homosexuality

[phillip1882]

so, i saw several such posts here, haven't read them all but thought I'd post my own thoughts.
i think of gay people the same way i think of drug addicts, they are doing something wrong, but its not my responsibility to change, restrict, condemn, or otherwise demean them. they are human beings and and deserve the same rights as the rest of us.
what wrong are they committing? its hard to put it into words. if someone smokes a cigarette, they harm their body. but considering it a voluntary act, and smoking is legal, does that make smoking "right"? if a man has sex with another man, particularly anal, it risks the development and spread of sexually transmittable diseases. again, if proper precautions are taken the risk is minimal, so what harm is there?
i would ask the question, just because something doesn't necessarily harm you does that make it good?

if i was a judge in a court, i don't think i could marry you. i would recognize any contract you agree to between each other, up to and including living arrangements, and sexual practices, but in good conscience couldn't be the one that says "i now pronounce you husband and husband." i think part of the problem is how i was raised to believe. it's hard to change beliefs over night, and i hope i can come to a better understanding.

[Whitney]

If you can't pin point why something is wrong then that's a good indication that it is not.  Part of leaving religion is very closely examining past beliefs and making sure they are still something that should be held onto.

Cultural understanding of right and wrong are completely based on whether good or harm comes from actions.  I would imagine that homosexuality is considered wrong by christianity because it messes with that be fruitful and multiply command; a 'harm' in the view of anyone that wants to make as many christians as possible.

[The Magic Pudding]

I don't mind authority making rules that benefit society as a whole.  Stopping at a red light when there's no traffic is annoying but I accept necessary rules will sometimes inconvenience me, it's all for the greater good and all.  Smoking is bad, I'm glad smokers are sent outside, sorry guys.  Gays have suffered much worse than being sent outside, they've been tortured and killed.  Why?  Because of someone's distaste or desire to control or faith? It's such a pitifully weak reason.  Pitiful is the wrong word, it is despicable, I despise people who sit and judge another's love.

They've been doing a book reading of 1984 on the radio lately, it's a long time since I read it, they've just had the scene where the lovers are found out.  I'm directing today's two minutes of hate at the oppressors, here's a little Dylan for yas.

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

[Stevil]

You could say that it is wrong for a person to go skydiving, they might kill themselves.
Actually, riding in a car on the roads is more dangerous than skydiving, maybe these things should be labelled as wrong and made illegal.

Could you willingly sell your old car to someone knowing that driving in cars is dangerous and just wrong?

Is it your duty to stop people doing the wrong thing? Is it the government's duty? Do we need a moral branch of the police force?

[KingPhilip]

Do we need a moral branch of the police force?

I can see this now. And then a hop, skip, and not really even a jump to our very own Secret Police.

[Tank]

@ the OP

I don't like botty sex, homosexual or heterosexual. I don't do it. But is botty sex what defines homosexuality? Well if it is it shouldn't be. I would contend that homosexuality is a mental/emotional orientation whether that orientation becomes a physical act is down to the individuals concerned.

Another issue to consider is this. The psychological well-being of a homosexual person forced to hide their true orientation from fear of retribution/ostracisation. People should be able to state their sexual orientation, whatever it is, without fear of attack for simply being honest about that orientation.

Marriage is traditionally between a man and woman, slavery was also traditional, legalised pedophilia, in some Islamic countries, is also traditional. Just because something is traditional doesn't make it right, as I'm sure you appreciate. And sometimes it does take time and effort to change one's own attitudes and those of people around one.

I think that the criteria for marriage would be 'A public ceremony between people to affirm their relationship.' It's a very simple definition free of any external presupposition of who is allowed to marry whom.

[OldGit]

It has been wisely said, "Does it really matter what these people do — so long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses?"

I don't fancy gay sex myself, but if they do, let 'em get on with it.  Anyway, the idea that it's wrong is not and has not been universal in all times and societies.

[Siz]

so, i saw several such posts here, haven't read them all but thought I'd post my own thoughts.
i think of gay people the same way i think of drug addicts, they are doing something wrong, but its not my responsibility to change, restrict, condemn, or otherwise demean them. they are human beings and and deserve the same rights as the rest of us.
what wrong are they committing? its hard to put it into words. if someone smokes a cigarette, they harm their body. but considering it a voluntary act, and smoking is legal, does that make smoking "right"? if a man has sex with another man, particularly anal, it risks the development and spread of sexually transmittable diseases. again, if proper precautions are taken the risk is minimal, so what harm is there?
i would ask the question, just because something doesn't necessarily harm you does that make it good?

if i was a judge in a court, i don't think i could marry you. i would recognize any contract you agree to between each other, up to and including living arrangements, and sexual practices, but in good conscience couldn't be the one that says "i now pronounce you husband and husband." i think part of the problem is how i was raised to believe. it's hard to change beliefs over night, and i hope i can come to a better understanding.

