Are there any arguments against homosexuality that -don't- rely on religion?

My favorite:

"If everybody became gay, this would be the last generation of people on the planet!"

1. I seriously doubt if most people are going to "become gay."

2. Even if some people DID become gay, that doesn't mean they're going to be welcomed with open arms. (A gay Tara J? A gay Karl Rove? A gay Dick Cheney? Puh-LEEEEEEZ!!!)

3. I have a feeling that if this WAS the last generation of people on the planet, all the rest of the animals and plants on the planet might be very happy about that.

Sort of. There is the biology idea, that since homosexuality provides no biological way to reproduce, it's "against nature" as they put it, but I think it's still a bit silly. There have been things preventing reproduction many times over, being it plague, predators, or idiots doing stupid things that result in death, but even these kinds of things do have their place in the big scheme of things. Plague, predators, and idiots killing themselves do serve to keep the population of the world lowered, as too much breeding will cause the ecosystems to collapse, and I can't see why homosexuality is any different. Homosexuals don't reproduce, that's true, but to this end, it serves as yet another way for humanity to survive, as there needs to be some population control to prevent ecological collapse that results from too many creatures draining the supplies of available resources . As for other arguments against homosexuality, religion is the only one I can think of, and religion is at best on shaky grounds due to it's many contradictions and backwards rules.

The main non-religious argument against homosexuality is that it doesn't lead to reproduction. The flaw in this statement is that it effectively imposes a rule on all heterosexuals that they MUST reproduce. What about a couple who can't have kids for medical reasons? Is there relationship invalid? You will see that the "evolutional" counter-argument is heading in the way of religion if someone steps in and says "it isn't right".

Another argument is that it "increases" the chance of getting a STD. The counter-argument against this is that its the INDIVIDUAL who creates the risk - not their orientation. A gay person who has casual unprotected sex regularly is no doubt at great risk of catching an STD - this isn't down to them being gay, its their choice to practice unprotected casual sex which creates the risk. An LGBT person in a stable monogamous relationship practising safe sex is just as safe as their heterosexual counterpart.

"Why do Christians forget approximately different factors of the Bible, such because of the fact the commandment to not eat shellfish and to not paintings on a Saturday? Or to stone people to demise for being impolite to their mom and father?" we are actually not Jews in historical Israel 1000's of years in the past. as a result. We follow the hot testomony. "Why does your god supposedly hate homosexuality plenty, seeing because it harms no person?" So does this recommend if somewhat youngster has the same opinion to having intercourse with a pedophile it is okay because of the fact it is not hurting every physique? "and ultimately, people motel to in certainty announcing that homosexuals are evil/paedophiles/perverts/demons." some gays are yet so are many straights. different than for the demon difficulty. you have an truly warped view of Christianity and how we view homosexuality. Homosexuality falls below the class of sexual immorality only like adultery, fornication, rape, pedophilia, incest, and bestiality. only because of the fact it is "organic" would not make it precise. each and each individual in this earth is born with a predisposition to dedicate particular sins over different ones yet that doesn't mean you provide in and do what feels "organic" only because of the fact it is not hurting every physique. Does it nonetheless make it ok for a guy to have intercourse with a goat only because of the fact the goat would not oppose to it? No, surely not.

I really don't see any point in arguing against it. No-one in their right mind would choose to be homosexual when you consider the reaction they get from a lot of society. It means they cannot hope to have their own natural family with their own genetic children, which is probably disappointing for their parents and I am sure they would choose the easier option of being heterosexual if they could.

When you do find an argument that does not rely on religion please let us know!!!! If I hear one more argument based on Leviticus I'LL SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!

P.S, since when everybody has become an expert of ones bottom anatomy? (prolapsed rectum etc). There is nothing in the new testement that is against homosexuality apart what other humans have said and that is litlle, I didn't read anywere that Jesus have said that or the other upon the matter. Furthermore politically and historically condemnation of homosexuality by the biblical schollars from 2 millenia a go was a direct attack to the Greaco-Roman way of life imported in Judea. I wish the religions out there start bringing themeselves in line with people. First religion approved the second rating of a woman in comparison to a man, approved slavery for most of its history so now its the turn of the gay people to get picked on. Great, what happen to the religion of love and compassion, tolerance etc,out of the window as usual. So before you start arguing about something do your research first, really some people.............

The only reason that has nothing to do with religion that I can think of

The human race is made to reproduce - like all living things. Clearly men and women were meant to be together as together they fulfil the purpose of life which 'technically' is to reproduce and continue the human race.

Other than that its just not the way its 'meant' to be. Also gay sex can be damaging.

Anyways I think 'rules' were meant to be broken so whatever.... lol

Most of the arguments against homosexuality are built around religion although there are others who just plain hate and fear anything they presume to be different.

Natural Law Theory uses the terminology of natural to define morally correct activities. It is complicated to explain, but it is used basically by the Catholic Church. It claims that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore immoral. I can tell you more if you like, email me.

There are none. It's all religious based.

Science has shown time and time again, bisexuality and homosexuality come naturally in all animals, humans included.

It is our arrogance that makes us feel we're above any other animal.