Secular vs "religious" arguments on homosexuality

[Questioner]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You spend WAY too much time thinking about SLAUGHTERING MILLIONS of people.

You are obvious a sick and deranged person.

You seriously need to seek help/

 

[Questioner]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You spend WAY too much time thinking about SLAUGHTERING MILLIONS of people.

You are obvious a sick and deranged person.

You seriously need to seek help/

"I'm" not making the argument.

I'm just demonstrating the flaw in secular logic, and how many of them would have no response to this which doesn't invoke "faith" of some kind.

 

[JGalt]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You're obviously confused. Christianity even in its most radical form, doesn't advocate murdering those who commit sins. You're thinking of radical Islam.

 

[Questioner]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You're obviously confused. Christianity even in its most radical form, doesn't advocate murdering those who commit sins. You're thinking of radical Islam.

There are some out there who've advocated it, but they're a fringe minority, and don't read the entire Old Testament anyway, since there was a host of many other things which the Iron Age law of Israel punished with death or forbade with harsh penalties (e.x. Idols or graven images were forbidden, which would potentially mean that all modern forms of mass media would have to be banned, as were other things such as tattoos, working on the Sabbath, clothing of two-types of materials, and so on).

So in reality it's not even Biblically accurate, and usually just a disproportionate obsession with homosexuality for childish or emotional reasons.

(In the New Testament, it's mentioned as a sin, but no mention of punishment, along with other sins such as greed, drunkenness, slander, swindling, thieving, sexual immorality, envy, strife, deceit, gossip, arrogance, and so on).

 

[anynameyouwish]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You're obviously confused. Christianity even in its most radical form, doesn't advocate murdering those who commit sins. You're thinking of radical Islam.

"You're thinking of radical Islam."

or modern right wing conservatism

 

[JGalt]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You're obviously confused. Christianity even in its most radical form, doesn't advocate murdering those who commit sins. You're thinking of radical Islam.

There are some out there who've advocated it, but they're a fringe minority, and don't read the entire Old Testament anyway, since there was a host of many other things which the Iron Age law of Israel punished with death or forbade with harsh penalties (e.x. Idols or graven images were forbidden, which would potentially mean that all modern forms of mass media would have to be banned, as were other things such as tattoos, working on the Sabbath, clothing of two-types of materials, and so on).

So in reality it's not even Biblically accurate, and usually just a disproportionate obsession with homosexuality for childish or emotional reasons.

(In the New Testament, it's mentioned as a sin, but no mention of punishment, along with other sins such as greed, drunkenness, slander, swindling, thieving, sexual immorality, envy, strife, deceit, gossip, arrogance, and so on).

The Old Testament is useful in that it gives us the Ten Commandments, and has many prophesies of what's going to take place in the New Testament. Christ was prophesied over a thousand years before he was born, more than several times in the OT.

 

[luchitociencia]

I have no idea why people won't realize that the biblical punishments can only be allowed to be executed under a theocratic government. The penalties for sins were enforced when the laws of the bible were the law of the land.

But today we live in a complete different scenario. The law of the land is a secular law enforced by secular powers.

Today is rare to see Christians killing homosexuals, and without a court case or order.

On the other hand, the killing of homosexuals has been committed mostly by secular people.

 

[anynameyouwish]

I have no idea why people won't realize that the biblical punishments can only be allowed to be executed under a theocratic government. The penalties for sins were enforced when the laws of the bible were the law of the land.

But today we live in a complete different scenario. The law of the land is a secular law enforced by secular powers.

Today is rare to see Christians killing homosexuals, and without a court case or order.

On the other hand, the killing of homosexuals has been committed mostly by secular people.

"On the other hand, the killing of homosexuals has been committed mostly by secular people."

I believe this is a LIE and you can NOT back it up.

 

[Meriweather]

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin

From a religious point of view, God's commandments are intended to benefit the individual. Take, as an analogy, a sign that says, "Keep Out - Quicksand". It is not saying trespassers are bad people or doing a bad thing--only that there is great danger in that area.

Even in the Netherlands where homosexuality has been accepted much longer than other Western societies, the medical field has noted that there is a greater presence of both medical problems and depression. Those are the possible dangers they face.

Now let us compare that to me, a Catholic, married to an atheist. There are also dangers to a marriage like this. One of the reasons I went ahead with marrying my atheist is because my grandparents had lived through the same situation and I did have a kind of compass. Still, it has not always been an easy path, and I would point this out to any similar couple wanting to marry when they have two such opposing perspectives of God.

With any situation, with any person, it is better to begin with a true caring of their welfare and the realities before them. However, we must keep in mind the end decision is their own, and once made, our role is to be supportive.

 

[impuretrash]

the anus is not a sex organ. there's your secular argument against homosexuality.

 

[Vastator]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You’re the only one claiming that the secular argument includes killing faggots. What a weak premise for an OP. Are you suggesting that your religious based homicidal urges are more virtuous than a conjured up secular one?

