I’ve been thinking almost from the beginning of this blog that I should write a post on homosexuality, but every time I think of it, I just don’t know what to say. My opinion on gay marriage is a bit easier to articulate.
I’ve heard good arguments for abolishing marriage completely, but I don’t see that happening any time soon. As long as we have marriage as a legal institution, it needs to be open to everyone. Right now, laws are such that I could grab any random single man off the street and be married inside of a day (unless we happened to be related), but some men and women who have been with their partners for over a decade still can’t receive all the legal benefits of marriage. These include tax and insurance benefits. I honestly don’t know much about it, but all other things being equal, it is generally legally better to be married than not, unless one person doesn’t have a job and does have student loans. My boyfriend can’t make health decisions for me, officially, only because we are not married. Think of how much stress it would cause to not be allowed to see your life partner in the hospital just because you happen to be the same gender and therefore cannot marry. This is why making or keeping gay marriage illegal is persecution: you are denying a right to some adults that you give to others. It seems reasonable to have some restrictions on who can marry, mainly refusing the right to minors who legally can’t be consenting adults and close relatives who may only be marrying as a tax dodge, but a restriction based only on gender is bigotry plain and simple, and that goes against the principles on which this country was founded. So, gay marriage needs to be legal in this country, end of story.
Now on to the issue of whether homosexuality is wrong. Of course, my main point is that there is no reason to think homosexuality is sinful, but that seems so very obvious at this point that it seems almost not worth repeating. Homosexuality has been observed in so many species, perhaps most notably in our close relatives the bonobos, that the “unnatural” argument is ridiculous, not to mention amusing given how unnatural clothing and cell phones are.
It is perhaps worth noting that many Christian denominations are now accepting of homosexual relationships. As the younger generations grow up and more and more people are out, there are ever-increasing numbers of Christians who (know they) have a homosexual loved one. In such a situation, it becomes difficult if not impossible to condemn homosexuality. So what happens? The Christian turns to the Bible, finds passages which talk about being loving, and declares, rightly or wrongly, that Jesus would accept gays.
Although I’m fairly convinced that the Bible does condemn homosexuality, in the end, it doesn’t really matter. Why? The logic is similar to what I said at the end of my review of Finding Darwin’s God: I’d rather have Christians who accept homosexuality, even if they are being ultimately inconsistent, than Christians who don’t.
For those who stubbornly persist in their opinion that homosexuality is wrong, or at least that the homosexual act is evil, I have little to say.
It is simply a fact that young people are committing suicide because they cannot accept themselves for having same-sex attraction. They have been taught that homosexuality is an abomination, for that is what the Bible says.
How many more troubled individuals killing themselves in distress will it take before you reject the Biblical assertion of homosexuality as an abomination?
The Complete History of the Universe: A Personal Journey 
I’d rather have Christians who accept homosexuality, even if they are being ultimately inconsistent, than Christians who don’t. << I thought that most non-Christians didn’t like that Christians were inconsistent with Christian teachings?
Also, what if suicide rates are what they are, because of the underlying issues of one who identifies as homosexual AND even if living in a life style with someone of same gender, etc they don’t feel happy? That was my experience.
I don’t like Christians being inconsistent with Christian teachings, but I prefer inconsistency to immorality, and telling homosexuals that they are evil and thereby driving them to suicide is immoral.
What if the reason you didn’t feel happy was because of your specific partner or because your church kept telling you you are evil?
Outside of religion, do you have any reason to think homosexuality is wrong?
“telling homosexuals that they are evil and thereby driving them to suicide is immoral.” Agreed. But telling someone that sexual expression outside of one man and one woman in marriage, is UNHEALTHY is not immoral.
No one told me I was evil so guess that wasn’t it.
Outside of God’s word, the following things lead me to believe that alternative sexual expression is not healthy:
Biology. A man and a woman are different and complimentary.
Psychology. Same as above. Look at studies on fatherlessness. You can’t honestly say that two women = one man and one woman unless you believe a father doesn’t matter.
Social order. A mom and dad is Ideal for children- all things equal, which biological parent does a child not deserve? Sure, same gender parents [creating a child in a tube or adopting or the biological child of one parent] can LOVE their child. But unless you pretend the genders are identical, a woman does not offer a child what a man does and visa versa. The data on this is long standing and clear.
P.S. It’s funny you’ve used the same tired arguments like “450 species exhibit homosexual behaviors”. This is simply laughable. An animal humping an animal of the same gender and then having sex and procreating with the opposite species is not “homosexuality”. P.S.S. Did you ever follow up on those “homosexual” penguins? Where one went and impregnated a female? I ask again, why the desperation to believe this INNATE? Why shouldn’t it be a choice? [Like I said, I don’t believe attraction is a choice, but liberals believe it’s inborn vs choice, the only two options for them I suppose].
I never said two women equals a man and a woman or any other such combination. However, there have been studies that show that homosexual couples make just as good of parents as heterosexual couples. Here’s just one of the first results in Google Scholar: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v32n02_02#.VPUX6_nF_wk
It’s on you to produce evidence that homosexuality is harmful. Show studies. I have. Can you?
Telling someone that their natural urges are unhealthy is immoral, especially when all of the scientific studies on the matter agree that there is nothing unhealthy (or unnatural!) about homosexuality.
