tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post4642059977149344100..comments2024-03-29T18:17:34.956+11:00Comments on Thinking Out Aloud: There are no moral arguments against homosexuality (only arguments to evade morality)Lorenzohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-61814210178239507802017-09-28T09:46:41.446+10:002017-09-28T09:46:41.446+10:00With the greatest respect, there are plenty of mor...With the greatest respect, there are plenty of moral arguments against homosexuality. It's perfectly fine to find them unpersuasive, and for what it's worth I myself tend to be rather on the fence but erring toward the view that toleration of a fairly strong variety ought to be the end goal, even if it's not necessarily practical under current conditions for various reasons.<br /><br />Anyhow here's a non-exhaustive list of sketches of decent moral arguments against homosexuality, without regard to whether or not you (or I for that matter) ought to agree with them:<br /><br />1. The presence of open homosexuality in society introduces ambiguity into male relations. In 'homophobic' countries, men will frequently kiss each other, buy each other flowers and so on, in various contexts not limited to but including commerce and community. This makes the high trust society easy to establish and provides all manner of ways to assess reliability, sincerity and commitment to relations that don't involve the legal system. In the widespread presence of open homosexuality, this becomes impossible, as evidenced by the convention of saying "no homo". A businessman routinely kissing people on first meeting would in fact find that estimations of his reliability went down not up if he did it in the West. <br /><br />2. Since homosexuality is not connected (with perhaps some caveats and exceptions in the current year) to family and reproduction, the presence of openly gay couples in society is equivalent to the presence of openly promiscuous people in society. This is a bad thing for heterosexuals because it increases the perception that relations unconnected to family and reproduction are normal. This reduces societal cohesion and trust. <br /><br />3. The track record of gays with regard to violence in relationships, suicide, sexual misconduct and poor sanitation is not impressive. <br /><br />4. A society in which homosexuality is strongly tolerated cannot be a society in which religion (any religion) can be sincerely practiced. Every religion that seeks to survive in a pro-homosexual society must by necessity water down its creed. This has rippling effects, reducing the power of religions to curb human instincts toward covetousness, envy/resentment and (hetero)lustfulness. Socialism is an excellent example of these things run amok. <br /><br />Essentially these four moral arguments centre on the idea that homosexuality has anti-social effects on individuals, on families and on society.<br /><br />You may not believe they have merit. As I said, I'm rather on the fence and would not like to see oppression of homosexuals even in the current situation, but there's no question that these are legitimate moral propositions based on the legitimate view that our behaviour has effects on others in terms of setting examples, interfering with functional norms and influencing the direction of received wisdom.Reluctant Dissidentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-968200342054329662012-12-01T09:09:18.537+11:002012-12-01T09:09:18.537+11:00I look at morality through the evolutionary lense....I look at morality through the evolutionary lense. I believe that Morality's maintains the in-group against out-group's invasion. The purpose of evolution is survival and reproduction, and I believe that homosexulality might be attacked because it can prevent reproduction and survival of the human species. Ethnocentrism (preference of one's culture), as can be also seen in the community of heterosexuals, can lead to prejudice, hatred, and discrimination against the out-group. It is time to get rid of those stereotypes..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-16850950711545436752010-04-27T22:53:56.577+10:002010-04-27T22:53:56.577+10:00Yes, certain social identities are viewed in some ...Yes, certain social identities are viewed in some milieux as loathsome: that is rather my subject matter. One can, of course, disagree strongly with certain doctrines, but 'Catholic' is an identity that does not entail belief in particular doctrines (particularly not active belief). In Oz, for example, Catholics are the denomination whose members <a href="https://www.tai.org.au:443/index.php?search=homosexuality&act=display&q=node%2F19&pubid=365" rel="nofollow">are least likely</a> (pdf) to rate homosexuality as immoral. The logic of belief is not necessarily the logic of identify-as.<br />My base point is that attempts to strip some group of moral protections regardless of whether they have <b>actually</b> trespassed against the moral protections of others is not a morally legitimate move.Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-21541813222289136922010-04-27T20:45:21.834+10:002010-04-27T20:45:21.834+10:00Yes, but I guess I was looking for more from a met...Yes, but I guess I was looking for more from a metaethical plane. I will read it again. I guess I am surprised at how neutrally you accept "social identity" in this post, as if "being Catholic" or "being black" or "being gay" was not and is not in some social milieux a highly loathsome thing. Further, if certain secularists are right, being Catholic––being religious––is an actual social evil. Also, being Catholic is a choice people make, and unmake. Is being homosexual likewise a choice? I guess I am channelling Foucault too much but once you buck natural law it seems that everything is plastic. <br /><br />Best,Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-10734472567077890712010-04-27T16:33:56.246+10:002010-04-27T16:33:56.246+10:00Cogitator: did you notice I specifically discussed...Cogitator: did you notice I specifically discussed the case of paedophilia?Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-83084395976772106832010-04-27T08:18:14.609+10:002010-04-27T08:18:14.609+10:00Does a neo-Nazi advocate denying moral protections...Does a neo-Nazi advocate denying moral protections to particular categories of people? Does a paedophile damage those they prey upon? Does a peeping tom violate the privacy of others? These are so obviously different things from being black, Catholic, Jewish, homosexual, etc the question seems more than "arch", given I discuss the function of morality.<br /><br />Being an alcoholic seems a somewhat different case in that alcoholism is destructive of the personality and one's interactions with others. That is, it has moral implications but the issues are also significantly medical and therapeutic.<br /><br />(The only moderation I have is to block spam. I have not blocked any comment by yours. We are using a free service here, so it can be a bit erratic.)Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-10201505650125136212010-04-27T02:25:15.407+10:002010-04-27T02:25:15.407+10:00I tried to leave a message here earlier but I'...I tried to leave a message here earlier but I'm not seeing it yet. Is there comment moderation I'm waiting to pass or did it just not post? I'll try again. <br /><br />What are moral arguments against being a neo-Nazi? Or against being an alcoholic? Or a peeping tom? Or a pedophile? I apologize if my questions seem "arch" but I am asking over a wide range of moral 'options' so as to better gauge where your position lies, metaethically. <br /><br />Best,Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2197051945822486684.post-54752268058279251802010-04-03T08:50:33.600+11:002010-04-03T08:50:33.600+11:00This needs to go in your sidebar, Lorenzo. I can t...This needs to go in your sidebar, Lorenzo. I can tell you were very cross when you wrote it, but it's still calm and controlled. That's difficult to do.skepticlawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09282438188120264295noreply@blogger.com