What is a non religious argument for why homosexuality is immoral?

isn't it possible to derive morality from reason?

If we are to accept that intercourse with the other sex is what nature intends, then intercourse with the same sex is an act of promiscuity -- no control over lower, animal-like impulses.

Neither of which are inherent or exclusive to homosexuality.

Control doesn't mean abstinance. Abstinance is an admission of the inability to control.

both do occur disproportionately among homosexuals

I'm not talking complete abstinance. You can fuck, just not men.

>morality from reason

the incredibly close link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

the lack of consensus on the cause of homosexuality (would increased acceptance of homosexuality increase homosexuality itself)

the decline of the family unit as a fundamental building block of a strong society

the fleeting nature of homosexual relationships causing increased disease and moral decay.

>it's ok to fornicate with opposite sex
Only internet edgelords think this

>the incredibly close link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
only edgelords believe this
>the lack of consensus on the cause of homosexuality (would increased acceptance of homosexuality increase homosexuality itself)
what causes it has no bearing on whether it should be allowed or not
>the decline of the family unit as a fundamental building block of a strong society
explain how fags are responsible for decline of family
>the fleeting nature of homosexual relationships causing increased disease and moral decay.
this is also only cared about by edgelords
nobody gives a shit about christian sexual morality

(im not using edgelord to show my own opinoin but societies towards ur ideas)

Compassion is the basis of morality and compassion isn't rational

>Compassion is the basis of morality
for some

Well from a purely Kantian perspective, it becomes ambiguous. Kant would have asked: what maxim is someone acting in accordance with when they have homosexual sex, and can the same person will the maxim to become universal law? A maxim, in this sense, also must be universal and thus cannot be particular (i.e. one shall not do this unless x, one can do this under these conditions). The maxim is difficult to come up with. If the maxim is "all people should be homosexual", then the maxim could not be universalized, as the universalization of said maxim would result in no people to act in accordance with it. If the maxim is "all people should be permitted to carry out homosexual acts", then it depends upon what you consider to be the effects of that maxim becoming universalized.

>using the term "moral decay"

>compassion isn't rational

>nature intends

>only edgelords believe this
The thing about facts is that they dont need to be believed to be true

AIDS was nature telling gay people that this wasnt natural

morality is a phenomenological construct without God.

AIDS was nature telling people to stop fucking monkeys and eating their brains raw.

Two birds with one stone.

>non-religious morality
The what now?

No, because we do not have perfect access to truly good Reason or reasoning because we do not have perfect minds, and this imperfection is such that we cannot construct or discover a set universal standard for absolute logic. Therefore whether by necessity for lack or limitation of options, or whether it is the only action, yet we do not realize this because of the soul's tendency to illusion: we must rely on compassion, love beyond reason, and courage (faith), and this only comes from Jesus; and I do not mean the stupid politicized Christianity that came after apostolic Christianity.

>implying that there is no consciousness in the universe other than humanity

Hm?

No, morality comes from God, not Jesus.

>my ideals are fact

Okay well if you are a trinitarian Christian, same thing. I don't feel like getting that deep into theology tonight. I guess you could say that Christ is the manifestation of morality since he is described in John as the Logos, and God is the Father/Creator.

Actually I take that back Logos =/= morality

They do need to be backed up with reasonable evidence tho.

Which you haven't provided. But I bet you're masking all of those slick facts behind a heavy layer of internet smug in an effort to get me to entice them out of you.

It's not normal to put your dick into another man's asshole. How about that?
Sex is for making children and loving your woman, not to put it into an asshole.

I asked my Russian Orthodox classmate this question and he said "because they're gay".

>the family unit

You mean a thing dreamed up in the 50s in order to sell more houses, cars and all the stuff that goes with them?

Against homosexuality? None.
Against same sex marriage? Lots.

This. And I'm not falseflagging when I say I hate fags.

OP, just look a gay porn video.

