Are there any logical arguments against Homosexuality that would prove it to be harmful or morally wrong?(From Ex-athiest.com)
I know of no logical arguments that would condemn homosexuality as immoral, outside of the existence of a god who declares it to be immoral. However, I also know of no logical arguments that would condemn any action as being immoral, including murder or rape.
To clarify, man can only give his unsupported opinion that any given action is 'moral' or 'immoral', hence, the evidence for moral relativism that is found when one examines moral codes of different cultures and different individuals. One culture finds it morally acceptable to sacrifice its children to its god; another finds the same thing reprehensible. One individual sees nothing morally wrong in eating the meat of an animal; another views the human carnivore as primitive and barbaric. Morality, without the concept of God, can only be subjective opinion.
Secular Humanism teaches that any action, which involves the voluntary consent of two or more individuals, should be accepted as long as it does not violate 'the rights' of any other individual(s). However, this definition fails to weigh the rights of the individual against the welfare of society as a whole.
For example, the individual in the U.S. is granted the right of free speech, but he is not allowed to shout 'fire!' in a theater, unless there is a fire. He is not allowed to jeopardize national security by revealing secrets to which he may have access. If he is a teacher, he is not allowed to initiate prayer in a public school, because the non-endorsement of religion by the government takes precedence over the rights of an individual's free speech.
There are other impositions that are legally allowed to be made upon individuals without their consent. For example, in matters of national security, the government has the right to impose a draft, without the consent of the individual. It is the law, in some states, that an individual has to wear a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet,not only for their own safety, but to keep insurance rates low for the welfare of others.
Therefore, exceptions to secular humanism's definition of morality exclude those actions that speak for the welfare of society, and that place that welfare above the rights of the individual.
This begs the question, "Is the acceptance and practice of homosexuality by society, harmful to society?"
Now there may be some evidence that open homosexuality that comes about when a society embraces it, results in a more violent sexuality, or higher violence in general, among its people. For example, (and not saying that all homosexuals are into this), there seems to be a correlation between homosexuality and sadomasochism. There may also be indication that females and children in an openly homosexual society would be treated poorly. Studies have demonstrated that the homosexual lifestyle is more promiscuous than its heterosexual counterpart. It would appear, on the surface, that children would learn to relate better to both genders if they are raised by both genders. But this is all speculation; the truth is, we really don't know how widespread acceptance and practice of homosexuality would influence society.
A common pro-homosexuality argument is that because homosexuality may be genetic, and therefore occurs naturally, then we should accept it as moral. However, there is more evidence that the criminal mind is genetic than there is for the homosexual mind. When we apply the same reasoning, we would then have to approve of criminal behaviour because it appears to occur naturally in some individuals. Likewise, gluttony and alcoholism are attributed to the physiology of the individual, yet we don’t see people who have the predisposition to overeat, or get drunk, demanding that society embrace these ills. All of us are born with the propensity to sin, albeit in different ways.
There is overwhelming evidence that sexuality is due more to societal influence than genetic programming. Historians have estimated that almost all of the men in Sparta engaged in homosexual relationships, compared to the estimate of less than 10% in cultures that consider the activity taboo. Percentages of homosexuality vary widely from culture to culture. This is not what we would expect to see, if homosexual attraction within the human species was genetic. Even within the life of an individual, sexual attraction may make itself known as a choice, not as a preprogrammed instinct. A person can alternate between same sex and opposite sex unions. In short, our sexual preferences may be more liquid than some would care to admit. As our own society continues to promote same sex unions, I’ve no doubt that we will see more people opting for them.
There is also some evidence that men who don’t emotionally connect with their fathers, drift into sexual relationships with other men in an attempt to get that connection that they had always craved. When this happens, the man’s actions are futile, because no surrogate lover can take the place of the man’s father. The homosexual finds himself left unfulfilled, still craving that connection that no other man, but his father, can establish. If this is an underlying cause of homosexuality, then we do a great injustice to the homosexual when we designate homosexuality as normal behaviour, for which no treatment need be sought. By refusing to recognize homosexuality as a symptom of a deeper, underlying cause, we are, in effect, sentencing the homosexual to a life of dissatisfaction.
We can only question why God condemns homosexuality. If the issues mentioned in the above paragraph prove true, then we have to admit that a society’s embrace of homosexuality may have undesirable consequences that may adversely affect the family and the mindset that we have toward each other.
The only compelling reason to not engage in homosexuality, as far as I am concerned, is if one believes and loves the Christian god, they would want to refrain from doing that which He condemns.
Topic: Homosexuality