Now, when it is pointed out to these people that homosexual activity actually occurs in the non-human world (from bugs to bulls to penguins) quite regularly, I have observed two quite interesting responses -
The first is two make the, quite valid, argument that we do not, and should not, base our moral judgement on the actions of animals. Therefore, so runs the argument, the 'naturalness' of homosexual activity does not mean that it is right.
The second is that these activities are still not 'natural', because those who practice them are 'evolutionary dead-ends'. That is, homosexual's genes will not be passed to the next generation and, as such, they are supposedly outside the realm of the 'natural'.
Now, the first objection cannot really be dealt with in any simple way, because it relies on a homophobic moral prejudice, which will not succumb to evidence.
The second however, can be dealt with easily.
So, onto my question for the defenders of such a view.
The Spartans lived thusly; from a young age the men would be taken to a military compound, in which they would be trained in the manly arts (including that of homosexual sex). However, at certain periods of the year (when their women were fertile) they would return to Sparta to breed, thus ensuring that their genes did pass onto the next generation.
Does this particular system of living regain homosexuality the status of 'natural' (and therefore 'right') in the eyes of the second group, or do they, in fact, believe irrationally in the 'unnaturalness', 'abnormality' and 'wrongness' of homosexual activity?
-
HomosexualityIt has been a long time since anyone on the site has used the natural argument 'quite vigorously'. We are past that stage.Voted for by TeChNoWC.
-
Natural means nature means everythingI feel that homosexuality is natural because it occurs in nature. However, I also believe that the Spartan example is a perfect counter attack on the no-genetic-fitness-means-unnatural argument against homosexuality.Voted for by Alexander Hine.
I would be surprised, though, if many people changed their minds because of it, as I feel that homophobia, and not critical thinking, drives almost everyone on this site who argues against homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. -
The voice of one crying in the wilderness?Our morality is largely based on Religious writings and the interpretations of those writings.Voted for by bob2314.
The attempt to prove that homosexuality is immoral by means of the Bible is based on deliberate misinterpretations of three chapters of the bible: Lev: 18,20 and Rom: 10
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Holiness-Code.html
The attempt to use the practices of animals to strengthen this argument is anti-scientific. Numerous instances of homosexuality in animals occur and have been documented.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
By attempting to cloud the issue with non- science the average christian is not homophobic just misinformed. Average Christians spend as little time as possible in Lev because homosexuality is not the only so called sin mentioned in Lev. they rely heavily on the leaders of their communities. Some of these leaders do nothing but reinterpret the Bible in it's native tongues.
The very idea that I am the only one who has come to believe this I find laughable. The idea that I am willfully changing the meaning of these chapters to justify my sexuality is ill informed. you only have to read these captures in context to see the truth of my statement. Lev 18 deals with the idolatrous practises of Egypt. 20 the Canaanites. Romans 10 the Romans and Greeks.
At best you can use these chapters to liken homosexuality to adultery or fornication. then I have to counter with the argument that i am forced in to these sins because of an unholy unconstitutional alliance between churches and the state. Or should I accept celibacy as my lot? That fate truly is unnatural.
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Alexander Hine
March 5
Edit | Reply
:-)
A. H.
TeChNoWC
March 5
Alexander Hine
March 5
Edit | Reply
I believe that the 'natural' argument has some bearing on such things; but, the fact is paedophilia, bestiality, 'psychotic murderous rage' etc. all involve one person imposing their will on another who is either unwilling, or not considered able to give appropriate consent. That is where we say, it doesn't matter if it is natural, it's wrong.
...I'm not sure, again, what you were arguing but I think I might agree with you that "moral things, fortunately, can be explained with complete synchronousity (synchronicity) between the biological and socially moral world."
But...are you arguing with me, agreeing with me, what's your stance, man?
A. H.
TeChNoWC
March 5
Edit | Reply
TeChNoWC
March 5
Alexander Hine
March 5
Edit | Reply
Homosexuality (provided those involved are over 16 (I know statutory laws can seem arbitrary, at times, but let's just go with them here; they're fairly sound, I feel)), on the other hand, involves two adult, competent individuals making personal decisions about their sex life and such.
There is a good working distinction between homosexuality and other acts, such as bestiality, paedophilia, forced prostitution etc.
A tricky case - if you feel like working your mind gears a little - is necrophilia; it is difficult to find anything, other than our sense of moral outrage, to justify this sexual activity's illegality.
I personally feel, for various reasons I won't go into, that our sense of moral outrage is an adequate justification here - but, it is a foggy area.
A. H.
TeChNoWC
March 5
So, why not polygamy?
Moral outrage has nothing to do with it. You would never accept religious moral outrage as a legitimate reason, it would be hypocritical to accept secular moral outrage on the same basis, and frankly, if you want to go down that road, I'm having no part in a society that is hell bent on living by a non-guided, instinct based, non-rationalised approach to deciding the eventual outcome of the lives of others. Innate sense of morality had people persecuting Jews, segregating blacks and burning witches on stakes. Rational, Bible, but not innatism. That is dangerous indeed, my friend. Sure it makes for nice feelings and good movies but in the real world, while innatism might HELP, it should never be considered for an all-ruling body of law.
