[ndigila]

The following are the main arguments I've heard defending homosexuality.
1. Homosexuals are born homosexuals
2. Consenting adults can do whatever they want in their privacy
Can someone tell me why these arguments are valid?
I assume that by asking your question (Can someone tell me why these arguments are valid?), it means that you view the two reasons as being invalid. Just wondering why the thought of someone being born homosexual seems invalid to you. Or why you'd have an issue if two adult men consensually had gay sex in the privacy of their own homes.

Okay, Let's examine the first one.
Homosexuals are born homosexuals Out of all conditions that human beings are born with, homosexuality is the only one that's defended this way. You first have to show that it's acceptable behavior (as in you have to be able to defend homosexual sex) before telling us its okay to be born that way. And to put forward this agenda, those who claim to have been "cured" of homosexuality are being silenced.

Consenting adults can do whatever they want in their privacy. You may not agree with this, but this is an emotional argument. It's a fancy way of saying "let them do whatever they want, it doesn't affect me." It's also a subjective argument. The same people who use this argument won't use it while defending incest, polygamy or drug use.


Why do many free thinkers don't have a problem with fornication in a country in which AIDS is a national disaster?

How exactly did you arrive at this conclusion?

By being a conservative Christian in a society that's clearly liberal. If I was to wander off to the Relationships forum and ask people to defend fornication, these are the main responses I'll get.
1) I'll be accused of being a 'holy joe' or a religious freak
2) I'll be accused of trying to say that i'm better than other people.
3) I'll be accused of being unable to coerce women into having sex with me.
4) Some will say "It's fun" or any similar response
5) Some will say "We're in love"
6) Some will say "I don't need any god to tell me how to live my life"
7) Closely related to 6, some will say "I can do whatever I want."
8) Some will mention the health benefits (which is usually exercise, or to relieve stress).
Only one of the above arguments is not emotional or subjective. And since AIDS is a national disaster, it would make logical sense for a person living in this society to seek other forms of exercise or stress relief.


I have absolutely no issue with sex at all, as long as it is between consenting adults. The sex, number of people involved, as well as their marital status, doesn't matter to me. There should be no government laws prohibiting it. That said, I know that there are very many negative repercussions that come from wanton fornication, especially between the uneducated. By uneducated, I mean uneducated in terms of how disease is spread, pregnancy, etc, and not ati having a college degree.

Atlian, there are two huge problems with this argument (Consenting adults are free to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anybody.)

1) What makes someone an adult? When they reach the age of 18? I'm sure you know that there's people 21+ years who act very immaturely and there's people younger than 18 years who are very mature and responsible. Why should two very responsible teenagers not be considered consenting adults? (By the way, do you have a problem with teenagers having safe sex?) Why is it considered statutory rape for an immature 18 year old to have sex with a very mature and responsible 17 year old? FYI, the concept of a teenager (the approximate 6 year transition from childhood to adulthood) didn't come about until industrialization started. Before then, teenagers were considered adults.

2) Most people here defend morality without God by saying that human societies create their own moral code. But how does this happen if everyone in this society is saying "Society has no right to question what I do?"

Are these people really free?

Yes, free from religious shackles! You have absolutely no idea how it feels to think for yourself and view things rationally instead of dogmatically until you leave religion behind!
Atlian, I did leave religion behind. I was agnostic for a while. But after weighing out atheism, I believe Christianity better explains human behavior. (I posted in another thread my main problems with atheism). Am I still a free thinker or am I bound by religious shackles?

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by Msoto

Ndigila, a lot of research has been carried out to show low correlations between homosexuality and hereditary. To understand homosexuality one must be aware that it has 3 components, cognition, social and hereditary. Now no one can claim there to be a 'gay gene' there isn't one. There is a low correlation of some people to deviate towards being gay, if they also grew up in a gay-like atmosphere and brain-washed themselves with gay attitudes.

Msoto, what I am asking for is a valid argument defending homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Msoto

An atheist is not a free thinker, atlian, type r has summarized it for you....read his reply and let it sink in first. This is why i say there are few if any free thinkers...when people hold to their philosophical positions and refuse to acknowledge or integrate those of others then they are already mentally enslaved. Because when presented when any situation, you immediately view it from an 'anti-god fanatic' perspective instead of crossing the other side and view it from a 'a god believer' perspective.

But you also have to take into account that some philosophical/religious positions are incompatible. Some free thinkers are guilty of trying to do this: especially those who say that all religions lead to the same deity.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by ATLian

Let's first define a freethinker. A free thinker is someone who subscribes to the notion of free thought, which (to quote Wikipedia since they seem to have the best definition) "is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma."

Isn't science an authority?

[ATLian]

Thinking is not something that happens in isolation. You cannot just change how you grew up, what you have seen, what you have been exposed to and then say it doesn't influence you. It does....and in so doing influences how you think.

I 100% agree with you here.



I would say...you did not start out as an Atheist instead you started out as a christian but you disagreed with many of the views that christians had.

True. BTW we all started as atheists. Then religion was force-fed into us, and we had to accept it. Later on I challenged what had been force-fed into us and found it severely lacking.



They have adopted a position of God doesn't exist how then can we expect them to freely think about religion and evaluate its intricacies?

Most atheists were once theists, so they do know the intricacies of this religion they left. I was a Christian, and it was doing a heck of a lot of reading, research and questioning that led to my atheism. As such, I am very well informed about the Christian religion, more so than very many saved people!



