I've heard 2 atheists give me the following argument about why homosexuality is not morally wrong. It is such a poor argument I want to post it here so that people will at least try to use better ones. Here is the argument.
"There's a species of animal that practices homosexuality, therefore it is natural, and so there is nothing wrong with humans doing it too".
The rebuttal to this argument is quite simple:
"There are animals that eat the young of their own species. There are cannibalistic animals. There are animals that torture their prey before killing it. Obviously just because animals do it does not mean that it is morally ok or natural."
Some food for thought.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
bobbington-I agree with you 100% again. We are grateful to have such a wise and learned Christian to rebuke the lies of the atheists in this forum. Please continue to participate in all discussions as your wisdom and strong Christian belief will Donald trump all false distortions of truth by the heathen atheists.
Arguing over whether something is natural or not isn't the same as arguing if it is moral or not, it is only attempting to ascertain if it is natural or not, given that there are still retarded people in the world that think calling something "unnatural" is the same thing as calling it immoral. Same with arguments over genetics. Same with arguments over choice. None of these arguments attempt to prove the morality of homosexuality, they are attempts to explain it, not so much to justify it. Likewise, appeals to religion or personal repulsion doesn't establish it's morality, so it will require more than a passage out of a book or a personal feeling to justify treating homosexuals as immoral.
So, do you have an argument that DOESN'T hinge on religion or your personal feelings concerning the immorality of homosexuals?
Personally, I think it is neutral, and that someones sexual proclivities are their own business as long as they aren't raping people.
Travis-wwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt?????????
Travis said all that needs to be said about this. Confusing what is natural with what is moral.... well that's almost like a deliberate evasion on your part. Cannibalistic animals are natural because they exist in nature. Same goes for animal species that practise homosexuality. A flesh-eating virus is natural. A bird is natural. We are natural.
Morality on the other hand can be and often is subjective. My morals may not agree with yours but we both operate as moral beings. You build your morals on the bible. I build mine on "my human rights end where yours begin and vice versa". Which is better? Well that's in the eye of the beholder I guess. I think mine are better than yours because they can be attributed to all living things. My ethics tell me that interfering with love/sexuality of consenting adults would be immoral. Therefore homosexuality is moral.
This is why one should know their logical fallacies...appeals to nature and false equivalencies do not make good moral arguments. As Polly said morality is subjective and therefore provides no gold standard with which to measure it by. And t hat animals can eat their young is irrelevant as animals and humans do not operate on the same level cognitively.
"As Polly said morality is subjective and therefore provides no gold standard with which to measure it by."
Well, I think we do have quite good standards, and we can consider them just as objective as the rules to a game or a language. All three is a framework we work within to get along, play with, and communicate with each other in the real world. Things that improve our ability to do this as individuals is a "good" thing, and things that undermine our ability to do them as individuals is a "bad" thing. Morality, just like economy, is merely assessing values to behaviors as a group instead of individuals, and determining what has more worth.
However, it should probably be brought up that a great number of things we commonly do are amoral, that is to say, morally neutral. Whether it be dropping deuce, checking the time, or napping; there isn't really anything important enough to slap any sort of moral label on, and consensual sex is the same kind of activity to everyone but those religiously prejudiced against it. Moreover, I find the thought that some people concern themselves with other peoples sexual practices disturbing and wasteful, as unless you are planning on sleeping with them then it should make any difference to you.
In my particular experience dealing with co-workers and colleagues, even if some of them were homosexual, it would neither matter to the work we are doing or effect the necessity of us being able to work together. As such, one shouldn't concern themselves with it, it really isn't relevant by any means I can conceive of.
"And t hat animals can eat their young is irrelevant as animals and humans do not operate on the same level cognitively."
Good point. One does not project morality on rocks and flatworms and expect them to behave accordingly, we expect it from ourselves because of an ability to reason and modify our behavior. It should be pointed out, however, that most of the people that consider homosexuality immoral do so based on some religious text. When one actually reads said text, one most often finds that those decrying homosexuality as "sin", are often practicing "sins" in the same text, book, and chapter that condemns homosexuality.
I find it a subtle and humorous irony that those that are the loudest detractors of homosexuals, are themselves guilty of MULTIPLE transgressions of their own. It is difficult NOT to come to the conclusion that they are attempting to set up a scapegoat, a group they can project all of their own problems and self-loathing on, in which to destroy and appease themselves that they are indeed "righteous" and "virtuous".
Travis, great response but I have a question. Do you consider having a 'good' standard as the same as a 'gold standard?'
By this I mean something comparable to the gold standard in science that is biology, all sciences strive to be as well supported as biology and therefore biology provides us with a tool of sorts to measure the efficacy of the other branches of science. and we can compare this idea to morality, since we have no clear understanding of morality, we find ourselves without an effective means to measure what is more or less moral.
Also, I understand that most who make the claim that Homosexuality is 'unnatural' are basing their understanding of nature in the context of their specific religion or ideology. And to your point those Christians with tattoos of Jesus or Saints on their flesh, wearing both cotton and denim jeans, who cry foul towards homosexuality should read the rest of the commandments within the covenant of Moses there are like 600+ rules that they totally ignore lol...all you can do is blame Paul and his damn letters.
"Do you consider having a 'good' standard as the same as a 'gold standard?' By this I mean something comparable to the gold standard in science that is biology, all sciences strive to be as well supported as biology and therefore biology provides us with a tool of sorts to measure the efficacy of the other branches of science. and we can compare this idea to morality, since we have no clear understanding of morality, we find ourselves without an effective means to measure what is more or less moral."
