 |
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 Kara Smith on -
In a word, no. I don't see how anyone, in the majority or not, has the right to not be made to feel sick. And it does no other harm--no danger, no financial cost, etc. Democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
To be honest I can't imagine why seeing a gay couple would make anyone feel sick, but I am certainly disgusted by women with facial hair. Yet as long as they don't shed it in my food, what is there to complain about?
-
Permalink Reply by Ally on -
Briefly - No, there is Nothing unethical about 'having it off' with someone of the same sex.
Not so briefly - words like 'natural' and 'Normal' (and lots of other words) are used as rods to beat us with (excuse all the puns) endowed (there I go again) with all sorts of moral weight that they really do not inherently possess.
The vast majority of heterosexuals that I know do not have sex to pass on their genes - they do it b/c it's enjoyable! with NO desire for children is hetero- sex unethical?
As for being "nice" or "Polite" and not offending people - why is the onus on the oppressed minority to avoid offense? Is it the implied threat of retribution from the majority?
Real equality means no-one has to "keep Sweet" - b/c there is no "wrath" to avoid.
No one should have to live in fear of death / prison / infamy for being who they are!
And as for Sounding (of course I looked it up) there is no end to what men will do with/to their 'male-parts' and that's totally their business b/c they are only doing it to themselves - weird and cringe-worthy though it may be to someone else.
-
Permalink Reply by Noah Petersen on -
I'm a heterosexual male, but personally have never found any issue with homosexuals on any level. They don't offend me, nor do I think that they should change their behavior. The only valid arguement against homosexuals is one of religious faith, not any valid form of 'social justice'.
I really don't think we should allow people to persecute groups simply because they are in the minority, otherwise they could use that to treat atheists as being different or lower than believers. Allowing this kind of thinking was what led to the Jim Crow laws in the United States.
Before people attack me for comparing being an African-American to being a homosexual, no I don't see a difference. You are born straight, gay or bisexual. It is not a choice, just like your ethnicity is not a choice.
-
Permalink Reply by D. Swift on -
I am black and i would absolutely agree with you. This is a civil rights issue based on the same reasons as the Black civil rights movement. The difference is the history behind it. Black people will get offended about how 'gays didnt have to go through slavery' and in a way they are correct. But in many cultures, gays have been thoroughly prosecuted and murdered. The only reason really that they weren't enslaved is because being gay is not a race or anything you can readily identify. If necessary its not impossible to trick people into believing your straight
-
Permalink Reply by hunter on -
well noah, tehre is this guy on youtube who thinks that homosexuals are only gay out of rebellion because there sexist (its litterally like a fucking conspracy theory full of bullshit) and tried to make a movement on it so there is more reason than religion for being a homophobe now.
-
Permalink Reply by Sandra Stott on -
The same arguement (majority rule, and not doing something around others that will offend) can also be used for meat eating, not meat eating, walking down the sidewalk on a hot day instead of driving, wearing certain clothes, not wearing certain clothes. And the list can go on, but I wont.
I think if people really search their minds, the idea of practicing homosexuality being wrong comes from the whole notion that humans should be sexual for procreation, and gays and lesbians aren't doing that. Well in case those people haven't bothered to do a census, this planet now has an overabundance of "souls" and doesn't need any more help.
-
Permalink Reply by D. Swift on
-
What gay or straight people do in the bedroom cannot directly harm anyone. Only the intolerance of the person hurts them and as society changes to be more accepting, the people who are 'offended' wil become fewer and fewer. Also these people will be offended by the IDEA of homosexuality more than anything. This will not change even if gay people stopped having relations. Because feelings towards homosexuality are opinionated and highly influence by the people surrounding you or *gasp* religion, it can not be said to be objective. There is no more harm done than masturbation, using birth control, or having non-vaginal sex for a straight couple. Not every sexual act must produce children and if its seriously that big of a deal donate to a sperm bank. Artificial insemination ends the argument of it going against evolution, though it might bring up a couple new arguments.
As for the whole 'unnatural' thing, its purely false. There are asexual species and there are species that change their sex, like clownfish. The unnatural argument is really based on ignorance and fear of something different is all.
-
Permalink Reply by Sammy on -
Nothing peeves me off more, than the 'nature' argument.
With technology as advanced as it is, countless aspects of the way we live to day, have strayed from the workings of 'nature'- birth control, plastic surgery, processed food, medicine...
This may seem copmpletely unrelated to most. But as far as I'm concerned, if you're going to argue 'the way nature intended us to love', you better have consistant opinions regarding other areas of human life. But on the note of nature, as said by Michael Henry, homosexuality exists in other species as well.
And I wonder, if all of those claiming homosexuality to be wrong because it defies the instinct of 'continuing the human race' are also opposed to all forms of contraception?
I'm also curious as to how we're defining 'love' in this instance.
It is my opinion that human beings are, as a race, overpopulated (as I'm typing this, I realise I'm basically just re-itterating on what Michael Henry posted). And I don't think we have any moral obligation whatsoever to reproduce. I personally believe that whilst nature has patterns, these patterns shouldn't be treated as a set of RULES, nor do I think we need to make a concious effort to live according to them. I personally don't beleive hmosexuality to be 'unnatural', nor do I believe that if it were unnatural, it should be regarded as wrong.
-
Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on -
Basically, it takes a LOT of mental gymnastics to come up with a rationale of why homosexuality is wrong.
-
Permalink Reply by Jaume on -
And a LOT of hypocrisy. Before other animals were shown to engage in homosexual behavior with statistically significant regularity, homophobes used the "even animals don't do it" argument. The same now claim that "humans shouldn't do it because we are superior to animals".
-
Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on
-
I always did think that was pretty funny, Jaume.
"It's not natural!"
"Actually, it does occur in nature."
"We shouldn't behave like animals!"
-
Permalink Reply by david hartley on -
Not ethics but from a possible medical view point does damage to the sphincter damage the lynphatic system? Please don't shout at me it's said with your health in mind, but i feel it is a valid question and that's all it is a question. Your body, your decision.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Brent Feeney replied to Brent Feeney's discussion A tribute to my father in the group Hang With Friends
Loren Miller replied to Joan Denoo's discussion Edward Snowden: War on Whistleblowers "Only Builds Better Whistleblowers" in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
