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.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on June 23, 2010 at 11:01pm

Health problems: according to the author of Anal Pleasure and Health (that's right, there's a whole book about it!) mostly health problems arise when people don't pay attention to their body's signals of distress (like, if it hurts). And of course, health problems with unprotected sex.

But for everyone who thinks that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality, or some other similar thing about AIDS proving that being gay is wrong--apparently female homosexuality is more right than heterosexuality, and/or God is one of those annoying guys that likes to watch lesbians.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david hartley on June 27, 2010 at 6:45am

Please do not think i made the post from any moral viewpoint. I just take the view that the pyloric sphincter as a site of lymph nodes could be susceptible to damage.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by La Gaya Sienza on June 27, 2010 at 7:13am

As far as I know there is nothing in the medical literature about lymphatic disorders associated solely or especially with male homosexual activity. (By the way, it should not be assumed that anal sex is the only or even the most common form of homosexual activity) . Frankly I would be surprised to find anything in the literature along those lines. (If you are aware of any please point me to the literature.) From the anatomy and physiology I studied when doing my nursing course (admittedly some decades ago now) I can tell you that the lymphatic system is spread widely throughout the body like the circulatory system, although there are sites of concentrated lymphatic tissue.

A quick search under 'lymphatic system' revelas that the thymus and the bone marrow constitute the primary lymphoid tissues. Secondary lymphoid tissue provides the environment for the foreign or altered native molecules (antigens) to interact with the lymphocytes. It is exemplified by the lymph nodes, and the lymphoid follicles in tonsils, Peyer's patches, spleen, adenoids, skin, etc. that are associated with the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT). (Wiki)

Sphincter damage is not something that I have heard gay men complain about and even if it were, I do not see any special connection between the sphincter and the primary or secondary lymphatic tissue. So I fail to see how damage to the sphincter could play a role in damage to the immune system. I imagine sphincter damage would only occur during rape just a damage to the vagina can result from forceable penetration, especially of someone who is inexperienced sexually. But of course that is a different matter.

Cheers

Rob

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dionysus on June 23, 2010 at 4:54pm

Everything within nature, including homosexuality is natural. Otherwise you'd have to argue that homosexuality is "supernatural" aka beyond nature. So unless I see flying homosexuals, walking on water and turning water into a smooth Shiraz, I'm going to go ahead and consider homosexuality quite natural. P.S. when people say unnatural they mean, uncommon... you know, like true love and a lottery win; both of which they would eagerly embrace.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Nicole on June 23, 2010 at 10:40pm

I am going to recommend two books to you. The first is thick and dry, Biological Exuberance, which lists and discusses over 400 species of animals where homosexual behavior has been recorded. This helps to explain how it is, too, completely natural. The second book is Evolution's Rainbow, written by a transgender biologist. The only thing I disagree with her about is her view on congenital adrenal hyperplasia, having known two people with the condition.

Both explain how homosexuality serves a vital function in the animal kingdom for both procreation and social purposes.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by La Gaya Sienza on June 24, 2010 at 1:06am

Yes, I have Biological Exuberance on my bookshelf. Boy, those bonobos know how to have a good time! And Fred Phelps & Co would have a fit if they saw some of the things those cetaceans are into. But it would be hard even for those crazies to call this activity unatural as it seems to occur 'naturally' right across the natural world.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle on June 24, 2010 at 1:24am

We should Keep in mind that only humans, and only very recently, define and segregate sexual behavior and attraction in this way. Animals do not bother with it one way or another and until recently people did not define the attraction, only the sexual act itself.
This is not a judgment call, just making a point about how we discuss things when we talk about the 'natural world'. When we start bringing animals into the conversation, it is always good to keep these distinctions in mind. Humans seem to be able to have it both ways 'I was attracted to the same sex since I remember" or "I fell in love with this person and they are the same sex I am". Neither is right or wrong from what we know (really, why should it be?) and one person may have either, both or neither of these experiences during his or her lifetime. We are complex creatures.
As far as offense, if we banned everything that offended anyone then we might as well all give up and go home. The alternative is to get over ourselves and realize we don't live in an id bubble.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Johannes S. on June 24, 2010 at 7:07am

"I love Jesus, I hate faggots" by Tim Minchin

(oh the irony)
(satire)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dogly on June 24, 2010 at 10:48am

Rob,
I'm glad that most atheists leave gay people in peace. Is it "unnatural"? It is a natural variant in about 10% of all populations. It is present in other animals. Homosexual acts do not result in babies. GREAT!!! Since human over-population is one of, if not the, most serious problem for the earth, and its other inhabitants, Gays are a big help. This is only true as long as they do not go against their inclination and procreate anyway. Gay men and women should be allowed to adopt, and I wish they would do so rather than having their own kids. So should we all. Just like the dogs and cats in shelters, while there are children without loving families, we should all adopt rather than breeding.
This is an extreme point of view, but then, I also am for forced sterilization for cruel and incompetant parents.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Nicole on June 25, 2010 at 3:24pm

I agree mostly with you. But when it comes to people breeding versus adopting, I don't mind them getting pregnant naturally. But it bothers me so much that they spend thousands on IVF and other fertility treatments just to have a child of their own stock. >.X

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dogly on June 26, 2010 at 9:24pm

The only "Rule of God" that people have completely and exuberently obeyed is "Be fruitful and multiply". Look where THAT has gotten us. It's time to stop multiplying. Enjoy you sexuality ----CAREFULLY! Your genes ain't so grand! ADOPT those poor little bastards who need a loving family. Get sterilized.
Now all you mothers (and fathers) can tear into me. Of course, your kids are superior to all other kids. They are like YOU!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on June 29, 2010 at 9:12pm

We share such a high percentage of our genes with all other humans it's kind of insane for any individual to think that their genes are so precious and special. For that matter, each of us always has a 50/50 mixed salad of genes from the mother and the father, so from an individual standpoint, you're only ever getting half your "special uniqueness" into the next generation anyhow. Well, unless you have sex with your children, but that's another story.

The bottom line is, unless you happen to have the mutation that confers immunity from cancer or erases the so-called god module from the brain, it is the height of hubris to prefer your own potential progeny over an adopted child.