 

[anynameyouwish]

the anus is not a sex organ. there's your secular argument against homosexuality.

"
the anus is not a sex organ. there's your secular argument against homosexuality"

Why Women Engage in Anal Intercourse: Results from a ...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC4379393
by GL Reynolds - ‎2015 - ‎Cited by 22 - ‎Related articles
Nov 7, 2014 - (2010) found that among drug-using women, anal sex was more likely to occur during transactional sex (sex for drugs or money) and was not ...
‎Introduction · ‎Method · ‎Results · ‎Discussion
Anal Sex - Women's Health

https://www.womenshealthmag.com › sex-and-love › what-anal-sex-is-actu...
20 hours ago - Wonder what anal sex is like? You can either try it or learn from these 12 women, who spilled the dirty details about having butt sex for the very ...
7 Women on What Anal Sex Really Feels Like - Cosmopolitan

https://www.cosmopolitan.com › sex-love › how-does-anal-sex-feel
Mar 27, 2019 - There's no one way to describe anal sex, just like there's no one way to describe an orgasm, as it feels different for every woman. However ...
How to have anal sex | Avert

https://www.avert.org › ... › Sex & STIs › How to have sex
Oct 1, 2019 - Anyone can enjoy anal sex, but it's really important to do it safely so use a ... Anyone can enjoy anal sex, whether they are a man, woman, gay, ...
Best Anal Sex Positions for Women - Health - Health Magazine

https://www.health.com › Sex
May 14, 2019 - These are the most comfortable and pleasurable anal sex positions for women, according to sex experts. Find out more here.

What Does Anal Sex Feel Like For A Girl? 9 Women Tell Us ...

https://www.bustle.com › articles › 83726-what-does-anal-sex-feel-like-for...
May 20, 2015 - It can feel like anal sex for women is the final frontier. Once you've gone anal, it can feel like you've covered everything “taboo” that you can ...
Is Anal Sex Pleasurable For Women? Why Butt Stuff Can Feel ...

https://www.bustle.com › is-anal-sex-pleasurable-for-women-why-butt-stuf...
Sep 27, 2017 - As I walked into NYC's Museum of Sex, somewhat hesitant boyfriend in tow, to learn how to have anal sex from an expert, I knew I'd be getting ...
I'm Tired of Feeling Bad About Genuinely Liking Anal Sex ...

https://www.glamour.com › story › anal-sex-guilt

 

[Katniss]

Religion was developed for the purpose of controlling large masses of people. Religion is also one of the primary reasons there is pure evil in the world. Most religious people are the most intolerable and judgmental in society.

With that said, I'm not sure I understand the objective of the question being posed.

Let people live the lives they choose and focus on our own lives and what makes us happy. This should be exercised by following the existing perimeters of our laws, e.g. no child molesting (that pretty much wipes out religion), no raping (that pretty much wipes out religion), no killing (that pretty much wipes out religion)............

 

[harmonica]

the anus is not a sex organ. there's your secular argument against homosexuality.

"
the anus is not a sex organ. there's your secular argument against homosexuality"

Why Women Engage in Anal Intercourse: Results from a ...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC4379393
by GL Reynolds - ‎2015 - ‎Cited by 22 - ‎Related articles
Nov 7, 2014 - (2010) found that among drug-using women, anal sex was more likely to occur during transactional sex (sex for drugs or money) and was not ...
‎Introduction · ‎Method · ‎Results · ‎Discussion
Anal Sex - Women's Health

https://www.womenshealthmag.com › sex-and-love › what-anal-sex-is-actu...
20 hours ago - Wonder what anal sex is like? You can either try it or learn from these 12 women, who spilled the dirty details about having butt sex for the very ...
7 Women on What Anal Sex Really Feels Like - Cosmopolitan

https://www.cosmopolitan.com › sex-love › how-does-anal-sex-feel
Mar 27, 2019 - There's no one way to describe anal sex, just like there's no one way to describe an orgasm, as it feels different for every woman. However ...
How to have anal sex | Avert

https://www.avert.org › ... › Sex & STIs › How to have sex
Oct 1, 2019 - Anyone can enjoy anal sex, but it's really important to do it safely so use a ... Anyone can enjoy anal sex, whether they are a man, woman, gay, ...
Best Anal Sex Positions for Women - Health - Health Magazine

https://www.health.com › Sex
May 14, 2019 - These are the most comfortable and pleasurable anal sex positions for women, according to sex experts. Find out more here.

