What Atheists think about Homosexuality?

[DeterminedJuliet]

Struggling Atheist - As an atheist, can you please tell us why you object so strongly to homosexuality?  Thx.

I already did . Read Post 105 .  I replied in accordance to the OP asking me what i thought about it.

Can you please explain WHY it is a "perversion" and why you care what other people do anyway. ... From the perspective of an atheist, please.  Thx.

From the perspective of an Atheist,  not all Atheists embrace amorality and apathy.   Did you think these were two universal traits among all Atheists ?

Uh no, see, you still haven't explained why homosexuality is immoral. 

See, here's the deal.  I know why theists think that homosexuality is immoral - cause the bible says so.  Pretty cut and dried.

What I don't understand is why an atheist (who presumably doesn't feel particularly drawn to believe something just because the bible says so) thinks that homosexuality is immoral.  Stop referring us to read post 105, please.  We've all read it.  Please tell us why, specifically, homosexuality is immoral.  Thank you.

Fundamentally, because Homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle both to the Participants as well as non-participating innocent people who often get disease infection, often culminating in premature death.  I think that is a good reason why it is immoral ;  if it were truly just 'another permissable and acceptable lifestyle choice' , then the severe consequences should not exist. Would you concur with this premise ? Here are some other reasons :  https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=What+are+the+dangers+of+homosexuality+%3F&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7TSNA_enUS419US419

Can you please respond the points I made regarding this this a few pages back?

You seem to be repeating yourself without explaining much. I would appreciate it if you could address the points/questions I posed.  

[Sandra Craft]

Fundamentally, because Homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle both to the Participants as well as non-participating innocent people who often get disease infection, often culminating in premature death.  I think that is a good reason why it is immoral ;  if it were truly just 'another permissable and acceptable lifestyle choice' , then the severe consequences should not exist. Would you concur with this premise ?

No, I wouldn't.  You seem to be suggesting that AIDS is some kind of retribution for sex between same-sex partners and, as far as I know, viruses don't work that way.  I don't think AIDS exists as an indictor of an immoral lifestyle any more than any other STD does.  If it was, heterosexuality would have been long ago condemned as dangerous and immoral.

As others have pointed out, I think what you're actually talking about is promiscuous and careless sexual behavior which is not restricted to any particular sexuality.  Besides, you do realize that if you create underclasses out of people whose behavior is or can be dangerous to themselves or others, that's going to be a very large group?  Drinkers, smokers, over-eaters, even people who work too much, and that's just for starters.  I don't care at all for the social or  political implications of interfering in peoples private lives that much, and condemning a very generally defined group because of what some of them do?  There you're back to bigotry.

Here are some other reasons :  https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=What+are+the+dangers+of+homosexuality+%3F&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7TSNA_enUS419US419

Uh huh.  Mostly religious sites with an axe to grind about sex they consider ungodly.  I don't consider them any more persuasive than you would probably consider a liberal, secular site known to support gay rights.

[Crow]

SA with your logic of the dangers that can be associated with homosexual sex wouldn't heterosexual sex and heterosexual sex resulting in conception be considered an immoral action by your standards? I don't think I need to go into all the dangers that are associated with sex as you most likely know them, so why do you think homosexual sex is immoral due to the dangers yet you do not hold the same standards for heterosexual sex when there are more dangers that can be associated with it due to the inability for homosexual sex being unable to result in conception.

[Whitney]

Fundamentally, because Homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle both to the Participants as well as non-participating innocent people who often get disease infection, often culminating in premature death.  I think that is a good reason why it is immoral ;  if it were truly just 'another permissable and acceptable lifestyle choice' , then the severe consequences should not exist. Would you concur with this premise ?

No I don't agree with your 'premise" (it's not a premise btw;it is a statement that must be supported not a statement that is fundamentally true), because all sex is dangerous if you don't select your partner responsibly and don't follow safe practices.  I don't know how many gay people you actually have known well enough to realize this; but they don't go around sleeping with just anything that moves they have standards of responsibility just like any straight person and most gay people are seeking out monogamous relationships just like most straight people do.  Plus, straight people get dangerous diseases from sex too.  The only reason the AIDS issue got so far out of control is because we didn't know much about the disease until fairly recently....for example, testing for AIDs in blood wasn't even common 30 years ago; it was so new that you had to ask for the test prior to a transfusion rather than it being standard.

