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: 925

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

no I wasn't saying that I agree with that but that I know someone who believe that. personally I don't see why anyone would have anything against homosexuals and I don't even think it should even be debated and should be an automatic right. it is a human right for people to love whoever they want in my opinion.
I am of the opinion that anything which can occur within nature is therefore of nature. Sure, there are going to be open-minded people who just want to experiment, or be trendy, or engage in such activity for a superficial reason. However, I've spoken with a few people who were gay and I asked them, "Was this a choice, or not?" Quite a few have expressed that when they were young, they discovered that they weren't interested in the same thing as everyone else, and that if they could have chosen, they'd have loved to have been straight. I saw a television program which mentioned that scientists had dissected the brains of a heterosexual male, homosexual male, heterosexual woman, and a homosexual woman. Seems that the language component of the homosexual male's brain most closely resembled that of the heterosexual woman. Biological evidence, if they managed to verify it thoroughly. That, and it might explain gays who naturally have the 'lisp' (not the fakers).

Anyhow, they've suffered so much persecution, misunderstanding, and ignorance that it would have been a breeze to be 'normal' if they could have. Unfortunately, it is our very society's persecution which makes homosexuals twice as likely to suffer from depression, drug addiction or suicide. Most of this persecution is at the hands of the religious, which serves to explain why many atheists ally themselves with homosexuals. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. ~_^
>>That, and it might explain gays who naturally have the 'lisp' (not the fakers).

I believe that is culturally driven like an accent or demeanor.
Hi Rob,

I jumped in, in this discussion... SO first a opinion on your intro.... (sorry members)

First of all I don't find homosexuality wrong. I am straight guy but I am not offended by thoughts that there are homosexuals and so on. What I find a shame is that religious party's find it so offensive. This because they shouldn't judge. (so says the bible, it's God's duty) If you look to the world history, homosexuality always existed. I get sick of the thoughts that homosexuality is a decease. Homosexuality is a part of us humans and also exist within the animal world. Homosexuality is a part of nature.

In my home country (the Netherlands) homosexuals can marry and adopt children and be a normal family. They have the same rights as heterosexuals. I totally agree with these rights. What a lot of people forget is that homosexuals are human in the first place and homosexual as second. In my opinion it's a difference in taste (I like girls you like men)

What a big problem is (also in the Netherlands) is the knowledge people have about homosexuality. A lot of people are convinced that homosexuality is a decease or a lack of elements is their upbringing. The biggest bull-shit I ever heard... Well almost... ;)
I've heard theories on why societies have such rampant homophobia. One had to do with patriarchal societies and the need to reproduce. The other was an evolutionary theory that said many straight people are turned off at the thought of same-sex sexuality, because throughout history, the ones that were heterosexual reproduced and we died out. So, since they had this "ick" factor when thinking of being intimate with the same sex, they thought it was natural to be freaked out at it, and it became part of the culture. I'm not sure that I agree with that theory, because Kinsey says the opposite, that most people are bisexual, but culture won't let most of us acknowledge that.

In my opinion, it's the role of the government to protect the rights of the minority, not the mob mentality of the majority. So what if straights don't like us? That doesn't give them the right to make us disappear any more than right-handed people could force left-handed people to switch hands.

I don't believe a relationship must produce children in order to be an acceptable relationship. I didn't want children when I identified as straight, nor as bisexual, nor now as a lesbian.

But in any case, gay men can have a surrogate mother who carries their baby.

It's late and I'm tired, hope this was coherent!
I agree with almost everything you posted. At the moment I don't recall a time I ever had any sexual feelings towards someone of the same sex. Then again, Kinsey did say most so I guess that leaves the door open for exceptions.

I had quite a few gay and lesbian friends in San Diego, but in Italy it seems much less common. I guess the whole Catholic thing makes people less comfortable talking about their sexuality.
To quote the Isley Brothers:

"It's your thing/
Do what you wanna do/
I can't tell you/
Who to sock it to".

What consenting adults do in private is no one else's business.

If there were only 60 humans in the whole world and genetic diversity was necessary for survival of the species, then maybe other people could insist that gays contribute to the gene pool with a little heterosexual sex. But, there are more than 6 billion people, so I don't see how any sound, valid argument can be made that anyone's private sex life is a matter of concern to anyone else.
Exactly. And even if it came down to that scenario, now that we have the capability of artificial insemination, and test tube babies, it's not like we'd need gays and lesbians to have heterosexual sex to save the population.

Is homosexuality wrong? Good question that is only answered by the buybull for most of us. Even then it was men who were discussed as women, being property and having no rights, would never be involved in lesbian activities. How strange.

I have never considered myself even bisexual, but I admit that my penis is blind and therefore does not know who is giving it sex. I also admit that my anus is a one way door, and I would never want objects inserted into it. This makes it hard for me to understand a homosexual man wanting to "make his anus bigger." I've never known any women wantin to make their vagina bigger. It makes no sense.

                                           AS FOR THE HARM PRINCIPAL

1. How can people be offended by what you do behind closed doors when they do not know what you do behind closed doors? It's impossible to know unless you violate some human rights.

2. People of the same sex "cannot love as people of the opposite sex do" is a very poor argument. Love was always a commitment to me, and I never did confuse it with sex, which is just a satisfying or urges. Women think it romantic that you are "making love" to them but sex is not in that catagory to me.

3. The "passing on of ones genes" may be involved in a biblical interpretation, but that gets us back to sex only for procreation and does nothing for sex as satisfying our urges. Looking only at this last idea again, we would have to conclude that sex is meant only to populate the earth. The urge to have sex is then ignored.

That is pretty much my take on the subject.




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