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.

Views: 356

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well, seeing there are many studies that would show that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1500 species, I would hardly call it unnatural. Even if it was unnatural, I think humans have made their place in the world by stretching the laws of nature.

If people are offended by it, then let them be offended. Its highly likely that I am offended that these ignorant people are the same species as me, but I don't call for them to be exterminated because of it.

As far as saying they can't love each other the same way so its wrong, like you, I am not sure exactly what they mean (i can see that meaning a few things) but in all cases, they are obviously just being, again, ignorant. They can obviously love each other, in all meanings of the term.

As far as saying its wrong cause you are not passing on genes, great... less people the better. If it went completely against evolution, it would not exist.
Yes, Michael, I agree with you. But can an argument not be made that the majority should not have to suffer the offense of seeing a minority do things that make them sick? Shouldn't the majority rule and so have the right to get rid of us if they wish? In other words, is our desire to follow our feelings a greater good than their desire to not allow us to follow our feelings? Where does the greater utility lie?
The way I see it, the wants of the majority never outweigh the needs of the few. And by "needs" I mean "rights". I think sounding is sick (DON'T LOOK IT UP FOR THE LOVE OF PETE!), but I would never tell them they couldn't do it. Just because someone thinks what you're doing is wrong doesn't mean they get to say you can't do it, unless it harms them physically. Your desire to follow your feelings is a right given to you by our constitution. They have no right to take that away from you. As to them being unable to pass on their genes, two lesbians can!
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/families/a/Parthenogenesis.htm
Okay, maybe not YET, but they will be able to.
Ok, I won't look it up but what is 'sounding'? Is it like trying to find out how deep soemthing is, as in 'taking a sounding' off the side of ship? Or is it something like "sounding him/her out'? Maybe I'm too old for all this 'newspeak'.
Sounding is inserting objects in the urethra for sexual reasons.
Well, you can argue about anything you want, so yes, the argument can be made. If someone "suffers the offense" of seeing two people together and it makes them "sick", then they can be sick. That is like outlawing rap music because I have to suffer the offense of hearing it, and it does make me sick. The majority should not have control over personal liberties.
But can an argument not be made that the majority should not have to suffer the offense of seeing a minority do things that make them sick?

This is the "It's wrong if I'm grossed out by it!" logical fallacy. There are many things that I find gross, but I realize that if they are consensual and don't directly hurt someone else (hurt feelings at someone else's choice of behavior don't count) then they are not wrong. They're just (in my opinion) gross. People need to stop attaching morality to their own personal likes and dislikes and realize that that's just what they are: their own likes and dislikes. Otherwise, I'd say that man-on-man action is morally good, b/c I like it!

The "majority shouldn't be subject" mentality, though, is used in our society. It's the reason we have to wear clothes, the reason people in certain housing associations can't hang their laundry outside, etc. I can't currently think of an example where it is justifiable, other than witnessing something already criminal. Anything else, it's a puritanical mindset and it shelters and weakens people. If you don't want to look at it--DON'T LOOK AT IT!!
Otherwise, I'd say that man-on-man action is morally good, b/c I like it!

Hehe. This from a girl who wrote a bit earlier, in the same thread,

... one of those annoying guys that likes to watch lesbians.

Are you one of those annoying gals that likes to watch gay men? :P
yes, it looks as if that question needed asking, they way the original letter was written! :P
Well, I guess I am! But you see, if we can define morality by our own likes and dislikes, then I can say a thing like that!

Not all guys who like lesbians are annoying about it, too.

The reactions to both things are also very different. Most people react negatively to gay action. Lesbian? It's OK as long as it's primarily for male entertainment (and that's the kind of attitude I find annoying).
Lesbian? It's OK as long as it's primarily for male entertainment

It is hard to imagine that attitude, much less a distinct expression there of. I think there is a pervasive hostility toward male sexuality and often after an emotional response, a rational justification is invented. Something along the lines: "Ugh, those men enjoy watching the lesbians. That's disgusting." Then a struggle to find a reason why it is disgusting.

OTOH there is a lot of bad porn. If that is your idea of what men like about watching lesbians then it would not be surprising that one might have a dislike of that male desire.

I think it is less common for women to desire to see male homosexuality, although it may only reflect a general phenomenon of greater male interest in pornography and voyeurism relative to women. Only one of my former girlfriends admitted to liking it. Maybe the others were just shy about it. I should check to see if there is a literature on this.
personally I don't think we have a right to tell homosexuals who they can and can't love. the thing is the human rights def. is: a freedom that the govt. has no say in. personally my subjective opinion is that love is a human right for everybody straights can marry straights and gays should be able to marry gays without people voting on it (becasue voting is a way for the govt. to intervene). if we do decide to not treat it like a human right then I believe that straights right to love should be put up to vote as well with the gay right to love so that it is equal or none of them be put up to vote and we automatically give them the right. thats the way I see it. and I don't really think that a homosexuals love has anything to do with homophobes so weather it makes them sick or not shouldn't really be considered in my opinion.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service