Also, please do not link to a google search result when trying to support your views...it's lazy and doesn't actually tell us anything as you couldn't have possibly read through all those results.

[Sweetdeath]

What century do you live in?
While I agree a very permiscuious  lifestyle can be dangeruous (STDs, unwanted pregnancy, etc) -- that has NOTHING to do with sexual preference. Plenty of heterosexual women and men have gotten STDs from sleeping around or having unprotected sex.

I am 26years old in a three year-- going on four year --commited relationship. I am a big believer in monagomy.   This is my second serious relationship. I have no STDs, and feel very loyal to my gf. What exactly does that say about me? e__e

[Ali]

Fundamentally, because Homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle both to the Participants as well as non-participating innocent people who often get disease infection, often culminating in premature death.  I think that is a good reason why it is immoral ;  if it were truly just 'another permissable and acceptable lifestyle choice' , then the severe consequences should not exist. Would you concur with this premise ?

No, I wouldn't.  You seem to be suggesting that AIDS is some kind of retribution for sex between same-sex partners and, as far as I know, viruses don't work that way.  I don't think AIDS exists as an indictor of an immoral lifestyle any more than any other STD does.  If it was, heterosexuality would have been long ago condemned as dangerous and immoral.

As others have pointed out, I think what you're actually talking about is promiscuous and careless sexual behavior which is not restricted to any particular sexuality.  Besides, you do realize that if you create underclasses out of people whose behavior is or can be dangerous to themselves or others, that's going to be a very large group?  Drinkers, smokers, over-eaters, even people who work too much, and that's just for starters.  I don't care at all for the social or  political implications of interfering in peoples private lives that much, and condemning a very generally defined group because of what some of them do?  There you're back to bigotry.

Here are some other reasons :  https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=What+are+the+dangers+of+homosexuality+%3F&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7TSNA_enUS419US419

Uh huh.  Mostly religious sites with an axe to grind about sex they consider ungodly.  I don't consider them any more persuasive than you would probably consider a liberal, secular site known to support gay rights.

These were all the points I wanted to make, except I had to leave to go to my parents' house.

Look, SA, you say that that homosexual activity is immoral because it's dangerous.  The truth is that all sexual activity carries with it some risks, even within a committed monogamous relationship.  The truth is that there is no such thing as "innocents" when it comes to sexual relationships.  Sure, some of us have a reasonable expectation of monogamy (for example, I'm married and in an 8 year+ monogamous relationship - I would be shocked to get an STD at this point) but I think that most of us are mature enough to know that even what we think of as a monogamous relationship is not a 100% guarantee that we won't get an STD.  I'm 99% confident that my spouse would never step out on me, but I'm also old enough to know that shit happens, and every time I have sex, I'm still engaging in a potentially risky behavior.  I'm not an innocent because I know it's theoretically possible that my spouse will be unfaithful and that he may bring something home.  That's not a gay problem, that's a people problem.  Taking "innocents" out of it, you are arguing that homosexuality is immoral because it is "dangerous."  Do you feel that other "dangerous" behavior is also immoral? For example: overeating, not exercising, drinking alcohol, driving a car, living in certain neighborhoods, et cetera?  Or do you accept that adults are able to take their own risks without considering them "immoral"?

[Sweetdeath]

Well said, Ali. I especially like your point"a people problem" because that is exactly what it is.
Anyone can get an STD at any point.
My friend's aunt got HIV from a bad blood transfusion! That is scary!

[Liar For Jesus]

How is this

I think they should instead lovingly offer help toward the Homosexual  thru free Government sponsored Counselling

consistent with this?

I dont see any need for ANY person to announce their sexual desires or preferences in public , and believe there are some private things that need to be enshrouded in privacy, sacredness  , and personal responsibility.

With regards to the first quote, what are they to be counseled for?
1. Their same sex attraction
or
2. Their desire to dress, walk and talk more femininely or masculinely than Struggling Atheist deems appropriate for that specific gender?

1.  They would be counselled in an effort to exit a lifestyle that has been proven to be very very dangerous to their health and life . 

