Difference between revisions of "Homosexuality"
(→Links: no moo lies) |
(→Opinion: appeal to nature) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
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". | 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. | ||
--[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 13:04, 21 July 2006 (EDT) | --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 13:04, 21 July 2006 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:43, 13 August 2006
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
- Homosexuality is a sexuality issue.
- Many people think same-sex marriage should be (as it currently is, in much of the United States and in some other parts of the world) illegal.
Nature vs. Nurture
Much argument about homosexuality centers around the theory (for which there is apparently strong evidence) that homosexuality is determined during the very early years of life, i.e. 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.
(The above seems factual enough so far, but I'm going to take another step towards "opinion" territory next... so I'm going to put the rest of this under an "Opinion" header and sign it.)
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)
Links
- BornDifferent.org: advocacy site based on the theory that homosexuality is biologically-based
- No Moo Lies: counterargument site by Focus on the Family