to some sacred attribute assigned to it is pathetically feeble for two. Words are not Cosmic Beings that we should Fear or pledge some Duty to.

 

[Smoblikat]

No 2 different things can be compared directly. However, you are determining "Natural" as meaning what You find attractive, in regards to Sexuality. Using that same criteria, those who find a colour attractive that You don't are going against Nature. It is your argument as to what is Natural that is flawed.

Ya, and if they did, it would not mean that it wasn't Natural. You presume to Know what the "Natural Order" is without any indication that such a thing even exists. You are merely asserting its' existence, then asserting very specific details of it, even though examples that contradict your assertions have already been shown to you.

No, I am not saying natural is whatever I find attractive. I am not sure how else to spell it out for you, the natural impulse is for males to engage in sexual interactions with females. It really is as simple as that. If that werent the case, why do only women have overies, and only men have testicles? If men were naturally supposed to have sexual attractions towards other men, we would be equipped with both ovaries and testicles, because the goal of finding someone attractive is to reproduce with them.

 

[Retro Rob]

But it's ridiculous that people are still claiming homosexuality is unnatural when we have verified accounts of it happening outside our own species.

Do you see murder, incest, rape as unnatural? Of course, I not saying it should be legal, but I'm saying its simply a part of us, and cannot rightly be condemned because it's, by definition, natrual.

We have verified accounts of it happening outside of our own species.

 

[Retro Rob]

Fair enough, doesn't change that you're wrong. But you have a right to be wrong in this country.

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective terms, only definable by the individual.

 

[alzan]

Homosexuality shouldn't be illegal. Gay marriages should be illegal on grounds that they cannot produce children, which is fundamentally why society regulates marriage in the first place.

So heterosexual marriages that don't produce children should be illegal as well.

Cool.

My wife and married 17 years ago with no intention of having children. Will you be letting the police know so that they can come arrest us for having an illegal marriage?

 

[Smoblikat]

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective terms, only definable by the individual.

Thats right! Wait, thats wrong! mmmmm, maybe its right..........im not sure, you contradicted yourself so I am now confused

Actually, 2 + 2 = 78 now, only because answers are purely subjective.

 

[ghost recon88]

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective terms, only definable by the individual.

Not really, there are absolutes in life. Saying there are absolutely no absolutes is a contradiction.

 

[Retro Rob]

Not really, there are absolutes in life. Saying there are absolutely no absolutes is a contradiction.

Oh, I agree...I was just having a poke at those who like to argue the subjectivity of right and wrong when it comes to something they see as right, but others think is wrong.

 

[sandorski]

the natural impulse is for males to engage in sexual interactions with females. .

Simply not true. Some Males do not have this impulse, some Females also do not have this impulse. We call those people Homosexuals.

You are arguing from a pre-supposition of nonsensical positions assuming Nature as an Entity with Intent. No such thing exists except for in your mind.

Whether one is born with a Penis or a Vagina doesn't determine their Sexuality.

 

[MrPickins]

Do you see murder, incest, rape as unnatural? Of course, I not saying it should be legal, but I'm saying its simply a part of us, and cannot rightly be condemned because it's, by definition, natrual.

We have verified accounts of it happening outside of our own species.

Again Rob, people advocating for gay rights only care about it being nautral in that homophobes decry the lifestyle as being wrong for being unnatural.

You're creating a straw man.

 

[alzan]

Do you see murder, incest, rape as unnatural? Of course, I not saying it should be legal, but I'm saying its simply a part of us, and cannot rightly be condemned because it's, by definition, natrual.

We have verified accounts of it happening outside of our own species.

Murder happens in the animal kingdom?

I see hungry predators killing their prey, is that murder?

Do animals think about and plan to murder another animal or are you viewing an animals thinking process from your human perspective?

 

[Retro Rob]

Again Rob, people advocating for gay rights only care about it being nautral in that homophobes decry the lifestyle as being wrong for being unnatural.

You're creating a straw man.

So, its not technically natural, but it is natrual when its time to win an argument..

That's...fine, I guess.