Is being gay morally wrong?
 

Touchy subject... but then again what is philosophy if its not controversial?

none the less, I think that a philosophy section should discuss matters of such import, especially when a User named Cicero frequents this area of the forum regularly.

on with this post,

According (well as far as i know, he never thought about homosexuality, which helps this post, because it means he theory is less going to be affected by the views of Christian church at the time)to one of histories greatest philosophers, Immanuel Kant, using his moral theory, homosexuality is morally wrong because it universalises the axiom that (putting it simply) we should all have homosexual sex.

he would argue that this creates a contradiction, in that by everyone having homosexual sex, we fail to reproduce, no therefore in time can no longer have homosexual sex.

So using Kants moral theory, we have concluded that being (in Kants eyes) homosexual is wrong.

but where do you stand?, more importantly at this time, where do I stand?

really in answer to that, i have no real answer, none at least that can be justified.

my feeling currently is that Homosexuality isn't morally wrong, taking some morally liberal view, in essence live and let live.

So where do you stand?

Do you believe that homosexuality is against god?
Do you think that homosexuality is the preserve of the rich?

Lets hear it.

(also a little note, yes the poll is cool, but if you could vote and then reply even if you answer was Yes or No, because opinions aren't worth much not backed up)

My morality is based largely on "treat others as you would like to be treated" and "no harm, no foul".

homosexuality per se neither hurts others nor is hypocritical. So live and let live I say.

As for the no reproduction argument -do we also apply it to anybody who's had the snip or uses contraception or has sex after the menopause? Kant through your interpetation sounds just a teensy bit Catholic to me. ;)

well Kant was from the 18th century prussia, and it would foolish not to think that Kants ideas may have been affected by the catholic church.

When i studied Kant another example was suicide, and how this was a moral contradiction.

here is a bit more information about what I am talking about in the OP, what I more or less refering to is the first formulation of the categorical imperative which is "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." from his book "groundwork of the metaphysics of morals"

I've got the feeling there's some missing background here...

You state, almost as an afterthought, that you don't feel homosexuality is morally wrong.

You have cited Kant as an opposing viewpoint... but, given the entire history of philosophy and morality to choose from, you don't have anyone to support your viewpoint.

Why Kant? Why now? "Hey, I've been wondering about this whole homosexuality thing.. hmm... a tough nut to crack..... HEY! I know, let's pull down Kant and see what he says!!"

That only works if you assume Kant was anything other than a real pissant.

Firstly,
all that I have made reference to is available to all, (Philosophers can't use a encyclopaedia or wikipedia, there is no hope for us all)

yes my feelings on homosexuality are a rather an after thought, and as I said i can't really justify my feelings or reference any philosopher who went on record and blasted out "man love rules ok".

above the live and let live system (which has always seemed to me as a withholding of belief) subscribed to by monster, I have no other justification of homosexuality not being morally wrong.

so why now you ask, wellity wellity wellity,

not being able to answer the question "what do you think of homosexuality?" seems to be a good reason, more or less i am seeking justification for a belief i believe in very strongly, but have little reasoning behind. (a little side note here about my belief system, I hold beliefs because they are true, or I hold my beliefs but i don't know why they are true, rather much like a child, which for a teenager is rather apt)
Also I think that philosophy needed more drama.

so why kant?

well I always knew about kants position on homosexuality since i studied him, i thought his ideas would be interesting enough to get a debate going.

Pie- you get extra points for the drinking song reference :)
Edit-my attempt at drama has failed because i can seem to find some evangelical Christians or any evangelical religious people for that mater.
We shall see.

Overpopulation is a problem.
Lack of procreation (in moderation) is a possible solution to overpopulation.

Ergo, lifestyles that are not traditionally associated with procreation have a moral benefit to humanity, or are at least value-neutral.


(This is how I justify my childless state to those who think such a choice is sinful.)

there are no morals

So what would I do if I raped your (metaphorical) sister, slept with your (metaphorical) mother and killed you (metaphorical) father?

how would you feel?

do you feel nothing?

should I got to prison?

Ha! I like the implication that his sister wouldn't be willing, but his mom totally would be. Almost certainly unintentional, but that's funny stuff.

I was tempted to put in brackets (because your metaphorical mum is a slut), but decided against insulting LJs metaphorical parents.

what is funnier?

me planing the implication or spontaneous implication as originally suggested?

How can homosexuality be morally wrong against anything but God? It doesn't affect anyone else and unlike some drugs, it isn't bad for you either. Wear protection.

Homosexuality has been proven to be biological in origin, so those who question it as a moral choice are on shakier and shakier ground these days.

yes yes...but not because of morals. that would be for violating their(metaphorical) rights.

morals are internal and subjective. i don't have the right to impose my morals on you. if you want to suck a dick, that's your business. the only morals that apply in a gay relationships are those of the cocksuckers.