Alexander Hine
March 6
Edit | Reply
"A tricky case - if you feel like working your mind gears a little - is necrophilia; it is difficult to find anything, other than our sense of moral outrage, to justify this sexual activity's illegality.
I personally feel, for various reasons I won't go into, that our sense of moral outrage is an adequate justification here - but, it is a foggy area."
I was referring to the fact that, assuming the deceased has no living relatives, no-one is being harmed by this practice and, as such, all we have left is our moral outrage, in such a case I simply can't think of a rational argument (though I'm sure I could find a biblical one) against it....maybe if I tried harder, I haven't pondered it that much to be honest.
But at NO POINT did I say that irrational emotional prejudice should an "all-ruling body of law." Sorry, but I just didn't say that.
I honestly have no moral problem with polygamy; it could obviously be problematic emotionally, but so is monogamous marriage.
See, you're avoiding my real argument - that consenting adults should be as free as possible sexually - and brought in all kinds of strange hogwash. In case you didn't realise "persecuting Jews, segregating blacks and burning witches on stake" all involve individuals hurting others against their will, something I am clearly against - if you had bothered to really engage with my arguments.
Anyways, I am rather drunk (saw some great music tonight :-) !!!) so I'll leave you alone now and get some rest,
A. H.
TeChNoWC
March 6
Edit | Reply
TeChNoWC
March 6
"I personally feel, for various reasons I won't go into, that our sense of moral outrage is an adequate justification here - but, it is a foggy area."
Various reasons you won't go into? Bit hypocritical I think when you even disregard such arguments as 'emotion' and 'transcendence'. If you don't give us the benefit of your reason your argument is subject to whatever criticism the users of this site demand.
And who is us (our)? You and anyone who instinctually agrees to lock someone up for life? And you explain it to him as 'oh, well we just felt it was wrong... And people who don't CLEARLY have no moral sense about them'.
I'm not avoiding your argument. Your argument never stated what you said above. Maybe you were implying it, but you never said anything about "that consenting adults should be as free as possible sexually" until your last comment. All you talked about was Spartans and how their great success of a social society proves we can't use naturality arguments against homosexuality, I agreed and showed how you also can't use them to SUPPORT homosexuality as a moral standpoint. Never were we ordered by you to directly discuss the morality of homosexuality. And if you wanted to know, I agree; it doesn't disrupt a secular moral lifestyle, it only disrupts Biblical living for the purposes of living for God, and that is my personal view for myself and I have no intention on pushing it onto others who may have a different revelation on the New Testament texts. So don't start trying to wind up a hornet's nest when there aren't any hornets, and I kept to the topic exactly as it was portrayed. It's not my fault if I didn't talk about exactly what you REALLY meant or wanted. Make it clear next time, mate.
Alexander Hine
March 6
Edit | Reply
Homosexuality (provided those involved are over 16 (I know statutory laws can seem arbitrary, at times, but let's just go with them here; they're fairly sound, I feel)), on the other hand, involves two adult, competent individuals making personal decisions about their sex life and such."
I think the general gist of that is that freely consenting adults should have sexual freedom.
"Various reasons you won't go into? Bit hypocritical I think when you even disregard such arguments as 'emotion' and 'transcendence'. If you don't give us the benefit of your reason your argument is subject to whatever criticism the users of this site demand."
Okay, maybe that was a little lazy, but not hypocritical - I would be happy to go into my reasons (maybe I'll start a topic on necrophilia). What I meant was: I'm not going to go into them right now; not, as you have assumed, I will never go into them because they are secret and oh so special :-)
"And who is us (our)? You and anyone who instinctually agrees to lock someone up for life? And you explain it to him as 'oh, well we just felt it was wrong... And people who don't CLEARLY have no moral sense about them'."
I'm not sure what that last sentence means. I don't think we should lock necrophiliacs up for life, where did I say that - I think maybe a large fine would be sufficient. 'Us' are the courts and our democratically elected leaders; these are not perfect institutions, but they are what we have - of course we should work to improve them.
You are still ignoring my points; I said that we need to filter our instinctual/intuitive judgements through a rational filter - that of consent, age etc. that is, a liberal moral framework. I never said, as you have now twice implied, that we should just blindly follow the instincts of the masses.
TTFN,
A. H.
TeChNoWC
March 6
Your 'filter' was never mentioned above, you mentioned an intuitive, 'moral outrage' approach, and have bypassed that point by now asserting a more 'rational' feel to your argument. Sure, start the topic - but is there still an argument here or have we completely missed each other's point?
At times you seem to be arguing with an 'assumed' me without actually pointing towards what I have said that you are arguing against, and then blame me for ignoring something I am completely unaware of.