What Does Anal Sex Feel Like For A Girl? 9 Women Tell Us ...

https://www.bustle.com › articles › 83726-what-does-anal-sex-feel-like-for...
May 20, 2015 - It can feel like anal sex for women is the final frontier. Once you've gone anal, it can feel like you've covered everything “taboo” that you can ...
Is Anal Sex Pleasurable For Women? Why Butt Stuff Can Feel ...

https://www.bustle.com › is-anal-sex-pleasurable-for-women-why-butt-stuf...
Sep 27, 2017 - As I walked into NYC's Museum of Sex, somewhat hesitant boyfriend in tow, to learn how to have anal sex from an expert, I knew I'd be getting ...
I'm Tired of Feeling Bad About Genuinely Liking Anal Sex ...

https://www.glamour.com › story › anal-sex-guilt

SINNERS
the Lords SMITES thy SINNERS

 

[Questioner]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You’re the only one claiming that the secular argument includes killing faggots. What a weak premise for an OP. Are you suggesting that your religious based homicidal urges are more virtuous than a conjured up secular one?

Yes.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You’re the only one claiming that the secular argument includes killing faggots. What a weak premise for an OP. Are you suggesting that your religious based homicidal urges are more virtuous than a conjured up secular one?

Yes.

your delusions are consistent

 

[anynameyouwish]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

You’re the only one claiming that the secular argument includes killing faggots. What a weak premise for an OP. Are you suggesting that your religious based homicidal urges are more virtuous than a conjured up secular one?

Yes.

you seem to have a BIG LIST of "groups of people it would be fun to slaughter"

 

[WinterBorn]

Hypothetically, from a "secular POV" - let's say evidence indicates that AIDs exists in greater frequency among homosexuals

If executing 1,000 homosexuals therefore saves 10,000 people of dying from AIDs, would you oppose this, and why?

From a "religious" POV, one could say homosexuality is a sin, or even that they deserve the death penalty, but not an argument for outright extermination without trial, a la Hitler and his secular regime.

So it seems to me, that the "secular" arguments here are potentially harsher than the "religious" ones, and that one couldn't object to the secular arguments to begin with without invoking "faith" in something, such as human rights, civil liberties, Judeo-Christian values like "thou shalt not murder", and so forth.

If the only help you have to offer our society is the slaughter of 1,000 gay men, I'd just as soon you keep your "solutions" to yourself.

Giving out 100,000 condoms will save gay men, teenage girls, middle aged men ect ect.

 

[Questioner]

Religion was developed for the purpose of controlling large masses of people.

1. Conspiracy theory

2. In many cases, for good reason - those who wish to rape and murder unabated need to be controlled, as they lack the morality and self-restraint to so out of goodness, rather than out of force.

You would be more justified in saying that about virtually all "mass media and propaganda itself", whether for "religious, political, or advertising reasons", which.has been around since the days of ancient Rome, if not before.

Those who read books instead of consuming primarily propaganda are generally the better off for it, and the less dumbed down.

Religion is also one of the primary reasons there is pure evil in the world

Science more or less debunks this, such as fields like evolutionary psychology which reveal that the proclivities to engage in illegal or immoral behaviors such as murder and rape are genetic.

Which incidentally coincides with much folk wisdom and teachings of world religions, which compare those unchecked "impulses" within humans to the behaviors of feral beasts, as well as "secular" systems and treatises on civilization as well, such as John Stuart Mill's assertion that "it is better to be a man dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied". As well as the basis of legal concepts such as intentions, premeditation, crimes of "passion" and what not, which distinguishes between notions such as premeditation and intent, or commuting a crime while "in the heat of the moment".

Most religious people are the most intolerable and judgmental in society.

1. That, in itself is a judgment and lack of toleration.

2. Yes, religious people who believe in religious morals, such as that raping, murdering, abusing children, and so forth tend to be judgmental about those things, as opposed to those atheistic who aren't, and that's of course a good thing.

Let people live the lives they choose and focus on our own lives and what makes us happy.

As an absolute rule, or assertion of what inherently is?

No thanks. Not all "happiness" is created equal - a rapist believes "happiness" comes from raping women, a pedophile from raping children, their atheistic, "life is meaningless" world view substantiating that.

But of course, due to our society and our law being founded on religious morality, such as the Golden Rule, we thankfully do not put the so-called 'happiness' of rapist or pedophile on par with the "happiness" of a moral individual. And for good reason.

This should be exercised by following the existing perimeters of our laws, e.g. no child molesting, no killing............

Those are of course religious morality, such as the Golden Rule our Common Law having evolved out of older systems of law and religion, such as Exodus, and its acknowledgment of concepts such as respect for other people, their families, their property, and so forth.

Wheras, of course, raping, murdering, child molesting, are just the mere practice of nihilistic atheism, and those who believe life is meaningless, as per evil atheists such as the Marquis de Sade, or the morality of cults such as LeVeyan Satanism, which doesn't in theory, to my knowledge prohibit any of these things or condemn them as immoral.

Thankfully, as our law is founded on the religious principles of respect for people, their property, their family, and so forth, even if an nihilistic atheist claims his happiness is depend on these things, the law will force religion on him whether he likes it or not, and for good measure.[/quote]