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: 924

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.
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."

1. The prostate gland is essentially the male G-spot. Therefore, male homosexuality makes sense in a natural perspective.

2. Lesbians are hot.
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: And another here:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:

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.
this guy on youtube came up with this theory (or bullshit conspiracy) where he thinks that all the gays are trying to destroy society from within, and he thinks they are choosing to be gay out of a sexist rebelion. this guy is crasy but has managed to actually start a movement, this is an objective reason but its still just bullshit paranoiya that isn't true. lol
If gays have been trying to destroy society from within they have been spectacularly unsuccessful given the time available to them. After all, gays have been around since humans have been around. Given their relatively small numbers as a proportion of humanity overall, and given the oppression, discrimination, cruelty and, yes, genocide, they have suffered, it is a wonder they have survived in numbers large enough to do all the harm religious creeps accuse them of. One would have thought that the 95% of the "normal' population could have easily have exterminated them. But no, they just keep getting born "naturally" as it were, from heterosexual parents. And why would a person "choose" to be gay given all that gays have to put up with? The idea that it is a "choice" is just another rationalisation for the religious loonies to persecute them. Religious people need to have someone to hate and persecute. That's how they know they exist. They need to feel more important, more righteous, more deserving.... They just need more of everything - especially,in an already overpopulated and god ridden world, more children. Thankfully, most atheists do not need this sort of perverse validation.

Ah! Most humans disgust me.





Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service