Is Homosexuality Wrong?
In this entry I'd like to outline my thoughts on homosexuality. Now I'd like to clarify that I am not homosexual - as if that mattered - nor do I, to my knowledge, have any homosexual friends. In other words, I'm not biased in any way for or against the matter, at least, as far as I can tell.
I was arguing about this with an orthodox Christian friend last year, and he is somewhat well educated (as well educated as I) and so he was not pulling the standard "everyone has rights - what is contractually consented to = morally ok and not contractually consented to = immoral" kind of weak argument. We all know of course that rights are not God given (sorry Locke, but Hobbes was right) they are stipulations governed and created by the sovereign and they only exist in so far as the sovereign power of a regime can and will enforce them.
So, is homosexuality moral, immoral, or amoral in that case? Is anything moral, immoral or amoral in that case? Well my interpretation of my teacher's interpretation of Plato's interpretation of morality (The Good) is the substance for another entry, right now I want to examine the monotheistic arguments against homosexuality, because they are the best ones I have ever found.
Before we can judge anything we must try to understand it. To that end, I will attempt to summarize monotheistic arguments against homosexuality. To my understanding, they claim that because it is the case that the logical outcome or "goal" of sexual intercourse is the creation of a child, therefore any sexual intercourse that does not willfully produce an offspring, but is entered into for any other reason (such as pleasure, or in their words, using the other to satisfy your desires) is therefore contra to the order of Being (the order of God and His relation to humans (who are half way between matter and the Divine) and matter, as one may interpret from Genesis). As such, because homosexuality can never produce offspring, it is always someone using the other for pleasure, and using someone to satisfy your unnecessary desires is always immoral, homosexuality is therefore always immoral.
Monotheists please forgive my quick recap, but that is the basic argument. And it is not too shabby. It at least makes much more sense than the common "I just don't like it" or (heavy jock accent) "Fags are just wrong fucker". However, as I found while I was arguing with my monotheistic friend, I don't believe this argument holds under any interpretation. Or to put it another way, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with homosexuality more so that a good back rub, or any other pleasurable thing.
First off, even if it is true that using another for your own pleasure is always wrong, or even wrong sometimes, that still does not hold that homosexual sex is wrong. For it is not always the case that when one is having sex it is solely or even mostly for their own pleasure. There is obviously giving and receiving. First off, not to be giving a sex lesson here, but just by the mechanics of it, there are different kinds of sexual intercourse some of which are solely intended to please the other and not oneself (not physically anyways). Secondly, it does not stand to reason that the motive for desiring to make love to another is always inherently selfish or using the other to satisfy one's desire unnecessarily. You can (believe it or not) intend to satisfy the other primarily in the act of sexual intercourse, while not gaining any or little satisfaction yourself. I kind of gift, if you will. Shocking. I know.
If that is the case, then one is not always pleasuring themselves but giving something, like say a back rub, and then it is not immoral, homosexual or otherwise.
Further, if it is true that always using another for your own unnecessary pleasure is always wrong, where have the monotheistic arguments against homosexuality proven that love making is not a necessary component to a healthy human relationship, and a healthy human psychology? Granted biologically humans do not need to have sex as they need food to survive. But that argument allows monotheists to ignore the psyche and the humans psychological needs and be crude materialists as it suits them when they are not talking about the Divine or Soul (which for them is immaterial). A fulfilled (ie: non-lonely / happy) psychology and relationship certainly needs sexual relations, and it need not be one dominating the other, so it need not be immoral. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality qua homosexuality, but only in the intention of the participants.
A response to this from my interlocutor could be "those men who find they are homosexual should repress it and become a priest, because one does not need sex to live". This may work for (and work solely because there are) some very moral and virtuous people - but they would certainly feel loneliness. And what about the rest who aren't so disciplined, who can't take the temptation? We have numerous examples of what happens when priests who do not have a strong enough moral character in the face of temptation dally in the forbidden.
Lastly, it remains to be examined if it is indeed true that it is always immoral to use another to satisfy your own necessary or unnecessary desires. I will leave this for another post. But suffice to say I think the monotheistic arguments contra homosexuality do not hold. Homosexuality or Hetrosexuality itself isn't wrong, only how and when people engage in it. Or so it seems to me.
