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: 800

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Basically, it takes a LOT of mental gymnastics to come up with a rationale of why homosexuality is wrong.
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".
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!"
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.
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.
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.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service