2.   Im not the one who dresses a homosexual person, nor do I tell them how to dress,  nor are they accountable to me ;   just as you can tell when a person is drunk by their appearance, behaviour, and talk... you can usually tell  if people in public are homosexual .   And no..it is not wrong to discern another since we all do that every single day of our lives .

Does this satisfy your inquiry, or,  do you have some more questions  which id be pleased to answer ?

[Liar For Jesus]

and believe there are some private things that need to be enshrouded in privacy, some level of sacredness

That there. Why?
[/quote]

Why do YOU believe some things are best kept to oneself , and,  what is inherently wrong with keeping some things that are very personal and meaningful  to ourselves ?   Would it be proper behaviour for me to announce to you on a daily continued basis my level of orgasms  and where I put my penis the night before ?   Or, would that be information that you didnt need to know ?

[Liar For Jesus]

Struggling Atheist - As an atheist, can you please tell us why you object so strongly to homosexuality?  Thx.

I already did . Read Post 105 .  I replied in accordance to the OP asking me what i thought about it.

Can you please explain WHY it is a "perversion" and why you care what other people do anyway. ... From the perspective of an atheist, please.  Thx.

From the perspective of an Atheist,  not all Atheists embrace amorality and apathy.   Did you think these were two universal traits among all Atheists ?

Uh no, see, you still haven't explained why homosexuality is immoral. 

See, here's the deal.  I know why theists think that homosexuality is immoral - cause the bible says so.  Pretty cut and dried.

What I don't understand is why an atheist (who presumably doesn't feel particularly drawn to believe something just because the bible says so) thinks that homosexuality is immoral.  Stop referring us to read post 105, please.  We've all read it.  Please tell us why, specifically, homosexuality is immoral.  Thank you.

Fundamentally, because Homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle both to the Participants as well as non-participating innocent people who often get disease infection, often culminating in premature death.  I think that is a good reason why it is immoral ;  if it were truly just 'another permissable and acceptable lifestyle choice' , then the severe consequences should not exist. Would you concur with this premise ? Here are some other reasons :  https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=What+are+the+dangers+of+homosexuality+%3F&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7TSNA_enUS419US419

No, SA, I would not agree with your premise because it makes no sense. The "severe consequences" you seem to be implying come with being homosexual do not go away if you are heterosexual. Plenty of heterosexual people have also gotten AIDS and other STDs, unfortunately. Plenty of heterosexual people also engage in anal sex. Plenty of homosexual people are also in loving, monogamous relationships, and do not exhibit the risky behaviors that you seem to generalize with all homosexuals. I know gay people who are parents, who are in committed relationships, who exhibit none of these supposedly risky behaviors, and they're among the finest people I know. You're generalizing that all homosexuals exhibit certain risky behavior, which is indeed the definition of prejudice against them as a group. You are homophobic.
And it is that kind of mentality that has led to the kinds of horrible things I asked you about before (the anti-homosexual laws in Africa, Mathew Shepherd, etc). Those are rooted in homophobia and prejudice, the same kind that you are exhibiting by your statements above. You want to know why so many gay people suffer from depression and a higher rate of suicide, which is also cited in the link you posted? Maybe it's because there are people like you who claim they're immoral and dangerous people who do not deserve the same civil rights and protections as other people. Then they became scapegoats for people to blame society's ills on, and that manifests itself into what I cited earlier.
Mathew Shepherd was clearly targeted because he was gay. How is that not a hate-crime worthy of the same protections afforded to other persecuted minorities in the US? Is arguing for that protection really some kind of "special right"?  If that's really how you feel, then I almost feel sorry for you. Almost, because it's people like you who stand by and argue that they don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us anyway, and that sickens me.

Thanks for your opinion .  And, because a different sexual venue has some danger to it, doesnt nullify the dangerous proven facts about homosexuality.

[Ali]

and believe there are some private things that need to be enshrouded in privacy, some level of sacredness

That there. Why?