I was arguing about this with an orthodox Christian friend last year, and he is somewhat well educated (as well educated as I) and so he was not pulling the standard "everyone has rights - what is contractually consented to = morally ok and not contractually consented to = immoral" kind of weak argument. We all know of course that rights are not God given (sorry Locke, but Hobbes was right) they are stipulations governed and created by the sovereign and they only exist in so far as the sovereign power of a regime can and will enforce them.
So, is homosexuality moral, immoral, or amoral in that case? Is anything moral, immoral or amoral in that case? Well my interpretation of my teacher's interpretation of Plato's interpretation of morality (The Good) is the substance for another entry, right now I want to examine the monotheistic arguments against homosexuality, because they are the best ones I have ever found.
Before we can judge anything we must try to understand it. To that end, I will attempt to summarize monotheistic arguments against homosexuality. To my understanding, they claim that because it is the case that the logical outcome or "goal" of sexual intercourse is the creation of a child, therefore any sexual intercourse that does not willfully produce an offspring, but is entered into for any other reason (such as pleasure, or in their words, using the other to satisfy your desires) is therefore contra to the order of Being (the order of God and His relation to humans (who are half way between matter and the Divine) and matter, as one may interpret from Genesis). As such, because homosexuality can never produce offspring, it is always someone using the other for pleasure, and using someone to satisfy your unnecessary desires is always immoral, homosexuality is therefore always immoral.
Monotheists please forgive my quick recap, but that is the basic argument. And it is not too shabby. It at least makes much more sense than the common "I just don't like it" or (heavy jock accent) "Fags are just wrong fucker". However, as I found while I was arguing with my monotheistic friend, I don't believe this argument holds under any interpretation. Or to put it another way, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with homosexuality more so that a good back rub, or any other pleasurable thing.
First off, even if it is true that using another for your own pleasure is always wrong, or even wrong sometimes, that still does not hold that homosexual sex is wrong. For it is not always the case that when one is having sex it is solely or even mostly for their own pleasure. There is obviously giving and receiving. First off, not to be giving a sex lesson here, but just by the mechanics of it, there are different kinds of sexual intercourse some of which are solely intended to please the other and not oneself (not physically anyways). Secondly, it does not stand to reason that the motive for desiring to make love to another is always inherently selfish or using the other to satisfy one's desire unnecessarily. You can (believe it or not) intend to satisfy the other primarily in the act of sexual intercourse, while not gaining any or little satisfaction yourself. I kind of gift, if you will. Shocking. I know.
If that is the case, then one is not always pleasuring themselves but giving something, like say a back rub, and then it is not immoral, homosexual or otherwise.
Further, if it is true that always using another for your own unnecessary pleasure is always wrong, where have the monotheistic arguments against homosexuality proven that love making is not a necessary component to a healthy human relationship, and a healthy human psychology? Granted biologically humans do not need to have sex as they need food to survive. But that argument allows monotheists to ignore the psyche and the humans psychological needs and be crude materialists as it suits them when they are not talking about the Divine or Soul (which for them is immaterial). A fulfilled (ie: non-lonely / happy) psychology and relationship certainly needs sexual relations, and it need not be one dominating the other, so it need not be immoral. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality qua homosexuality, but only in the intention of the participants.
A response to this from my interlocutor could be "those men who find they are homosexual should repress it and become a priest, because one does not need sex to live". This may work for (and work solely because there are) some very moral and virtuous people - but they would certainly feel loneliness. And what about the rest who aren't so disciplined, who can't take the temptation? We have numerous examples of what happens when priests who do not have a strong enough moral character in the face of temptation dally in the forbidden.
Lastly, it remains to be examined if it is indeed true that it is always immoral to use another to satisfy your own necessary or unnecessary desires. I will leave this for another post. But suffice to say I think the monotheistic arguments contra homosexuality do not hold. Homosexuality or Hetrosexuality itself isn't wrong, only how and when people engage in it. Or so it seems to me.
posted by JB @ 5:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home