Difference between revisions of "Homosexuality"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Nature vs. Nurture: better explanation)
(→‎Links: turkish govt)
Line 40: Line 40:
 
** [http://www.family.org/cforum/sherman/ No Moo Lies]: counterargument site by [[Wikipedia:Focus on the Family|Focus on the Family]]
 
** [http://www.family.org/cforum/sherman/ No Moo Lies]: counterargument site by [[Wikipedia:Focus on the Family|Focus on the Family]]
 
* [http://www.lambdalegal.org/ Lambda Legal]: organization fighting sexuality-based discrimination
 
* [http://www.lambdalegal.org/ Lambda Legal]: organization fighting sexuality-based discrimination
 +
===News===
 +
* '''2007-02-03''' [[wikinews:Turkish government proposes to outlaw LGBT websites|Turkish government proposes to outlaw LGBT websites]]
 +
 
==Bumperstickers etc.==
 
==Bumperstickers etc.==
 
"If homosexuality is a disease, let's call in queer to work." (seen [http://www.livejournal.com/userpic/45371591/1707199 here])
 
"If homosexuality is a disease, let's call in queer to work." (seen [http://www.livejournal.com/userpic/45371591/1707199 here])

Revision as of 20:16, 3 February 2007

Overview

Homosexuality is predominantly an issue where it relates to the right of an individual to have intimate or sexual relationships with another person of the same physical gender.

Reference

Related Articles

Arguments

Con

I haven't seen any of these arguments actually spelled out succinctly, but this is a list of what most of them seem to be getting at.

  • Homosexuality upsets the social order, disrupting the traditional lines of authority and leading towards chaos (moral and otherwise)
  • Homosexuality spreads AIDS, harming heterosexuals as well as homosexuals

Pro

  • Homosexuals must make a conscious decision and expend considerable additional effort in order to reproduce, thus minimizing the number of unwanted children for which they are responsible (and hence reducing homosexuals' overall burden to society)
  • Many cultural/religious sentiments against homosexuality probably arose in pre-industrial society where maximization of reproduction was vital to survival; we now have the opposite problem, or (at best) no need to maximize reproduction
  • Actively suppressing homosexuality causes a great deal of personal suffering and hardship, and puts at least one significant roadblock in the way of homosexuals' "pursuit of happiness", a right guaranteed by the US Constitution
  • Failure to legally support the rights of homosexuals as equal citizens allows them to be harmed and persecuted without cause, and gives apparent sanction to religiously-based hatred and violence towards homosexuals
  • Failure to grant homosexual couples similar protections and freedoms to those granted to heterosexual couples causes hardship on homosexual-parented families, and harms the well-being of any children they may be raising

Nature vs. Nurture

Much argument about homosexuality centers around the theory (for which there is apparently strong evidence) that homosexuality is an innate biological property, fixed either prenatally or during the first few years of life. Defending homosexuality solely from this standpoint (as true as it may be), however, contradicts the stand that homosexuality is not a disease to be cured; things which are natural are often undesirable nonetheless.

Opinion

The argument that homosexuality is "unnatural", then, as untrue as it may be and as easy as it is to counter, is quite likely being raised solely to distract attention away from the true issue of whether homosexuality is actually harmful or wrong in some way.

It also seems to me that when the debate is shifted onto this ground, any defense tends to sound morally hollow; you wouldn't, say, defend a vicious dog's right to maim children just because that was its natural tendency.

While it's reasonable to argue that homosexuals shouldn't be persecuted for being the way they are, arguing from that standpoint says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of attempting to find (or fighting against) a "cure". Those who see nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality should be defending it on the basis of what is inherently harmful or beneficial about it, not on the basis that "we can't help it if we were born this way".

(Addendum 2006-08-13) Any argument that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural is also an appeal to nature, which is a form of logical fallacy.

--Woozle 13:04, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

Religious Viewpoints

The Bible

  • quotes condemning homosexuality:
    • Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (This of course says nothing regarding lesbianism.) All of Leviticus 18 seems to concern laws regarding sexual relationships.
    • 1 Corinthians 6:9,10: "...Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men... will inherit God's kingdom."
  • It should be noted, however, that Little-Known Bible Verses: The Sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but being "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." (Ezekiel 16:49, NIV translation)

Links

News

Bumperstickers etc.

"If homosexuality is a disease, let's call in queer to work." (seen here)