TakeOnIt
Compare opinions of world leading experts and influencers.

Homosexuality

Recently Added Issues

Recently Added Quotes

Opponents of gay rights assert that homosexuality is a recent sickness of society that has temporarily upset our natural heterosexual state of being. Gay advocates retort that this claim is demonstratively false, since homosexuality occurs frequently in many species. Furthermore, they point out that the question is irrelevant due to the "Appeal to Nature" fallacy, which lures people into concluding that if something is unnatural or outside of the norm then it isn't good.
Opponents of gay rights claim that homosexuality poses a threat to the foundation of society. The fear is partly based on the hypothesis that increasing acceptance of the gay lifestyle increases the prevalence of homosexuality, and that gay people do not value family as highly as heterosexuals. Gay advocates believe these views are rooted in prejudice, and do not stand up to closer scrutiny.
Some conservatives believe that homosexual couples are unfit to raise children. This position is frequently based on religious grounds, where homosexuality is considered a sin. They add that the homosexual lifestyle and mindset will rub off on the kids, eroding family values. The libertarian stance is that scientific evidence does not support the accusations of bad parenting, that the alternative for many children is living in orphanages, and that religious views should not permeate law.
In countries with a federal/state split, a compromise proposed by politicians is to allow each state to determine whether they support gay marriage. Strong opponents of gay marriage want it banned at the federal level.
Marriage comes with many legal benefits. In the United States, there are over 1,100 rights associated with married heterosexual couples, many of which are not available to homosexual couples. Gay advocates say that laws must not discriminate on sexual orientation.
There is an ongoing debate regarding the degree to which homosexuality is genetic versus environmental. A scientific understanding is important, in part because it can either support or refute a prevalent Christian belief that homosexuality is a choice.
Ann Coulter
I’m against [gay marriage]. Liberals do not understand the point of marriage. The point of marriage is not for society to understand the strong feelings people have for one another. It is to raise children. It’s to harness men’s natural promiscuity and to direct it toward one woman and one set of children.
Julia Gillard
We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples.
Roissy in DC
Besides the slippery slope argument (which I believe is a legitimate one in this case, opening the door to polygamous arrangements), gay marriage undermines the procreative justification for marriage. Western companionate marriage is as much about kids as it is about love. Scrap the one reason and it’s harder to justify getting married for the other reason. ... Now personally I couldn’t care less if gays get married... this post is a primer for society, not for my own hedonistic pursuit.
Ali Khamenei
[In the west] moral values do not pose any limitation for freedom. For instance, the homosexual movement in the U.S. is one of their popular movements. They are even proud of it and hold rallies in the streets and publish their photographs in magazines. ... No one is ashamed of it and no one denies it. Rather, some people who are opposed to homosexuality are severely attacked by some of these newspapers and periodicals and condemned as opponents of homosexuality.
Wikipedia
The natural existence of homosexuality in non-human animals is considered controversial by conservative religious groups who oppose LGBT social movements because these findings seem to point to the natural occurrence of homosexuality in humans.
Wikipedia
No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental.
Luiz Sérgio Solimeo
Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
Petter Boeckman
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.
The Catholic Church
[The church] must defend not only the earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to all. It must also defend the human person against its own destruction. What's needed is something like a 'human ecology,' understood in the right sense. It's not simply an outdated metaphysics if the church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected.
The Catholic Church
Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

New Comments

0 Points       Benja       21 Jul 2010     Is homosexuality natural? Agree
"I'm not aware of any species in nature..."
See appealing to your own ignorance.

"Please show me an example where entire communities practice this behavior [of homosexuality as a routine and sustained way of relating to other same sex members of that species], over time, in nature..."
That's 4, maybe 5 argument fallacies in one sentence. No matter what evidence there is for homosexual behavior in animals (e.g. anal sex, same-sex courtship, etc.) you will say "oh no, that's not really homosexual behavior" (see the no true Scotsman fallacy). Furthermore, you're claiming that homosexuality isn't natural until someone demonstrates otherwise, but logically, in the absence of a demonstration, you can only logically claim that you don't know (see burden of proof). But even if more evidence is given to you, you'll just create new criteria for what counts as homosexual behavior (see moving the goalposts). Finally, the contentious claim here is whether homosexuality is natural - but you're tearing down a different, more specific, claim: that "homosexuality occurs in a routine and sustained manner over time in species other than Homo sapiens" (see strawman fallacy). Whether or not that's true - and your stance is conjecture on your part - I don't see this as particularly relevant (though it seems to imply you don't have a problem with bisexuality). Why on earth should we look to animals for guidance on what we ought to do? Why should we base morality of what is "natural"? (see Appeal to Nature).

"This behavior, while being homosexual, can hardly be onsidered validation for Homosexuality."
You're only scratching the surface of homosexual behavior. See here.

