| | Jeremy,
I don't wanna know.
I know this is not evasion, because you don't evade. It must be a presumption that whatever would be said, is not something you would agree with. You might be right. This is answer is not for you, but you raised the question, and someone else might be interested in the answer.
Why is the morality of homosexuality called into question right now?
I don't know the answer to that question, because I don't know what it means. Is there some special time when it is appropriate or not appropriate to address some questions?
Because of the "psychological damage" argument, or the "misuse of what nature gave us" argument? Both?
Now this is a different question. Not the morality one.
I've been following "the Great Debate" closely and I've yet to hear an actual, clear, unique reason why homosexual sex is immoral. Or homosexual feelings, or whatever.
This probably true because the morality issue is the least important. If there is a morality issue, it is an entirely personal and private one, much as someone who cheats themselves by not studying what they believe they ought to study, or not doing some job they believe they ought to do.
With regard to homosexuality there are three issues: 1. Is it chosen or is it predetermined? If it is predetermined, of course, it is automatically excluded from any morality question, because morality only pertains to choice. Then, it is neither moral or immoral.
This issue is made much more complicated than it seems by the fact that both sides are argued by the same advocates. It is argue that homosexuality is a given, not chosen. It is argued they have a right to do anything they choose. But homosexuality is not a state, it is a behavior, and all human behavior is chosen. So what is meant by homosexuality being a given? What's given?
The second issue is whether or not homosexuality is self-harmful, or self-destructive. If it is, that certainly raises the question of whether one ought to practice what is harmful to one's self. If it isn't harmful, it only means that particular issue does not exist.
There is a third issue, which is the question of normality, meaning consistent with the biological and psychological nature. It is abnormal to put things like rocks and peas in one's nose, as children sometimes do, because the nature of the nose is not to accommodate rocks and peas. That particular abnormal practice seldom is a problem however.
If someone practices something they themselves know is harmful to themselves, and could cease that practice but do not, and the sole reason for continuing the self-destructive behavior is desire or passion, with no rational justification for the action, that would be immoral, for that person.
There is no action or behavior anyone engages in, no matter how self-destructive or personally immoral, that anyone has a right to use force or coercion to prevent. Freedom means freedom to do any dumb, self-destructive, or immoral thing one likes, but it also means one has to bear the consequences of their bad choices themselves.
My interest in this issue is because I see three arguments being made by Objectivists that seem to me inimical to Objectivism:
1. That one's practices are determined by something other than volitional choice, like genetics, pre-natal influences, or brain chemicals.
2. That passion or desire, by themselves, justify some choices or actions.
3. That sexual pleasure is the ultimate human pleasure and the sole purpose for living. This view causes Objectivists to say things like, "you want him to not have any sexual pleasure," as though that were tantamount to a death sentence. (This kind of questioned could be asked about pedophiles and rapists.)
Maybe we should change the name of SOLO, to the "Sense Of Lust Objectivists." ;>)
Regi
|
|