I believe not only that homosexuality is not morally wrong, I believe that it's really fucking awesome.


but seriously though, i actually have a little bit of a problem with monosexuality in general, be it gay or straight. Not like, a PROBLEM problem, but... something about it just strikes me as, wrong. I have trouble wrapping my head around it sometimes.

Oh, so you're bi, aren't ya, Ibram?

Eh, I wouldn't be surprised if humans were a little bit bisexual in nature.

History and the present back this view up well. Egypt, Greece, and I'm sure many other ancient cultures were entirely accepting and even encouraging of bisexuality and right now we see a lot of bisexuality in girls since it is socially acceptable. If it was socially acceptable for males to be bisexuals, I would almost guarantee it would be just as common as what you see with girls.

It depends on the morals of people doing the judging. For some, I'm sure it is.

I don't trust other people's assertion of what is moral or right or wrong, nor do I much care. For me, if I chose to make such a judgment, no.

Make that a HELL NO!

Nope.

Whether it's a choice or not, I don't know, but there's nothing wrong with being gay.

If it feels good, do it.

Doesn't look like anyone who feels it is wants to chime in. case closed. ;)

I think its an individual decision - its between them and their "whatever." To each his own, ya know?

Trying to define sexuality is like trying to define a color, or a flavor... You can't really, because the experience is unique to each and every one of us.

The same of "morality" in my opinion. Each of us has a very unique set of experiences that have defined who we are up until every point in our lives, until death. The longer we live, more experiences are added to the pile of things we weigh in making decisions. What we may have been for or against 5 years ago may be drastically different than now, or 5 years from now. Or even 5 days...

For example: my own sexuality. Many years ago, I would have said I was completely straight. Since then, I have had homosexual experiences, and in fact find both women and men sexually attractive. Those experiences, in addition to the fact that I am a lot less ignorant than I was 15 years ago (from both reading and talking to people about sex in general) has led me to scrap trying to define sexuality at all.

Who and what turns me on from day to day is always evolving. I am just (horny little ole) me.

wow. Very well put, LabRat. I remember when I was 18 and had a completely different viewpoint on both sexuality and morality than I do now. Having been raised in a more religious tradition I didn't feel I was judging gays, but that at the core it was morally wrong and unhealthy. While I also felt that *gasp* fornicating was wrong, I didn't seem to have a problem justifying that one. 18 feels like a long time ago now and I find it interesting that my parents still pretty much have the same views they did then on sexuality/morality, yet mine have expanded to the point where I think (and live by) the only limitation should be whatever that individual chooses for themselves.

I have a lot more problems with the words "morally" and "wrong" than I do with "gay."

The larger question is not about homosexuality but about what is "morality" and who has the right to project their morals on others.

excellent - well written - better than how I tried to say it.

Kant's argument also works against being a priest.

Yes.

Personally, I define morality as as a set of ethics that guide the interaction between a group of people (2+). Ethics will have to be defined as what is right and wrong.

That is why I can't see how homosexuality can be seen as immoral or even a morality issue in a sociological sense. Unless you get really picky, whether a person is a homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, it really doesn't affect anyone else. The only way I can see it being a morality issue is if it is one forced upon us by a higher power or a person in power. But that should not happen in the United States being a secular democracy (republic).

That's a curious distinction, LJ. I wonder how you might go about defending the realness of "rights" without some appeal to inherent value and moral prohibition.

In other words, your sister's right to self-determination (the right to not have sex forced on her) has to be, in some way, connected to her inherent value as a human being. That statement of value then carries with it certain prohibitive statements, statements that declare the boundary actions which violate the right.

Well, if you have statements of inherent value and statements of prohibited acts based on that value, you have morality.

If you see some other way to construct "rights", and to give some justification for their "rightness" without appealing to moral language, I'd love to hear it.

well.


this has been a recent topic of debate. and that may just be a coincedental choice of words there. I don't believe that rights are constructed. I believe they simply are. which leads you down the road toward a tree falling in the woods......are rights there without someone to excercise or defend them?

BUT....you may have meant construct in the 'define' sense?

Yes, by construct I mean define and defend. Use my original language, if it's less loaded:

it seems that the conventional definition of 'rights' has, as you've inferred, some consideration for what is considered to be 'moral' behavior. That is, it is considered immoral to violate another's rights.

I guess what i meant when i said that there are no morals, is that I see morals as having their roots in societal opinion of acceptable behaviors. Therefore, you inherently sanction those morals by existing within a given society. If you choose to exist without that society, the morals that come with that society fall away. As is your right to do. (not saying i would do, or recommend this, btw)

If you exist outside of society and society's moral influence, you are left with only your own code to guide you. your personal morals. your rights.

I said there are no morals. there is also no spoon. know'm sayin'?

Wow epic.

Rights have no meaning in that context. A right is a boundary restricting the unjust actions of others toward you.