Somehow arguing about homosexual morality has slipped into this and it seems that I am under mandate to follow a yet to initiate argument? I don't understand. Are you just sitting there, craving for me to yell out 'yes! You're right! Gays should have freedom of sexuality for quite obvious reasons' or are we arguing about something else? You've lost me mate.
Alexander Hine
March 7
Edit | Reply
"There is a very clear distinction; though it is not fool proof. And that is the legal )and philosophical) concept of informed consent. It is generally assumed in western societies that children and animals cannot give fully informed consent to sexual acts and that is why we have the laws about paedophilia and bestiality. It's not that we innately know 'it's wrong' - it is that it transgresses the bounds that our system (liberal democracy) places on freedom (see J. S. Mill etc.)
Homosexuality (provided those involved are over 16 (I know statutory laws can seem arbitrary, at times, but let's just go with them here; they're fairly sound, I feel)), on the other hand, involves two adult, competent individuals making personal decisions about their sex life and such.
There is a good working distinction between homosexuality and other acts, such as bestiality, paedophilia, forced prostitution etc."
Here is where I discuss the clear distinction between homosexuality and other things: bestiality, rape, paedophilia etc. by arguing that the former involves consenting adults and the latter do not, the 'filter' if you will.
"A tricky case - if you feel like working your mind gears a little - is necrophilia; it is difficult to find anything, other than our sense of moral outrage, to justify this sexual activity's illegality.
I personally feel, for various reasons I won't go into, that our sense of moral outrage is an adequate justification here - but, it is a foggy area.
A. H."
Here is where I mention what I consider to be a tricky case, in which there is no clear-cut consent/no-consent duality, becuase the 'victim' is deceased (this is particularly tricky if there are no living relatives). Now, as I find it hard to make a clear argument against this I said that, along with other arguments which I didn't include (for the sake of brevity), our moral outrage is a sufficient or near sufficient cause for this activity's illegal status.
The point that i felt you were avoiding was the fact that I HAD made a clear distinction between homosexuality and other (possibly) innate, but 'deviant' sexual behaviours; as you asked me to:
"Well, a bestial won't agree with you there, and a Fred Phelps follower will not agree that we know homosexuality is innately 'ok'. You need to be able to show these things in a clear distinction." -Technowc
A. H.
P. S. Perhaps we have been a little at cross-purposes, I'll re-read our exchange and see if I can find the gaps in communication.
TeChNoWC
March 7
Edit | Reply
If you have no argument against it other than moral outrage, then you are basing it on instinct - exactly the problem I highlighted. You expect everyone to agree with you simply because it SEEMS wrong, something you would bludgeon others for yet somehow your view on things, even without any given basis or premise, is higher than others.
Alexander Hine
March 9
Edit | Reply
Some other reasons: The 'person' (ie. corpse) hasn't given 'permission' for the sexual act - the reason I would generally avoid this argument is simply that it is highly dubious, however I do think that most people would hate the idea of someone doing this with their corpse.*
I also think it could be argued that there is a certain maliciousness in necrophilia - that is, if one simply wants to copulate with an inanimate object, why not a sex doll or something even more realistic - again, 'moral outrage' is still important here, because no-one would care otherwise - who cares if someone only has sex with toys (except maybe the parents :-) )?
Dovetailing my last point somewhat; necrophilia is, in an important sense, not sex - which is generally thought of as occurring between two living things. So, as necrophilia is essentially masturbation, it seems perverse to allow it to be performed upon the 'innocent' corpses of the dead, who I do feel should be respected, or at least not defiled.
But, you will note, none of these arguments is really sufficient, unlike arguments against murder, rape etc. in which one can say, "no consent = no go" - that is why I feel that the deciding factor is just how WRONG it does seem to us. Now I am not saying that it is 'wrong' in any higher sense of the word, that it is a sin or anything like that - I don't believe in that kind of 'wrong' - I believe that there are many ways to decide wrong and right and that the liberal no-harm principle is the best (though imperfect) that is around (at least when it comes to actual legislation, obviously not in terms of personal ethics) - but necrophilia is very hard to fit into the no-harm principle; so unless we want to de-stigmatise necro-acts and have all our corpses sullied, we have to invoke the sheer sense of disgust in the community that it causes along with the weaker arguments if we want to defend our prejudice.
Now, maybe that simply isn't good enough, it probably isn't - but it doesn't detract from my main points about the distinction between homosexuality and other 'deviant' sexual acts involving a lack of consent (rape, paedo, bestial, forced postitution etc.).
Okay, I hope we are clear now, feel free to argue with me about my case against necrophilia - I know it isn't very strong (which is what I said from the start - and, perhaps, you believe we should legalise necrophilia, is so let's debate - you might well kick my arse. But don't accuse me of claiming that innatism is an "all-ruling body of law" or that I expect everyone to agree with my view. I never said either of these things, and I would never expect that as people so rarely do.
*Perhaps, and this is just a thought, one could introduce a system whereby will's must include a "please no necro" clause for that person's corpse to have legal protection. :-).....novel?
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free