People keep pointing to animals exhibiting homosexual behavior to show that it is part of nature. A penguin impregnating a female penguin does not mean that no animal ever has exhibited homosexual behavior. Have you looked up bonobos yet? You know, the animal whose whole society appears based on sex? Sure, you can argue that none of them are strictly homosexual, because everyone has sex with everyone regardless of gender, but there is definitely “homosexual behavior”. This only means that male bonobos have been observed have sex with male bonobos, and females with other females.
Why don’t you tell me what homosexuality is if it is neither inborn or a choice? You have yet to offer that third option, and I obviously don’t see it. I’m willing to consider it if you can show it.
You really don’t read anything unless it agrees with you relating to this issue do you? Studies that show homosexual parenting is equal are flawed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-ethington/same-sex-parents-study-flawed_b_1584745.html; http://www.narth.org/docs/flawed.html; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-children-fare-better-traditional-mom-dad-fam/?page=all; http://tomohalloran.com/2014/03/26/gay-parenting-studies-flawed/
So you ignore the 100s of studies on fatherlessness too?
“Telling someone that their natural urges are unhealthy is immoral” < Do you argue that sexual attraction to children is inborn and natural? NOT action on it, obviously. But the orientation? Would love to see if you hold a consistent belief across the board.
“This only means that male bonobos have been observed have sex with male bonobos, and females with other females.” << Also, dogs hump chair legs and cushions. Also, animals eat their young. Also, monkeys are cannibals. IT’s not a good argument to say “because we’ve seen animals do ___, humans should/could/can/ do ___”
Yes. Re: Julie Harren, Ph.D., LMFT
Genes + Brain Wiring + Prenatal Hormonal Environment = Temperament
Parents + Peers + Experiences = Environment
Temperament + Environment = Attraction.
Can be healthy or unhealthy. Hopefully you and I agree that even an attraction, not acted on, to children is UNHEALTHY. We might disagree that a sexual attraction between siblings is unhealthy. Sexual attraction to a parent [even between consenting adults] isn’t healthy. Sexual attraction to animals isn’t healthy. Sexual attraction to an abusive man/woman isn’t healthy. And so on. Do you disagree that attraction can be unhealthy, or since it’s natural, it’s all good?
You accuse me of not reading what I disagree with after openly saying you won’t look at a link I posted? On a blog that is about the fact that I underwent a paradigm shift? That is the height of dishonesty.
The first link you posted is about a study that was proven wrong that had the claim that homosexual parents were worse. It was referenced in a Michigan court case on same-sex marriage. The judge said, “The court finds the witness wholly unreliable and puts no weight on his testimony.” You can see the full ruling here: https://joshderke2014.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/mi-gay-marriage-ruling.pdf
The second link is put out by the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, a biased source widely known for its junk science: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/queer-science
The third link references the same study as the first link. For the record, the scientific community rejects that study because the kids he studies aren’t largely in families that have two married same-sex parents, but kids from divorced couples with a mom or a dad that lives with a member of the same sex.
The fourth link is a blog post, and I have no reason to care what he says.
Do you have actual studies that support your position? Again, I do. And if fatherlessness is such a problem, what about a couple of men raising a child? What about a group of two fathers and a mother? Or two mothers and a father? If your problem with homosexuality is the lack of both sex parents, do you have a problem with polyamorous relationships?
I think pedophilia is most likely inborn, at least as much as homosexuality is.
You’re right, it’s NOT a good argument to say that “behavior x is natural and therefore good for humans”. That isn’t the argument I’m making. I’m saying “homosexual behavior is obviously observed in nature and therefore saying that it is unnatural is ridiculous”.
So you think that sexual orientation is based on a combination of Genes + Brain Wiring + Prenatal Hormonal Environment + Parents + Peers + Experiences? None of those are factors over which a person has much control, you know. In fact, that’s probably longhand for what most people mean when they say that homosexuality is “natural”, because most people are arguing “natural” as opposed to “choice”. After all, a common argument is that homosexuality is wrong because it is a choice.
I don’t think I’m willing to say that having an attraction is itself unhealthy, regardless of what that attraction is. Almost every human has a strong appetite for sugar, but I don’t think anyone would say that that is unhealthy. However, it is obviously unhealthy to over-indulge one’s sweet tooth.
Obviously, having an attraction that, if acted upon, is unhealthy or harmful could easily lead to bad consequences, but I don’t think that means the attraction itself is unhealthy.
I’m not even sure I would say that pedophilia is necessarily unhealthy for the adult; acting on pedophilia is immoral because a child cannot meaningfully consent and is (at least in something like 99% of cases) harmed in some way (normally physical and mental health). That’s why statutory rape laws exist. But is the adult harmed by acting on his pedophilia? Does his physical health suffer in any way? I don’t see how, as awful as that sounds. His mental health should suffer in that he should feel guilty for raping a child, but I don’t know whether that would be outweighed by the pleasure he feels from satisfying his desire. I would hope so, but I don’t know.
When two consenting adults without STDs who happen to be different genders have sex, who is harmed? So far, you have only pointed to problems with same-sex partners as parents. What if we set aside that issue? Who is harmed when two consenting adults have sex? How is that unhealthy? Even if it is completely, 100% a choice to both have that orientation and act on it, where does the harm come in? Whose health is harmed and how?
And no, I don’t think that natural = moral. However, it is worth looking to nature before claiming that something is not natural. Humans, after all, for all our fancy technology, are apes, with a wide variety of instincts and sometimes conflicting impulses.
Well, you are consistent. I’ll give you that. Scary, but consistent.
Of course I’m consistent. That’s a cornerstone of having a rational worldview. I’m not sure how wanting evidence that something is harmful before agreeing that it is is scary, though.