I think a good case could be made that we could call it a gold standard. The fact is that every discipline in science has evolved as our understanding of our surroundings did, much as morality has evolved in lock-step with society. Just look at the changes in the field of biology in the last few decades. Every few generations it seems like we open Pandora's box again, and create new fields and sub-fields that cross-correlate and wind up changing each other. When microbiology was established we though we would learn more about cells, and that would simply lead to a better understanding of bacteria and whatnot. Well, now it informs almost every other biological discipline!
Does this make biology subjective? I wouldn't claim that it did, and I wouldn't claim that moral progress is all that different, more that it is merely an extension of a healthy society to continue refining morality as we better understand ourselves and each other. That doesn't make it subjective, anymore than biology is subjective, but makes it a work in progress.
"And to your point those Christians with tattoos of Jesus or Saints on their flesh, wearing both cotton and denim jeans, who cry foul towards homosexuality should read the rest of the commandments within the covenant of Moses there are like 600+ rules that they totally ignore lol...all you can do is blame Paul and his damn letters."
I would, but it is rather hard to reconcile their blanket apathy toward all but the one about homosexuals, it really appears that they are singling them out. They aren't trying to stop adulterers or the unchaste from marriage, only gays. Methinks they doth protest too much!
Bobbington-Using your own argument-I will show how fallacious it is. Changing one word and your reasoning is totally wrong-. There's a species of animal that practices HETERSXUALITY(not homosexuality) therefore it is natural and so there is nothing wrong with humans doing it. "There are animals that eat the young of their species. There are cannibalistic animals. There are animals that torture their prey before killing it. Obviously just because animals do it does not mean that is morally ok or natural. Besides morality is judged by people. WE decide what is moral. A stupid book written 2000 years ago filled with bad ideas and immorality is a backward stupid way to judge morality.
"There's a species of animal that practices homosexuality, therefore it is natural, and so there is nothing wrong with humans doing it too".
Haha, yes it is a very weak argument.
But what I think they meant, is that homosexuality happens naturally also in nature.
Thus nature always produces a small percentage of homosexual offspring.
Now, if you believe that god created that small percentage then you are forced to accept it as natural, how god wanted it.
If you do not believe in god, then you just have to accept the reality of how nature works with it's pros and cons.
In either case you cannot claim that homosexuality is unnatural, maybe you can say it is uncommon but it is surly natural.
I would offer my argument.
If you mean natural, as reproduction goes, homosexuality is not natural.
However, are you a human just for reproduction?
If not, then the homosexual has feelings and consciousness like you and I, thus he/she should be treated equally since he is natural in that respect.
If you consider yourself a human just for reproduction, then the homosexual is more human then you are.
JEFF-you are way to serious except when you tell jokes. Then you are funny
Homosexuality is natural, celibacy is not...take that society!!!
Homosexuality is a very natural process, used to prevent overpopulation. As the population grows, as does the amount of homosexuality. The only reason we don't eat babies or other people is because of morality, something achieved through a little thing called sapience (the ability to process advanced thoughts). Animals are, in fact, sentient (the ability to do things based on free will), meaning, quite literally, they don't know right from wrong. The difference between animals and humans, animals are incapable of actual morality, while humans are the opposite. But, both have natural instincts that are almost impossible to stop. Homosexuality is a rare instinct, to put it scientifically.
Bobbington, you started a forum thread that is, well, a metadebate about homosexuality. Why? Let's step back a couple of paces and first ask ourselves if any type of adult, consensual sex is ours or anyone else's business. Is it? Do you really think it's any of your business?
To iterate a phrase you used, "some food for thought."
If you are referring to anal sex by saying that homosexuality is immoral, then the burden lies on the theist to account for the non-procreational sexual acts that heterosexuals partake in, such as kissing, oral sex and yes even heterosexual anal sex. Once you account for the immorality of these actions, as the Hitch would put it, then you would have a ghost of a point.
Sex is recreational as well as pro-creational.
Homosexuality is not as bad as cannibalism, neither is it immoral. Other animals eat, and so do humans, other animals sleep, and so do humans, other animals are attracted to the same sex, and so are humans, its not like homosexuality kills anyone. Morality is based on humanity which many African cultures down here call ubuntu. It is not based on the biblical scriptures where god tells you that eating pork is bad, working on sabbath is bad, homosexuality is bad. The bible is morally bankrupt since it bases its theology on salvation, which in literal terms is a threat of violence, "the hell concept." You can not compare homosexuality to cannibalism man, that's absurd.
Takudzwa-Cannibalism isn't wrong necessarily. As long as brains and hearts of the human being eaten is cooked or boiled above 200 degrees then it is ok. All other parts of the body can be eaten uncooked although it might not taste that good. As for homosexuality. While everyone with a brain agrees there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. There is growing evidence in the scientific community that homosexuals are more creative, have a higher intelligence and have more empathy than heterosexuals.
The Bible states that homosexuality is bad.
The Bible also states (among other things):
- marriage should be between a man and a woman that is a virgin. And if it were to turn out that she was in fact not a virgin, she was to be stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
- You are not allowed to get tattoos. (Leviticus 19:28)
- How to not cut your hair and beard. (Leviticus 19:27)
- Men who have been injured in or lost his private parts, are not allowed into the congregation of the lord. (Deuteronomy 23:1)
- Don't gossip. (Leviticus 19:16)
- Don't eat meat from pigs, don't even touch a dead pig. (Leviticus 11:7-8)
- Children cursing their parents shall be killed. (Exodus 21:17)
- He who gets remarried after getting divorced is an adulterer. (Mark 10:11-12)
- Working on the sabbath is punished by death. (Exodus 31:14-15)
- Women are not allowed to speak in the churches. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
- Do not eat shrimp, lobster, and other assorted seafood. (Leviticus 10-11)
Can a someone please say, why homosexuality is singled out as a special rule that still should apply, when so many other rules are completely ignored?