>why did shared cultures of repression make members of a repressed group less mentally sound
Jesus Christ

>fact
Dohoho

>there are no weird or fucked up straight porn videos of any kind
lol okay chief

Hey there Kant

none because there is no such thing as morality without religion

underrated

>He didn't grow up with a family
Lol

I'm a Christian but even I don't think this. Morality should naturally come with the environment you were brought up in, part of that environment is culture, and religion is intertwined with culture so it does play a part in it, just how much? I don't know.

If we aren't made in God's image, then we are just animals

Why do brainlets keep outing themselves, are they somehow proud of their mental deficiencies?

>the incredibly close link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
Edgelord McSillyPants

>the lack of consensus on the cause of homosexuality (would increased acceptance of homosexuality increase homosexuality itself)

So homosexuality is wrong because homosexuality is wrong? Great logic matey!

>the decline of the family unit as a fundamental building block of a strong society
Don't be ridiculous, homosexuals aren't incapable of forming families.

>the fleeting nature of homosexual relationships causing increased disease and moral decay
Which isn't a critique against homosexuality but against promiscuity.
Also:
>Moral decay
Wew lad

>compassion isn't rational

Spotted the heretic.

>It's not normal to put your dick into another man's asshole. How about that?

Implying that what's natural is equivalent to what's moral. Pick fucking related.

>Sex is for making children and loving your woman, not to put it into an asshole.
Simply assertions
Also:
>Implying that anal sex is the only possible form of homosexual act.
>Implying that you can't love your women by penetrating assholes.

>Against same sex marriage? Lots.
I'm actually interested in hearing your reasoning here.

Op you need to drop the "immoral" bit too. Religions and morality are all absurdly relative and irrelevant. You need to ask what is the logically valid forms of sexual intercourse supported by objective and rational observations of its functions in the natural world. There is no other useful standard for why something should or shouldn't exists.

Homosexual sex is illogical because it serves no useful or functional purpose biologically. It does not further the genetic diversity or strength of the species. It does not improve the hereditary traits of the species. It does not improve the diversity or resistance to disease of the species. It might be fun or enjoyable to some but it is the equivalent of cotton candy. It doesn't have any net effect on the progress of the species, it doesn't contribute to survivability or stability, and in excess it has definite and definable risks.

If something does not further a purpose than it is of no use. Biological activities should further biological causes. Evolutionary needs and ends are not satisfied by homosexuality. Therefore it is at best a cultural artifact of a civilization with excess disposable energy that is not used for productive purposes.

>Implying that all forms of heterosexual porn is moral.
>Yet somehow the same act is suddenly immoral because it happens between people of the same sex.

Fucking brainlets, when will they learn?

Its pointless, you're literally simulating heterosexual sex

>We are just animals
Correct.

It’s better to be unhappy and free than live in a gilded cage

Feminization of men hurts the military capability of a nation.
The diseases alone provide a solid secular argument, surprisingly trauma to the rectum isn't healthy. Who knew?

>Feminization of men hurts the military capability of a nation.
Top kek

>The diseases alone provide a solid secular argument, surprisingly trauma to the rectum isn't healthy. Who knew?
This non-argument has already been posted and had its flaws explained numerous times in this thread.

Say what you want but buttblasting became vogue during the cold war for a reason friend

And what's your evidence for this bold claim?

>who were the Theban sacred band?

Most homosexuals I know are the opposite of feminized, they’re hyper masculine and spend an inordinate amount of time in the gym getting swole because that’s what’s attractive to other gay men

...

There is no non-religious argument against homosexuality

Thank you for your euphoric enlightenment!

only brainlets think there isn't ever an argument for anything

this fucking faggot honestly thinks if your'e against gay marriage it's because of your religion.

how about for the shjeer fact that at the smallest level a homosexual isn't providing progeny for the community/ state. there is a very simple argument against homosexuals and that quite simply is that they cannot make traditional families who produce offspring.

blahblahblah
None of ur ideas stopped homosexuality from becoming accepted so they are useless arguments

Yeah because heterosexual people have sex only with the purpose of procreate

Being accepted and practiced as a minority is no indication of somethings merit though, as much as faggots want to complain about this or try to make it acceptable, they'll still just be faggots.