"Homosexuality tries to seek some sense of permission giving from evolution but homosexuality flies in the face of 'survival of the fittest'."
No-one has to seek permission from the laws of nature for their actions - the idea of seeking permission from a higher power or force is a religious concept. Scientists and those interested in science instead seek a better understanding of what occurs in nature because they find it both fascinating and useful, and the process can certainly challenge assumptions our beliefs are based upon. You can learn a lot about both homosexual and heterosexual behavior by studying animals.

"it takes faith to believe in a theory (evolution)"
The belief in evolution is based on reason and evidence. But it's good to see you dislike the practice of basing one's beliefs on faith.

"Statistics favors creation or intelligent design over evolution but "science" doesn't want to be pestered by the numbers"
This technique is called mirroring. It's when you reverse the arguments made by your opponents. In this case you're trying to associate creationism with statistics and evolution with faith. It's marketing 101. I've seen more subtlety in an ad for extra large condoms.

1 Point       prashant gupta       18 Jul 2010     Is homosexuality natural? Agree
i completely agree that homosexuality is natural because it has been found in more than 40,000 species of animals including humans also and one more thing whenever u fall in love or attraction so at that time do u make a view in your mind that u will be attracted towards only a male or only a female ???????
no, we never think about it becoz the feeling of attraction is just natural it comes from inside .
so u must go home and think about it very very deeply........

0 Points       Benja       09 May 2010     Does homosexuality have a significant genetic component? Mostly Agree
Conservatives aren't interested in your complicated papers. They have the bible. The bible clearly says that homosexuality is wrong. Since God is just, he couldn't have made us hard-wired to be evil - evil must be a choice.

This type of reasoning - where scripture is used to determine science facts - is dangerous. This is why I'd disagree with you on the issue of atheists directly challenging religious beliefs. The cruelty of challenging someone's beliefs - which at most is an attack of words (and I'd recommend any attack be done with courtesy and respect) - hardly compares to the cruelty of denying homosexuals legal rights.

0 Points       Benja       09 May 2010     Should the federal government ban gay marriage? Disagree
"this is such an obvious constitutional overreach that I'm surprised conservatives can stomach it."

Both conservatives and liberals will invoke constitutional arguments when it serves their cause, and come up with excuses as to why a constitutional argument doesn't apply when it contradicts their prejudices. People don't think like supreme court judges.

0 Points       the27th       09 May 2010     Should gay and straight couples have the same legal benefits? Agree
This is more obviously true than practically anything else I know.

1 Point       the27th       09 May 2010     Should the federal government ban gay marriage? Disagree
Apart from questions of morality --where I think gays and lesbians should enjoy full social equality -- this is such an obvious constitutional overreach that I'm surprised conservatives can stomach it.

0 Points       the27th       09 May 2010     Does homosexuality have a significant genetic component? Mostly Agree
I've seen the papers. Heritability is practically undeniable, genetic origin is pretty likely, X-linked is plausible.

1 Point       Anonymous       28 Apr 2010     Should homosexual couples be able to adopt kids? Agree
my dads raised me and im fine im a great student and im graduating this year so get your facts straight and i think i would have not been as good with a mom :)

0 Points       JGWeissman       25 Apr 2010     Does homosexuality threaten the stability of society? Disagree
It is likely that there are closet homosexuals who attempt to lead a heterosexual lifestyle do to the pressure of society. However, if you remove that pressure, and enable every homosexual to come out of the closet, there will still be enough actual heterosexuals to have enough families to raise another generation.

Though really, the claim that homosexuals value family less is weak. Many homosexual couples work around their reproductive disadvantages, through adoption or artificial insemination, to have children.

0 Points       Benja       25 Apr 2010     Does homosexuality threaten the stability of society? General Comment
Arguably a few generations rather than a few decades are needed before we can really determine stability (I guess empirically we'd want to look to historical examples of how changing cultural practices led to the weakening/downfall of previous empires).

Having said this, I'm very suspicious of people who can confidently single out homosexuality as a major destabilizing factor in society. The far larger heterosexual portion of society has a far larger potential impact on society's destabilization (e.g. low birth rates in rich countries, high male/female ratios in China).

0 Points       Adam Atlas       25 Apr 2010     Does homosexuality threaten the stability of society? Disagree
Societies that have gotten more accepting of homosexuality over the past few decades don't seem to be collapsing. I think we can reject this empirically.

1 Point       OmnipotentRabbit       10 Apr 2010     Should homosexual couples be able to adopt kids? Agree
Homosexual couples are generally more stable than heterosexual ones, which guarantees a better environment for the child and whatnot. If anything, allowing them to adopt them would reduce the general number of orphans and result in a much better general situation. This is another one of the cases where supposed "moral standards which must be upheld" get in the way of progress.


Homosexuality Question Index

Is homosexuality natural?
Should the federal government ban gay marriage?
Should gay and straight couples have the same legal benefits?
Does homosexuality threaten the stability of society?
Does homosexuality have a significant genetic component?
Should homosexual couples be able to adopt kids?
Is homosexuality common in Iran (compared to western countries)?