What does 'wrong' mean?

Your moral judgement?
God's moral judgement?
Combined social moral judgement?
Or is it more tangible, like 'injuring' (to use the legal term) other people?

If we are to support free-will then 'wrong' must surely only constitute the latter. Thankfully, the law (in the US and UK at least) tends to take a 'Combined social moral judgement' view, which generally follows the 'injury' pemise. (Sodomy laws were invalidated in the US in 2003 by the supreme court).

Some countries are so religiously devout that the 'Combined social moral judgement' follows 'Gods moral judgement'. And as we are agreed that this is irrelevant we can ignore. I'm sure it would take time to readjust your own moral framework having dicarded God's.

'Your' moral judgement I can also ignore under the premise of free-will. You offer no justification for your conjecture that homosexuality is wrong - other than your free-will sapping assertion that you just don't like it.

So, this leaves us only with the 'injury' premise - and homosexuality is less of a social problem than hetero sex if we are forced to compare.

And drug-addiction isn't wrong. Drug-taking per se isn't wrong. Theft, extra social care, extra public healthcare, public nuisance and public endangerment are wrong because they are injurious.

[Stevil]

extra public healthcare... are wrong because they are injurious.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is extra public healthcare?

[Too Few Lions]

i think of gay people the same way i think of drug addicts, they are doing something wrong, but its not my responsibility to change, restrict, condemn, or otherwise demean them.

i think part of the problem is how i was raised to believe. it's hard to change beliefs over night, and i hope i can come to a better understanding.

I think this probably is a problem of the indoctrination you received as a child, either that or you're inherently a bit homophobic! I'm 100% straight and like nothing more than looking at pretty lasses, but I was brought up in a secular environment, and can see nothing 'wrong' with homosexuality at all. It's just some people are attracted to members of their own sex, viva la difference!

[fester30]

I have seen men who claim to be totally against homosexuality for religious reason, and because of reproductive reasons, enjoy lesbian porn.  I wonder if homosexuality would be held in such disdain if the only homosexuals out there were supermodel lesbians?  I think in many cases the couple of Bible verses that seem to paint homosexuality as a sin give license to people -- who already can't stomach the idea of two dudes having sword fights -- to discriminate against them, often in a very ugly way.  I admit I'm a bit put off by the image, which is why I don't invoke the image into my conscious mind when talking to a homosexual.  I invoke images of holding hands walking the beach or flowers or movies or a sweet kiss under the mistletoe.  It's romance, it's love, and it's actually beautiful if thought of that way.  It's very hard for two people to find lasting love these days, and I'm a love supporter no matter what kind of human-to-human love there is.  I know, now I'm discriminating against people who like to make love to plants and furniture, and I really shouldn't.

[DeterminedJuliet]

See, I think a lot of this comes down to constructs of sexual morality. Gayle Rubin did a handy chart:



The west has constructed (and I do mean constructed) that there are "good and natural" sexual acts and "bad and unnatural" sexual acts. People who engage in the "Good" sex are largely rewarded and re-inforced, the people who engage in the "Bad" sexual are labelled as perverted.

But really, when you think about it, why do we construct sexuality this way? Well, because traditionally, we needed people in heterosexual relationships to have babies and track the lineage of those babies. If we kept women straight, married and monogamous, we knew where their babies were coming from and that was important at that time for society. Men needed to be bound to the same constructs to support their female counterpoints.

But things change. We have birth control and the world is over-populated. Most of us don't live just to procreate any more, but we've hung on to the idea that certain kinds of sex are inherently moral or immoral. I really think these constructs come at the cost of individual happiness, we shouldn't have sweeping generalizations about what kind of sex is good and why, it should be examined on a case-by-case basis by those consenting individuals.

[Sandra Craft]

i would ask the question, just because something doesn't necessarily harm you does that make it good?

It doesn't necessarily make it bad or good.  There are far more options than "either/or".

if i was a judge in a court, i don't think i could marry you.

What, exactly, is the difference between a legally married same-sex couple and a legally married opposite-sex couple?  Please consider first what is legally required of an opposite-sex couple in marriage, and explain how a same-sex couple cannot fulfill that.  And if the only requirement is being opposite-sexed, please explain why that should be a legal necessity.

If you can't pin point why something is wrong then that's a good indication that it is not. 

Couldn't agree more with this.

[Siz]

extra public healthcare... are wrong because they are injurious.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is extra public healthcare?

Free access to hospitals as we have in the UK. A service which is understaffed and overstretched (and staffed by the most wonderful doctors and nurses, and sadly undervalued by government). We do not need self inflicted injuries/illness straining the system further.

[Chronos]

If you can't pin point why something is wrong then that's a good indication that it is not.

Excellent point.  Also, when people ask why we do what we do and somebody says, "We've always done it that way", I reply that is a good reason to no longer do it that way. If it's your only response, then something is wrong. Things change. Always.