>doy recreational sex should totally be a factor in arguing why genetic dead ends are a bad thing

This is great bait.

This is great bait.

It's literally 4 fallacies following each other, it's a really clever bait due to the word it makes.

Extinction of humanity.

Spotted the AIDS riddled faggot.

The same anons who bitch and whine about their personal freedoms getting taken away are the same anons that get assravaged when a bunch of gays want to practice their personal freedom by assravaging each other. Who gives a shit beyond Christfags and Muhammadfags? I have not once had a gay man do anything that impacted my life in the slightest. In fact, they're actively enhancing it because they're helping gentrify the city I live in and all the criminal poor people are having to leave.

homosexuality literally can't spread genetically, only by exposure. so it isn't too far fetched for those worried about society at large to worry about homosexuality.
it's nothing like honor lynchings, they never hurt anyone just those animals that walk on two legs, in fact they keep the area free of crime and undesirables.

>people still believe in homosexuality
>not seeing it for the sour grapes behavior it is

>
how about for the shjeer fact that at the smallest level a homosexual isn't providing progeny for the community/ state. there is a very simple argument against homosexuals and that quite simply is that they cannot make traditional families who produce offspring.
Except that they can, and do have offsprings.

>Except that they can, and do have offsprings.
redpill on how two dudes can produce a child

show me a pair of breeding gays, and I'll take back all my mean thoughts about a homogeneous society with nuclear families.

>homosexuality literally can't spread genetically
This is how we know that you're a brainlet.
I mean seriously, did you even think for a second before you posted this blatant falsehood?

>doy all those homosexuals are really spreading their strange behavior through all tyhe offspring they're having, oh no it copuldn't be be because gays 9 times out of ten diddle kids and spread it ( even society at large will provide anecdotal evidence for this.)

You've basically just said that gratification is useless.

Personally see homosexuality as a deviant trait (and a negative one, sucks fags but you aren't the majority and never will be) and at best it hampering a family, and at worst actively converting susceptible people who could in turn provide the state with workers/doctors/soldiers.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy
Those are just two examples. There's also always the putting the penis in the vagina approach. 'Cause you know, nothing stops you from having sex, even though you aren't actually attracted to the person. That's especially easy for a female but it's not exactly impossible for a male either.

1. Excuse to birth children (assuming a society is monogamous and children are born in wedlock)
2. Improves relationships between two genders (lot's of gay people don't hang out with girls)
3. Lessens the importance of marriage and it definitions or whatever that reasoning was prior to 2015
4. I actually can't think of anything else. Guess I shouldn't have said "lots" after all. [spoiler]Maybe I'm just salty my country hasn't legalized same sex marriage[/spoiler]

Were you drop on the head as a toddler or did you mother just shake you too hard?

I'm a faggot cause my poppa touched me wrong.

the only meme not soiled by reddit

two men user. In vitro fertilization and surrogacy require a third party.

>I'm homosexual except when I need a kid I can totally bone a woman.
>why aren't gays just called Bi?

>1. Excuse to birth children (assuming a society is monogamous and children are born in wedlock)
Why would you limit yourself to that assumtion? See >2. Improves relationships between two genders (lot's of gay people don't hang out with girls)
It doesn't follow from that that gay marriage should be banned. The marriages aren't the cause of this non-interaction.

>3. Lessens the importance of marriage and it definitions or whatever that reasoning was prior to 2015
How does it lessen the importance of marriage? Did the allowance of interracial marriage or marriage between different classes do that?
Arguing that marriage have always been between a man and woman is demonstratable false since plenty of cultures have practiced and do practice polygamy.
Arguing that marriage is about procreating is equally false as we do allow sterile people to get married.

Because they aren't sexually attracted to the other sex.

Nice shifting of the goalpost there buddy.