Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

A common argument against homosexuality?

Considering the perhaps-too-healthy growth rate of the human race, and the number of already-practising homosexuals, is the argument that "sex is for reproduction, ergo homosexuality is wrong" really a valid one? It's not like being gay is setting our species back - if anything, it's helping with population control (if you wish to look at it that way).

Thoughts?

Update:

I'm not making an argument for gay marriage. To be honest, I don't really see the point of marriage in any form.

Update 2:

Lucy, did you notice the quote marks? I'm pro-gay.

Update 3:

"If they choose to live as women at least attempt to be dainty. "

I almost laughed, but then I realised what's wrong with the sentence.

13 Answers

Relevance
  • Heidi
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I don't see any argument against homosexuality that does not expose a religious or personal phobia against them.

    My uncle is gay and has three children. He, nor his partner, have ever even thought of touching them inappropriately. People that think that all homosexuals are pedophiles seeking "converts" need some mental help themselves.

    Sex is for pleasure. Why are people so concerned with what others do in the confines of their homes? What business is it of yours what transpires behind closed doors?

    If sex were solely for procreation then couples that do not intend to have children or cannot conceive would not be allowed to marry.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think that it's more along the lines of homosexuals can't produce children ergo God hates them. Which also makes no sense since plenty of straight couples can't biologically produce children either. I think that arguing about population control with a bunch of people who believe their soul purpose on this Earth is to pop out as many little bigots as they can before their (or their wives') ovaries goes kaput is really sort of worthless, because that is how they think. Instead, I think it is simply more valid to point out that:

    A) Homosexuality a natural occurrence, observed in tons of different species and scientists are well on their way to determining a genetic cause in humans.

    B) Homosexuals can have kids in the same ways that infertile straights can (adoption, insemination, surrogates).

    C) Jesus preached love, respect, tolerance and peace. He never said a word about homosexuality being sinful!

    D) We in the USA live in a democracy, not a theocracy and our founding fathers were big believers in separation of church and state. They also created a court system that could/should overrule the legislature in times when laws passed violated constitutional principle. This was to prevent a "tyranny of the majority" (a huge fear for them) and the courts have exercised this power in the past to overturn things like segregation and to legalize interracial marriages (something else the Right deemed "unnatural" and "against God's plan".

  • 1 decade ago

    The basis of your argument is if homosexuality is right or wrong, which is a social judgment. Homosexuality exists in animals, like humans, at a given rate of about 10%. 10% of our society not reproducing is not the problem if you are thinking about children. The bigger problem is that in some countries the straight couples are not having children as soon or in the numbers they used to for financial reasons and because of less social expectations/pressure that they do so.

  • 1 decade ago

    Homosexuality is a personal decision for some and others feel it is the way they were born.

    I don't have anything against homosexuals, what I do have a problem with is gay men who live their lives as women and do it poorly. If they choose to live as women at least attempt to be dainty.

    I also don't like when homosexuality is being shoved in my face like I don't know it's there. I see you, I know you're there, just be who you are and I can accept it.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 5 years ago

    God meant there to be one guy and one woman in a relationship on account that's what Adam and Eve have been yet it rather is a lot too small a quantity for a statistical diagnosis! it may be like attempting to estimate the style and ratio of distinctive colored marbles interior an opaque jar by using pulling out 2 out of billions. What if Adam and Eve have been black? Is it an abomination for white people to marry? What in the event that they have been short - does this recommend god condemns the marriage of tall people?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The argument is one that is an attempt to make it 'fit' because that is what is happening today but it doesn't make it right in a holy sense of things.

    God said it was wrong a long time ago and he is a God that won't Lie or Change. However, there is something that I read in the anointed, the elect, and the damned that makes a lot of sense about homosexuality.

    From the aed

    http://www.theanointedtheelectandthedamned.com/cha...

    [quote]8424 ""Therefore, I have given unto your hand that those who chose degenerate to become wise: to say thus unto them, "it is not you that are evil, but the acts (homosexual) you do are evil!" And to the demonic deviate: to say thus unto them, "you are a vile and a polluted of your own mind and of your own soul and have profaned the spirit within you, and lest you repent, you shall burn!" And to the Harmed (traumatized) who seek solace among their own fellows, "fear not the Wrath of The Most High upon you, for you are injured within your body, within your mind, within your soul and within your spirit and are become as though you were created such and have no power over the effects (like the color of your eyes at birth); therefore, though The Most High stands austere, He shall account your falls upon the head of all those who caused this affliction upon you, and He shall not account any falls upon the repentant and the faithful!"[quote]

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Aside from property and legal issues that could, in theory, be solved by other laws, what point are gays trying to make in attempting to get married? Why is it so important to be able to hold up a marriage certificate and say ‘we’re married’ instead of simply saying ‘we’re a couple’ without a certificate?

  • 1 decade ago

    homosexuality = nature's birth control

    @ Rick Stryker: That's the same-sex marriage issue. They want equal rights

    EDIT:

    "I don't really see the point of marriage in any form" - I see the point of a LEGAL marriage. You get over 1000 benefits

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    who the **** said sex is for reproduction?????????????? ok i hate this **** its so ******* stupid. wuts wrong with being gay i mean thats like hating some1 for something they cant even control its so ******* stupidddddddddd. if this is cus ur catholic or something then i apologize but thats the most ****** up thing ive heard. no matter how much u dont want to belive it, most people dont have sex to have kids!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Actually most of these queers try to reproduce so they can have fresh new recruits.

    And as far as setting back the human race goes, all pedophiles set society back even if they do hide under the camouflage of gayism.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.