The only free-thinker on religion is an agnostic

What exactly is an agnostic?



You switch the goal posts and fail to acknowledge that there exists some shortcomings of this atheist religion that you cling so much to.

OK, atheism isn't a religion. Just like not collecting stamps isn't a hobby, not believing in a god isn't a religion.

Please tell me the short-comings of atheism.

[ATLian]

Originally Posted by ndigila

Atlian, is it possible for someone to weigh out atheism and weigh out Christianity and submit to Christianity without being told that he's fallen into mental slavery?

What exactly do you define as "mental slavery"? If it's blindly believing the dogmas you're presented with bila any evidence, then it's impossible for one to become a Christian without falling into mental slavery. That is because Christianity is all about doing as the Bible says bila using your brain to question, ama bila asking for evidence!

[ATLian]

Homosexuals are born homosexuals. Out of all conditions that human beings are born with, homosexuality is the only one that's defended this way.

I am a straight male. At some point, I didn't care about sex, just playing with other kids. Then puberty hit, and I started getting these feelings for chics. I never ati reached a sexual cross-road where I had to chose between guys or chics, then I chose chics. I just always wanted chics, because I was born that way. If I never got to that sexual cross-road, why should I then assume that homosexuals got to that cross-road and decided to chose men instead of chics? That is hypocritical. Doesn't it make more sense to believe that they were born that way, and when hormones started raging at puberty, theirs were raging for other men?



Consenting adults can do whatever they want in their privacy ... The same people who use this argument won't use it while defending incest, polygamy or drug use.

I'm a very liberal person. I'm all for legalizing prostitution, drug use, homosexual marriages, etc. Basically legalizing those crimes that are only illegal because of religion. e.g. prostitution. Why the heck is it illegal? You can go and hire someone to act as your toilet, as in, every time you want to take a dump, he lies under you and you dump on him. You can hire someone to act as your body guard, and they would die defending you. etc. But you cannot hire an adult to have consenting sex with you? How the heck can that make sense? How, if not for religion? Also, a Christian CANNOT condemn incest. We were all the products of incest, kwanza twice. First when Adam and Eve's kids slept with each other (coz there was no other way since they were the only people alive), and next when Noah's grand-kids did the same. I think incest is a no-no for me, but I don't see why it should be illegal. If an adult brother and sister fall in love with each other, why should the law stop them? Who are they hurting?

I think crimes should be those that infringe on other people's rights to freedom, property, etc. If you want to smoke weed in your house, why the heck should that be a crime?



By being a conservative Christian in a society that's clearly liberal. If I was to wander off to the Relationships forum and ask people to defend fornication, these are the main responses I'll get.

Do you know an overwhelming majority of people in Mashada are Christians? Most of the guys giving the reasons you stated believe in god and are Christians! Just pointing out that despite Christianity, they still do those things.



What makes someone an adult?

Under the law, the only thing is age.



Most people here defend morality without God by saying that human societies create their own moral code. But how does this happen if everyone in this society is saying "Society has no right to question what I do?"

We don't want a society with anarchy. We want one where laws that can affect other people are obeyed, eg. don't kill, rob, rape, speed 90 on a 25 zone, etc. But if you decide that today you want some big hairy guy to do you until you can't walk, then there should be no law from prohibiting you from going out, finding the big hairy guy, paying him his asking fee, and taking him home for the night. Just because it says in some guy's holy book that gay sex is evil, that should not stop you and your mutually consenting big hairy guy from doing your thing!

[reilly]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Free thinking was borne of the spirit that "I will follow the logical path wherever it leads me. If it leads to God, so be it. If it leads to my kitchen for a hamburger, so be it."

Why would atheists insist therefore that religious thinkers are not free thinkers? I am a religious thinker out of rational thoughts...is it a slavery still?

u can't be religious an rational at the same tyme.Pick one side an run with it.Be religious an try to do what the dogma stipulates u should do so as to get a reward in the end.Kinda being selfish.Otherwise u could be rational an be who u should be.Nobody should tell u who to hate.Sadly religion tells u whom u have to hate.Rationality is actually being anti-religious.Coz in being rational,u become Agnostic.In being Agnostic,u take religion more seriously than the religious folks themselves.

[grip_daddy]

What if I rationally chose to do the dogma after careful deductions from all probable options? Like an atheist who chooses dogging after weighing the pros and the cons, I choose to follow religion after weighing the entire thoughts and ideologies of the religion verses what is being offered from other religions and non religious sectors?

What if my best rational destination was to identify with that particular religion?

For example, I was a religious being, forsook religion into atheistic lifestyle, rationalised issues, and settled for religion. Am I still a non free thinker?

Is limiting free thoughts to scientific and logical deductions curtailing the scope of thinking? Thereby the definition of free thinking becoming self contradictory?

[Realistik Dreamer]

Read Ludwig Wittgenstein, Austrian philosopher's works. I think what he is saying alludes to your issues here. But I know nothing.The guy is difficult. Dont chew your mind too much though because at the end of the day you still have your own Individual voice.Good luck!

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by ATLian

What exactly do you define as "mental slavery"? If it's blindly believing the dogmas you're presented with bila any evidence, then it's impossible for one to become a Christian without falling into mental slavery. That is because Christianity is all about doing as the Bible says bila using your brain to question, ama bila asking for evidence!

So are you saying there's no evidences for Christian doctrine?