I have noticed atheists coming out in support of homosexuals. Do some feel that supporting homosexuality is a necessary part of atheism ? Or, do they support homosexuality simply because religion opposes it? What is the attitude of atheists in general to homosexuality? Where homosexuality deserves support and where it should not be supported?
I support the right of people to do whatever they wish, so long as it does not harm others. What homosexuals do in the bedroom is of no consequence to me. Further, I don't see how homosexuals getting married in any way harms others or goes against the "sanctity" of marriage. I find it hypocrital when religious people who've committed adultery or gotten divorced complain that homosexual marriage offends the sanctity of marriage.
It's possible to find anti-gay atheists. They exist, and some are vocal. And like most straight people in the world, most gay people are not atheists. But atheists who have a humanistic point of view usually support LGBT people in having the same rights that everyone else has; usually resist persecution; usually support having people have fulfillment in their lives; usually are for truth and the search for truth, and against the lies that are told by dishonest religious people and bigots about LGBT people. Supporting the rights of LGBT people is not a requirement for atheism, but it is a necessary part of humanism. Because all people, not just heterosexual people, are human.
I've come across two. And they might have been the same person.
As I am seeing it, the support to homosexuality seems actually the support for the rights of homosexuals. This is ok, but I presume that all the rights that we common people enjoy must be guaranteed to all homosexuals too. I can not imagine any legislation that goes against this. Do the atheists support them for more special rights? For example, the right for gay marriages? Can this be said to be a fundamental right?
I hope that no one will disagree with me that homosexuality is caused by a genetic disorder that occurs naturally, involuntarily. The siamese twins are also born because of such a disorder. Blindness, deafness, muteness at birth are other examples of such a disorder. Human beings and the medical sciences strive to cure all disorders. A child suffering from polio has to make considerable effort on his own, despite his young age, to be rid of polio. Do we expect the homosexuals do such efforts to come out of their nature given disorder?
Sexuality has always been associated with morality and even today it is so. Blindness and such other disorders are not associated with morality. When we, as atheists, support the homosexuals for their rights, do we expect some efforts from them for a mutually agreed code of morality? PL. NOTE THAT I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A RELIGIOUSLY AGREED CODE. If nothing of this sort is expected, then ,it can be said that we atheists do not recognise the need for associating any code of morality with homosexuality, despite homosexuality being a sexual practice? In India, any display of sexual passion is not considered to be a moral conduct. This is not religion, this is social order. Should the homosexuals be guided by some moral code, that may be acceptable to the society they live in? Let me stop here for the present and not burden my fellow thinker's minds more presently.
Where on earth do you get the idea that homosexuality is a disorder?
1952. The American Psychiatric Association Study. "That study and subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality"
"The longstanding consensus of research and clinical literature demonstrates that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality."
"There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment."
"I hope that no one will disagree with me that homosexuality is caused by a genetic disorder that occurs naturally, involuntarily."
As far as I know the jury is still out on whether this is genetically or environmentally caused by for instance the hormones of the mother while the unborn child is developing in the womb. Even it it turned out to be that homosexuality is in fact a choice it would not change anything for me, I would still support that homosexuals have the same rights as anybody else, that would include marriage.
What people do in their own lives and in their own time is none of my business. My opinions are not meant to be (moral) guidelines for other people, and neither do I think that what offends me or shocks me should be a reason for banning anything.
Simply said, if I see to gay guys kissing in the street, bus, bar or whatever I really don't care. Neither do I care if heterosexual couples engage in the same behavior. If they invade my personal space and it bothers me, I will tell them in a polite manner, I mean, what's so special about gays that I need to treat them differently?
Your assertation that homosexuality is a disorder is bullshit. You make it sound like a handicap. There is nothing disorderly about the fact that I like to fuck women.
It's only a disorder if it's a negative thing.
The only reason it is a handicap is because of other people's prejudices. And, OK, it's harder to find another compatible person who also likes the same sex.
I hope that no one will disagree with me that homosexuality is caused by a genetic disorder that occurs naturally, involuntarily.
I disagree... You are confusing disorder with abnormality. A person may have a genetic abnormality causing them to be taller than normal, but this doesn't necessarily imply a disorder. Also, you have said yourself that biological causes for homosexuality are unproved. How can a person be so inconsistent within one discussion?
The siamese twins are also born because of such a disorder. Blindness, deafness, muteness at birth are other examples of such a disorder. ...Do we expect the homosexuals do such efforts to come out of their nature given disorder?
Physiological disorders are significantly different to behavioral disorders. A behavioral disorder as of now is culturally-determined, because behavior patterns that may cause dysfunction in one culture may be celebrated in another. Strong religious conviction is an example, especially if it requires holidays or other special privileges.
Sexuality has always been associated with morality and even today it is so. Blindness and such other disorders are not associated with morality.
Again, this is a dissimilar comparison between a physiological disorder and a behavior pattern. All morality deals with behavior and not physical attributes. Next, at least in the U.S., mental disorders are theoretically supposed to be independent of morality (and other "conflicts with society"). An immoral behavior pattern is not necessarily a disorder. Finally, without getting into a deeper conversation about the purpose and cause of morality, why do you believe sexuality should continue to be associated with morality? That's the important question. Right now, your "social order" is abusive and harmful. Would this be acceptable in any other case? When else would you appeal to tradition and argue that harmful practices should continue because they have always been that way?