Why do YOU believe some things are best kept to oneself , and,  what is inherently wrong with keeping some things that are very personal and meaningful  to ourselves ?   Would it be proper behaviour for me to announce to you on a daily continued basis my level of orgasms  and where I put my penis the night before ?   Or, would that be information that you didnt need to know ?
[/quote]

Well, I agree that no one needs to know where you put your penis the night before (thanks for that visual, by the way.  I pictured a penis in a butter dish.)  But I don't think that's the limit to what you're talking about in regards to homosexuals.  For example, sometimes when we are out in public, I will hold hands with my husband while we walk, or he will put an arm around me.  Nothing at all to do with orgasms or penises, just a simple gesture of affection between a married couple.  Do you object to that?  If not, why should it be any different for a homosexual couple?  

My point is, there is a lot of ground to cover in between talking about your sex life in uncomfortably intimate detail and keeping all signs of being in a relationship behind closed doors.  

[Liar For Jesus]

Fundamentally, because Homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle both to the Participants as well as non-participating innocent people who often get disease infection, often culminating in premature death.  I think that is a good reason why it is immoral ;  if it were truly just 'another permissable and acceptable lifestyle choice' , then the severe consequences should not exist. Would you concur with this premise ?

No, I wouldn't.  You seem to be suggesting that AIDS is some kind of retribution for sex between same-sex partners and, as far as I know, viruses don't work that way.  I don't think AIDS exists as an indictor of an immoral lifestyle any more than any other STD does.  If it was, heterosexuality would have been long ago condemned as dangerous and immoral.

As others have pointed out, I think what you're actually talking about is promiscuous and careless sexual behavior which is not restricted to any particular sexuality.  Besides, you do realize that if you create underclasses out of people whose behavior is or can be dangerous to themselves or others, that's going to be a very large group?  Drinkers, smokers, over-eaters, even people who work too much, and that's just for starters.  I don't care at all for the social or  political implications of interfering in peoples private lives that much, and condemning a very generally defined group because of what some of them do?  There you're back to bigotry.

Here are some other reasons :  https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=What+are+the+dangers+of+homosexuality+%3F&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7TSNA_enUS419US419

Uh huh.  Mostly religious sites with an axe to grind about sex they consider ungodly.  I don't consider them any more persuasive than you would probably consider a liberal, secular site known to support gay rights.

How is ANY sex act  which carries with it a very high degree of physical and/or biological harm ... (often leading to fatality).... be considered acceptable to engage in  /  just a viable alternative /   and be vehemently endorsed  to the masses  as socially acceptable ?   

[Liar For Jesus]

Fundamentally, because Homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle both to the Participants as well as non-participating innocent people who often get disease infection, often culminating in premature death.  I think that is a good reason why it is immoral ;  if it were truly just 'another permissable and acceptable lifestyle choice' , then the severe consequences should not exist. Would you concur with this premise ?

No I don't agree with your 'premise" .............

Also, please do not link to a google search result when trying to support your views...it's lazy and doesn't actually tell us anything as you couldn't have possibly read through all those results.

Actually, the point i was trying to make by linking to a google-search result  on a subject being questioned...was to show how some people are willfully ignorant of the issue  yet are too lazy in body and mind  to  be assertive in discovering the real truth  .  I will, per your request, not link to a google search result henceforth. 

[Asmodean]

Why do YOU believe some things are best kept to oneself

I don't, with the exception of keeping professional secrets or other secrets one can profit from in one way or another.

and,  what is inherently wrong with keeping some things that are very personal and meaningful  to ourselves ?

Nothing. But why should it be the norm?

Would it be proper behaviour for me to announce to you on a daily continued basis my level of orgasms  and where I put my penis the night before ?   Or, would that be information that you didnt need to know ?

Oh, I wouldn't mind. It is well within your rights to share and well within my rights not to listen if it doesn't interest me.

So, the level of orgasms. Increasing? Decreasing? Holding steady?

[Ali]

How is ANY sex act  which carries with it a very high degree of physical and/or biological harm ... (often leading to fatality).... be considered acceptable to engage in  /  just a viable alternative /   and be vehemently endorsed  to the masses  as socially acceptable ?   

I think you're overstating the level of "danger" when it comes to homosexual sex, and understating the level of "danger" when it comes to heterosexual sex.  

No sex is 100% safe.  Certain behaviors (like promiscuity) increase the risk of catching an STD.  There are promiscuous people of all stripes (hetero, homo, bi, whatever people consider themselves.)

And the bottom line is, I think that adults are capable of weighing the risks of sex without considering them "immoral."