jhopkins said:
Heres a dot point summary of my reasons if it makes it easier:
- (1) bioligically wrong, due to diseases and the natural reproductive system
- (2) religiously wrong ( most of the bible)
- (3) leads to further 'freedom' which is actually ddestroying our society
- (4) animals who do it only do it cause they cant find an opposit sex partner.
- (5) we are not animals
- (6) all ur and the people supporting it have no valid points to make apart from " but their no hurting anyone" (think of how many faimlies, friendships have been destroyed. arguments between politicians us and som many others wasting their time opr resources)
I renumbered your list so I could reply to each point (I hope you don't mind):
(1) Biological functionality does not run parallel to moral worth. For example, our knowledge of genetics suggests that we could create a smarter, stronger human race by killing those who are weak of limb or mind. However, most would recognise that such action would be wrong, despite the 'benefits' for the gene pool. The problem with your claim of biological 'wrongness' is that you're assessing their behaviour in a reproductive sense. Homosexual sex is 100% a social phenomenon and I'm very sure they're aware that they're not able to reproduce. It's like a teenage heterosexual couple having sex with birth control --> it's a form of social interaction engaged in for pleasure (generalising). Yes, it is the 'wrong' way to reproduce, but they have no pretense of trying to do so - hence the reproductive argument is void.
Yes, the nature of anal sex engaged in by MSM leaves them more open to exposure (more tearing --> anus is not as elastic as the vagina) to STI's but this does not make it 'wrong'. It's like comparing big wave surfing to casual body boarding (exagerated difference, I know) and saying that big wave surfing is 'wrong' because there is a higher level of risk. As an ethical argument I really don't think it holds water (mind the pun).
(2) That's between you and your god, however, I still think that people should practice tolerance where possible.
(3) I believe you're incorrect to claim that homosexuality is destroying our society but I'll come back to that in 6.
(4) To quote one
article on this topic:
"
If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast... Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in "penis fencing," which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages. "
The fairly straight forward conclusion which the described researcher came to (which I figured would be the case prior to reading articles on the subject) was that homosexuality is a phenomenon with a social function. Of course it's not a matter of reproduction, rather it is a matter of attachment and bonding - it's about forming relationships (---> social cohesion rather than 'destroying' society?). The researcher points out that "The more complex and sophisticated a social system is, the more likely it is to have homosexuality intermixed with heterosexuality." It would seem to be a result of complex social structure/relationships. Males and females all interact with one another, and homosexuality simply represents a highly intimate form of same-sex interaction. In any case, it's not a matter of being unable to find a same sex partner, it's about social bonding between same sex animals - as a number of studies seem to point out.
(5) We are mammalian organisms that are closely related to primates. The only reason we wouldn't be defined as animals is if we choose the meaning of the word so as to exclude ourselves. However, we very easily fit into many a categorical grouping with animals (we have a lot in common!). It's only because of our typically 'human' arrogance and inflated self importance that we think we're a step above the rest.
(6) I think the 'damaging families/friendships 'argument is an invalid one. I would propose that rather than homosexuality itself, it is attitudes towards homosexuality which create those problems. Parents are only upset about a lesbian daughter or gay son because they have a holy book telling them their child won't meet them at the pearly gates or because their social environment is a homophobic one. Remove the taboo factor and I don't think there's an issue.
In any case, I believe the disruption caused by the fight for gay rights is a worthwhile one. Groups who are against apartheid or slavery cause disruption in society and I'm sure a lot of upset is generated, but does that make their fight wrong? Gay rights are a fight for equality - they do not demand something beyond what is afforded the ordinary populace. Most of the arguments I've heard against gay rights can be compared to those which were used to deny suffrage for women or rights for black Africans. As I have pointed out in bhsoc's posts, his arguments boil down to "I hate homosexuals, therefore I deny them equal rights".
Intolerance and hate should
not guide social policy or the allocation of human rights.
