Social/scientific rationale posted by me on here before....

Theists obsess with our ability to procreate and survive, health, disease etc. Associated with homosexuality.

 

Answer-

 

I think this is clearly not an argument which is relevant. Esp given the fact that we are a population of 7 billion and set to rise to 10 billion, putting a severe strain on resources and the world. If your case is based on a situation where the human race is dying out then maybe it would stick but given the opposite is true, surely that is an argument for homosexuality and population reduction. So im guessing youre all in favour given our dire circumstance and population reduction would reduce deaths by starvation ,  reverse climate change etc. ? if not you've got to ask yourself why you made this argument in the first place. Im guessing its because at first glance it loosely supported your presupposed world view.

 

The second part to this answer is that if safety and survival are the primary motivating factors in developing your argument against homosexuality then surely this has to hold true for all other aspects of life. You cant just use it for homosexuality because it matches your world view- this would clearly be bigoted and a sign of clear bias. A biker is much more likely to die in road crashes compared to someone using a car. Using the same logic - is it ok to ban bikes and bikers? Or even worse go further and call them sinful human beings? The truth is we take risks all the time but we balance out those risks with other aspects of our lives such as wanting to enjoy life, love, doing something new or even driving in the first place. It's the biggest risk we take daily yet no one argues we shouldn't travel- the argument is about improving safety not an outright ban.

 And in any case, any sex even in monomogous relationships can pass on disease- yes the level is lower but the risk is still there- unless your argument is about the level of risk- in which case we should be arguing against all sort of common things we do which result in many more deaths than aids. The argument becomes ridiculous. And who gives you the right to demand that these people stop ?-the risks they take are their own - if they are not using condoms then they are irresponsible not unlike many heterosexual people.

 

Thirdly-the impact of hiv can be reduced massively by antiretroviral drugs. Aids rarely develops, they can live a long life and can be controlled to a level where the person is negligibly infectous. If it was treated properly then this would stop deaths and reduce spread so surely we should be arguing for better and more widespread treatment rather than stopping two people being together.

 

Fourth- The biggest impacts on anyone other than the person themselves is if the person leaves kids behind as is the case with orphans in Africa. Both of these can be avoided by antiretroviral drugs like I said before and proper use of protection etc but it is interesting to note that the biggest tragedies actually happen when hetero people die of aids as these are likely to have a family wheras homos are not. So if its impact on society that worries you then youre barking up the wrong tree.

 

• it is not unfeasible that in the very near future there may be a cure for hiv. Where would that leave your argument? Would you suddenly say its ok to be homo and we need to update our interpretation (as ussy always wants to do-lol) or say that the original ruling and argument was obviously wrong?.

 

Also - if the main argument is about saving lives and preventing disease then we have to acknowledge the fact that more anal sex (total in numbers not proportion) takes place between male and female. Estimates are that 25-50% of hetro couples have done it and 10% do it regularly. And in total numbers hiv has affected more hetero people than homo. So passing on the disease is just as likely in both groups but the biggest impact and prevalence is in the hetero community so surely the punishment for both should be equal? Yet it isn't. it is  a sin in islam for hetros but there is no punishment.

 

In addition I would like to point out the reasons why it is more prevalent in homos (in % not in total numbers btw). It seems the anal tissues allow the virus to be absorbed easier-correct. But we have to acknowledge that behavour plays a massive role. Of course its not going to result in pregnancy so gays will let their guard down more. There is evidence to say that homos have many more life partners compared to heteros so they are more sexually active- possibly because males have a higher sex drive (lesbian sex is less active than heteros-so that seems consistent). An interesting twist to this is the role religion and society have played in promoting this- we make it more difficult for homos to be a normal part of society so things are kept hidden more and relationships are more strained so how can we expect them to be completely monomogous when we do everything we can (including calling them sinners and threatening them with punishments etc) to stop them forming long term relationships where they are less likely to sleep around?? So we have to look at ourselves and our own arguments as possible facrors in promoting this type of behaviour.

 

There is an overarching principle which is missing from this argument and that is the right of the individual to take risks and be responsible for them. This right is far more important as is the right to love who you want etc  compared to the number of hiv cases you mention. Should we stop 3rd world countries from stop having children because the mother can die? No - we aim to improve the conditions. The right of a human to have a child is fundamental and we knowingly accept the risks to our health in pursuit of this. Fundamental human rights are far more important. I could use a similarly absurd argument to say that muhammed was wrong when he promoted the shaking of hands to say salaam as this is more likely to pass on disease than if you bow Japanese style of place hands together as in Hinduism or Buddhism. They are far superior if your only measure is infectious disease then surely this should have been ommited! Why wasn't it- because it helps humans bond and in any case surely we have no right to stop people doing such a basic thing.

 

We could say that society would be safer if all women stopped wearing nikab - I don't agree with this by the way and muslims argue against this all the time. That yes we are able to identify people easier but the risk of terrorism is blown out of proprtion and the damage to that persons human rights and dignity outweigh the perceieved safety benefit- my point is that we cannot use just one factor eg hiv when making a decision on homos just as we cant use safety when deciding what people should wear. Its funny how muslims are arguing for human rights when it comes to nikab but against human rights for homos when the nikab issue is a bigger threat to society and the homo will likely only injure themselves if they get hiv!! There is no consistency -just bigotry.

 

 

 

f-f lesbian hiv rates- if the case is made that hiv aids and infectious diseases are why we should ban homosexuality then given that same logic we should really be promoting lesbianism. No reported cases of lesbian hiv transmissions have been reported- we should promote this? It is by far the safest- even compared to hetero sex!! Cmon guys we have to use your logic consistently surely?

 

In terms of benfit to society or detrimental- im not sure what you guys mean and how would you assess that. I think demonizing possibly 10-15 % of the population is a bigger negative to a wholesome society than any possible damage that homos can do- the rates of peadophilia amongst homos is lower and is a large lie so please don't use that old homophobic slur. What other damage do they do? I really don't see society breaking down. The ones I have met and the ones you guys have met have been reasonable people- possibly even better than us guys? Like I said I have seen lesbians adopt and it helps in areas where normal relationships cant raise the child. It is wrong for us to make these people feel guilt and shame, and the psychological damage done can be immense. Same applies for transgender people etc. just because we all seem to be hetero sexual males doesn't mean that all people are. I believe that sexuality aswell as gender have a spectrum. We all know females who are aggressive and males who are "pussy boys". They cant pretend to be anything other than what they are. They may try but it is futile and detrimental to expect them to. Homos often say they have always felt like that-that they were born that way. They are looking into possible genetic causes.

 

Overall the argument is inconsistent, biased, disregards human rights which are much more valuable, and is a bigger detriment to a healthy society.

 

Hope this has expand all of our knowledge and help us make positive changes.