What possible meaning does the phrase "I have a right to life" mean if not "My possession of my life is fair and just, and others ought not act to remove it from me, and I am justified in acting to protect myself from those who do." What could it possibly mean to have a "right to life" if a person is in isolation?

is that right? that's kind of what i meant by this:

I guess i left out the part about the 'person to defend them from' ....although it was inferred in the 'defend them' part.....

in isolation, your rights do not evaporate though, do they? if the tree falls, it still makes a sound.....doesn't it?

in the context of the original question, my point was more along the lines of: A judgement of morality is only as meaningful as the judged allow it to be. If two same sex people find that they love each other...it is only their morality that applies. The reality is subjective. no spoon. no morals.
sorry i'm repeating myself...i'm sure you get what i'm saying. you're smarter than I am.

The Matrix has us? :D

But what about the morality with the confines of the society that they live in? The pressures and restrictions, dare I say, moral fiber which is within their society dictates does it not? They may be perfectly happy within the privacy of their own home, but once they venture out into "society" are they not then subject, rightly or wrongly, to the morality - the ethicality - that society has predetermined to be acceptable?

do your morals change because of those of the people you move among?

Personally? No of course not, yours?

I was trying to create the situation where two different sets of moral exist and collide. What is the outcome of that? Where in the outside world one set is more prominent whereas in another situation the inverse is true.

(Sorry, I am having a difficult time explaining/describing this)

wrong is in the eye of the beholder?

not always though

LJ, I think I understand what you're saying. What I'm trying to hit at is that invoking the idea "rights" means you're trying to introduce some governing principle into the interaction between two people. If someone is trying to kill me, saying "you ought not to do that; I have a right to live" and saying "I wish you wouldn't do that" are two very different things, no?

The appeal to "rights" says that something should limit the actions of others, something other than my preference.

If we can agree on that much (I hope I'm not presuming too much), then the next logical question is this: is there any good reason why we should call that external thing "moral"? It sure waddles and quacks like morality.

I assume?

well, no...i guess not....

you're just pointing out that rights are based on 'moral' precepts? and so a violation of a right is a violation of a moral?

And, by extension, that the phrase ...

... doesn't make sense. If your sense of indignation is based on the rights of your mother and sister being violated, then it is moral indignation.

well, yeah....but the reason for the distinction....

you can violate my morals without violating my rights. I can get offended (passively) if you violate my morals, but violate my rights, and I'll defend them.....actively. If someone goes to jail for rape, they go for infringing on the rights of their victim...not for offending their morals. makes sense to me.

Thats an excellent distinction LJ.

I know your argument and do not really disagree with you but understand that your position is one of your age and time of birth. There are many people a few generations back who believe that homosexuality is a morality issue. I think it has more to do with one's religious beliefs more than anything else. There are a certain set of behaviors which society at large generally will not tolerate in public and those things are enforced by law, but if you dig a little deeper, from a historical position, you find that many of them were based on prevailing religious views. So I see how one group of people may define homosexuality from a morality position and another group does not see it that way.

Yeah, views on homosexuality have changed a lot in the past few generations and that is why I don't really get worked up when a vote gets passed to ban gay marriages because I know in thirty years, that will change.

But yeah, you are right, my views will probably never be even tried to be understood by people that were raised in past generations where homosexuality was seen more a moral issue than a sexual preference.

I like Ayn Rand so anytime I hear anything at all about Kant or what he had to say about anything, I smash something fragile.

That said, I don't think the act of sex with someone you love is wrong under any decent code of ethics. Love is love and it doesn't really matter what diddly parts you happen to have. I think a majority of people should probably just mind their own business if they have something to say about who someone can and can't love.

You're interpreting this wrong, under Kant. Even under his philosophy, being gay isn't morally wrong.
It's not about heterosexuality or homosexuality. It's about loving whoever you want, loving whoever it just feels right to love.

If everybody loves the person that makes them happiest, then everything is right with the world, as far as I'm concerned. That is why, EVEN WITH kant's philosophy, there is nothing immoral about being gay.

Mercenary and PierceHawkeye: Not sure I agree that age has much to do with it. I'm older, and I never believed being gay was wrong. Not ever.

So it's okay for those seeking gay marriages to be completely out of luck in the meantime?

Well I may be going out on a limb here but there is certainly a subgroup of the population from the 60's and 70's who experienced a profound transformation and their views have not changed much since when it comes to how people relate to each other sexually. Then there is the other group, which I believe is the majority who did not experience the profound changes, and or who came after that time and religion played a bigger part of their lives. I believe it is this group who places moral value on many issues to include the issue of homosexuality. You are right though, age as a brod indicator may not have been the best choice to describe the differences. I do believe that older people are more interested in religion and it may play a larger part of their decision making when it comes to issues like this.

Are you saying that you differentiate between morals and rights by whether you react passively or actively?

No

For me, it wasn't so much as a transformation, as original indoctrination. :3eye:

Well, it is more mainstream now, for women anyway. Look at the proliferation of girl on girl in things like Girls Gone Wild. If I were a lesbian, I would be offended by pretend lesbians who just think it makes them sexy, and gets them attention from males, so use the alternative lifestyle to raise a couple boners. How vapid.

my cock isn't all that judgemental. srsly