A Philosopher's Blog

Orientation & Ethics

Posted in Ethics, Philosophy by Michael LaBossiere on February 19, 2014
English: Gender symbols, sexual orientation: h...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When discussing the ethics of sexual orientation, it is not uncommon for people to draw comparisons between being gay and being a rapist, pedophile, practitioner of bestiality or a necrophiliac.  My stock response to such comparisons is that there is at least one glaringly obvious difference between being gay and engaging in the sexual behavior mentions. To specific, rapists, pedophiles and so forth engage in sexual behavior that does not involve the consent of their victims. This, in part, makes their behavior immoral. There is also the fact that cases involving sexual coercion inflict harm on the victim. As such, consensual sex between homosexuals would seem to be nothing like those other things. Obviously enough, homosexual rape and homosexual pedophilia would be wrong—but because of the rape and pedophilia.

While it seems impossible to deny that consensual homosexual sex differs from rape and such in regards to consent, there are those who do claim that homosexuality is itself wrong. The question is, obviously enough, this: in what does its wrongness consist?

I’ll run through some scenarios and questions that I hope will lead to some consideration and discussion.

Imagine two married couples: Sam & Ashley and Mel & Fran.  Suppose that Sam and Ashley have the following relationship: they love each other, treat each other well, only have consensual sex, and are faithful to each other. Suppose that Mel and Fran have the following relationship: Mel does not love Fran, Mel treats Fran badly, Mel rapes Fran when Fran is unwilling to consent, and Mel has affairs regularly.

Given just this information, which relationship is morally superior? Why? Now, suppose that Sam and Ashley are the same sex while Mel and Fran have different sexes. Given this information, which relationship is morally superior? Why? Now, suppose that Sam and Ashely are different sexes while Mel and Fran are the same sex. Is this worse than the scenario in which Sam and Ashley are a straight couple? Why? Or why not?

Based on arguments I have seen before, some might argue that the scenario in which Sam and Ashley are a same sex couple is impossible. That is, people of the same sex cannot love each other, or have only consensual sex, or treat each other well, or be faithful. This could, of course, be argued—but arguments would be what is needed. However, even if it is argued that the scenario could not occur, there would still be the interesting question of whether such a (hypothetical) scenario would be morally superior to the scenario in which the straight couple’s situation involves rape, infidelity and abuse.

Overall, this matter can be distilled down the following question: what is intrinsically wrong, if anything, with being homosexual—even in the context of what would be considered an ideal relationship if it held between heterosexuals.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Enhanced by Zemanta

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. apollonian said, on February 19, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    Homosexuality: Obviously Degenerate, Irrationalist Behavior

    Homosexuality is obviously irrational and psychotic. For note practically any sexual behavior is learned, and homosexual behavior can only be learned as result of irrationalist, psychotic, degenerate circumstances, esp. as in present and on-going “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler.

    Thus the healthy society, as we understand, promotes production of legitimate children in a rationalist environment, willing to carry on the culture of forebears, the healthy society beginning in agriculture–as the Roman example.

    Thus we observe and understand active promotion of homosexuality occurs ONLY in the degenerate “declining” stage of the culture, now past maturity, the people and society immersed in HUBRIS, esp. in pretension to moralism/Pharisaism, “tolerance,” and “diversity,” as we see presently in the Jew and criminal-dominated satanistic stage, headed towards genocide, as in AGENDA-21 “population-reduction.”

    Of course, homosexuality in itself, though gross psychosis and crass degeneracy, is not necessarily a crime in itself–no more than psychosis, irrationality, and degeneracy are criminal. But the society has not only the right but the obligation to its continued healthy existence to discourage and penalize homosexuality, discriminating against it most actively, this by means of democratic measures and majority rule.

    • apollonian said, on February 19, 2014 at 3:43 pm

      “[W]hat is intrinsically wrong, if anything, with being homosexual….?”

      It’s sad thing when this, above, question actually has to be asked, ho ho ho ho ho.

      So let’s begin–it, homosexuality, is utterly pointless, obsessionate, irrationalist sort of behavior–and it’s addictive too, though addiction isn’t necessarily bad in itself, as life itself is addictive, isn’t it?

      Yes, heterosexuality can also be obsessionate and addictive, but regardless, it can be moderated, and there’s pt. to it for the re-production of the species and society–whereas there’s none of this for homosexuality which is obviously, totally destructive–which only poor, pathetic creatures cannot and refuse to see, ho ho ho ho, so steeped in the idiotic “politically-correct” culture of death-worship within empire-of-lies.

      • apollonian said, on February 19, 2014 at 4:28 pm

        Ho ho ho–when u think of it, that’s good question–WHY be a queer?–there is NO REASON–except, hey, all the cool people are doing it–ho ho ho ho ho–and that’s about it, for there is and could be NO OTHER reason to be a queer.

        That’s all Mike is up to w. this blog–defense of the little morons who think they’re “hip” and “cool.” Golly, gee, but what’s wrong w. being a queer? Oh yes–and homosexuality is also politically-correct program and party-line, isn’t it?–and Mike knows which side his bread is buttered.

        See–there’s absolutely no reason to be a queer–except to sucking-along w the satanists who rule the corrupt culture. But there’s GOOD reason to be hetero-sexual–like reproduction of the species and society and sociability–even though this isn’t politically-correct unless u apologize for it and always being sure to acknowledge “tolerance” and “diversity” for the scum presently destroying humanity and civilization.

        • apollonian said, on February 23, 2014 at 12:05 pm

          Healthy Society?–Is IN-TOLERANT–Only Corrupt, Degenerate Society Is “Tolerant” (Of Queers)

          It occurs to me there’s yet one more philosophic observation to be made for this blog-article, esp. the 2nd to last paragraph, above topic essay, and that’s FALSE ANALOGY btwn the healthy society and the degenerate society in “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler.

          For it’s not so hard to find heterosexual families living a virtuous (healthy) existence–this is basis upon which society is built, the healthy family.

          To then attempting to make a parallel w. homosexuals “loving” one another is just laughable, esp. when one sees–as the the real philosopher would–things in proper context, a society “tolerating” and honoring homosexuality simply inconceivable EXCEPT in the degenerate stage of society on the down-trend, in Spenglerian “decline.”

          Simple honesty requires one face-up to obvious fact no people or society “tolerates” queers unless they’re FORCED to do so by police-state means and methods–AS WE SEE, before our very eyes, presently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: