 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
The wrongness of homosexuality and other such diverse(perverse)ities
Is homosexuality wrong? I don't mean wrong in a silly Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious moral sense but whether it wrong in some other objective way?
If we accept J.S.Mill's "Harm Principle" for example, can we say that homosexual activity between consenting adults could harm others? Could it impinge on the freedom of others to the extent that it should be crinminalised (as it still is in many countries)?
In terms of the "Harm Principle", I have heard it argued (for example) that homosexuality is wrong because it is 'unatural' and people are offended by what is not natural and that they should not have to suffer offense. It has also been argued that, because 2 people of the same sex cannot 'love ' (whatever that may mean) in the same way as two people of the opposite sex can love each other it is therefore wrong. I have also heard it proposed that homosexual activity is wrong because it is pointless in that it goes against the evolutionary imperative of passing on ones genes. (well, it's certainly true that two fags or two bull dykes ain't gonna make a baby.)
As an atheirst who has been same-sex attracted since birth I would like to get others opinion as to the ethicality of acting on ones sexual preferences. Is having it off with another guy or gal ethically questionable?
I would love to hear your opinions.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dwayne P. Sharp on -
Completely agree to that it is troublesome that anyone gay has a burning desire to have a biological child of there own. The money spent is insane and could go to helping children allready in need. Adoption is rewarding and satisfying and we of all people (gay or atheist or gaythiest) should know how it feels to be rejected from society as are OLDER children that nobody wants. I live in Florida and gay CANNOT adopt." Un-natural and unhealthy environment for our beloved children" Thousands of children are passed over in this state. They jump up and down to end abortion but they don't want the kids that aren't. Wonder why I reject religion?
-
Permalink Reply by david hartley on -
What about when those levels far excede the 10%, does it then become unnatural? I have posted on a blog a link to a symposium on raping unveiled females. In this the speakers examine the dynamics of the Islamic family group where homosexual Islamic males sublimate female sexuality to there sodomite desires.
Can we see any problems there in the 90% hetrosuxuality of society, as indicated by your figure of 10% of natural homosexuals, being sublimated by 10% of the species. The case was made for studies carried out by the speakers that Islamic males prefer anal to vaginal sex and that Islamic married couples are indeed more likely to practice anal sex.
That's not homosexuality but is carried out by an extremely homo-erotic society. So in that sense is the male homosexuality created by peer bonding within religous groups especially, causing problems for the rest of us and does it then begin to take on an aura of the unnatural for the figures would suggest that such homosexuality rises above the 10% accepted as a figure for natural homosexuality.
-
Permalink Reply by D R Hosie on -
Having worked my way out of the paper bag of religious confusion through philosophical means of reasoning first - even before coming to appreciate all of the scientific evidence for giving it up, I would like to share the most concise treatment I was ever 'blessed' to find, concerning the moral conundrum that so often appears to surround the human condition.
It's from Aldous Huxley's retelling of the Devils of Loudon, about the trial, torture, and ultimate execution of a French priest. And I confess to only paraphrasing it here, to the best of my ability, since I internalized the overriding concept many years ago, and have carried it with me ever since.
The idolatrous transformation - of the relative into the absolute and the all-too-human into the divine - makes it possible for man to indulge his ugliest passion, in the firm belief that he is working for the highest good.
-
Permalink Reply by La Gaya Sienza on -
Right on!
And I think Susan B Anthony summed it up well when she said:
"I distrust those people who know what god want them to do becasue I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
Rob
-
Permalink Reply by Bradley Keene on -
1. The prostate gland is essentially the male G-spot. Therefore, male homosexuality makes sense in a natural perspective.
2. Lesbians are hot.
-
Permalink Reply by La Gaya Sienza on
-
I don't know whether anyone has seen these videos on the subject - they do seem to indicate how common hoemsexual activity is across a vast range of species.
You'll find it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFeXwKnCUNI And another here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlTAyNI8WE
-
Permalink Reply by Polymath on -
You do not have the right to be unoffended. In fact, a big part of the freedom of speech is the protection of speech that may offend someone else simply because you disagree with them. Let's face it, if you are offended by two (or more) consenting adults loving each other, then it is *you* that have the problem.
Let's broaden this a bit: the essence of ethics and morality is compassion. Being offended by others expressing compassion and love is, itself, ethically wrong.
As for not being able to procreate: who cares? Having children is far from being the only reason to have sex and it is certainly not the only reason to love another. The alternative is to be upset about two heterosexuals who are sterile loving each other and having sex. Sorry, it just doesn't fly.
In my view, the basics are simple: Love is good. Sex between consenting people is good. Consent includes being fully informed and able to understand consequences. After that, whatever people agree to is none of my business.
-
Permalink Reply by david hartley on
-
I thought the discussion was based on examining all sides of the argument and sometimes playing the Devil's advocate can move a discussion along. Proposal and counter proposal. If all you're seeking is polemic then it's hardly a discussion.
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel on -
At extremes I suppose it would not sustainable for a society, but a feasible scenario is so removed from reality I would rather not go out of my way to make [another] far removed scenario.
If the harm principle is assumed to be true then it excludes moral coercion and individual morals so throw all that out. Then you defined the relationship as consensual eliminating a victim. Done and done?
-
Permalink Reply by Dwayne P. Sharp on
-
Ethically questionable according to our forefathers and the ignorance our society has passed down through the generations. Questioning the ethics of your sexuality is a result of what "they" say. Throw the studies out the window because I have lived it. Married thirteen years, six children, from the deep deep south I blissfully followed the white picket fence path. At 32 wife cheated we divorced I explored that little voice that was deep in the back of my mind that knew I was gay and no one was more surprised than myself. I thought I loved my ex wife. Cannot even compare to how deeply I have loved a man. IT FEELS NATURAL. Does a woman that doesn't bear a child unethical? Love/sex between same sex individuals is natural even though genetics aren't shared and passed on. Go to Craig's list and go to the M4M section and read the ads. 50% are married men looking for rendevous with men. Now THAT is unethical ! Society forces that.
-
Permalink Reply by La Gaya Sienza on
-
Yes, this is the sort of misinformation and complete crap that is used by the churches to hide from their culpability when it comes to child sexual abuse. They will blame everyone and anyone but themselves and their warped religions.
Gays have aways been a convenient whipping boy. The fact is that the rate of paedophilia committed by gay people is no higher than that committed by heterosexuals. In fact most child sexual abuse occurs within families by so called heterosexual parents and other relatives.
So yes, please watch this crap spouting creep who I am ashamed to say calls himself Australian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTfxOk44NiU
Rob
-
Permalink Reply by Shawn Anonymous on -
I'm straight, but even I don't see any objective reason why homosexuality would be wrong. It could only be wrong in a religious sense. In a purely ethical sense, it is of equal goodness to heterosexuality. This really seems a moot point for non-theist.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Debra Stevenson replied to James M. Martin's discussion Sorry for the Hype, But This Might Make You Laugh
Emma Lennon replied to James M. Martin's discussion Sorry for the Hype, But This Might Make You Laugh
joseph f logston replied to Atheist Andrea's discussion Are you open about being an atheist or are you in the closet?
Richard Goscicki replied to Atheist Andrea's discussion Are you open about being an atheist or are you in the closet?
Natalie A Sera replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion New fungus killing cats in Australia in the group Atheist Ailurophiles© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
