Saturday, 18 April 2009

on Homosexuality, lets give it some thought

Two adults of the same sex are attracted to one another. They wish to express that attraction physically. to live together with the same legal and social support that they would receive as a heterosexual couple, to adopt children, and to bring them up in a family home. Is what they wish to do morally right?

Until the 1967 sexual offenses act, homosexual acts between consenting male adults were regarded as crime in Britain. they were then made legal for those who had reached the age of 21 ( as opposed to heterosexual acts, which are legal from the age of 16 ) In some Muslim countries, following strict Shari'ah laws, homosexuality is punishable by death. By contrast, in classical Greece, homosexual love was widely practiced and socially acceptable. there is therefore no universally held view about homosexuality and its place in society.

since homosexuality involves what used to be called ' unnatural acts ', it is a particularly suitable to test 'natural law' as an ethical theory.

this is how 'natural law' argument might view that homosexual partnership:

- According to natural law, the purpose of sex is procreation, since homosexual acts cannot lead to conception, they are 'unnatural' and therefore wrong.

- on this basis, heterosexual acts within a stable relationship ( i.e one that enable children to be nurtured ) or celibacy are the only morally acceptable sexual choices.

- because of this there is no moral objection according to natural law principles to the couple living together, or feeling attracted to one another, the only objection is to any physical sexual acts that may take place between them.

- because they can't form a 'natural' family group, a natural law argument would suggest that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children, who naturally thrive only with the benefit of both mother and father role models.

Against the line of Arguement:

One might argue that the presence of sexual organs in a human being imples that he or she is designed for sexual activity and the conception of children - in which case celibacy is as unnatural as homosexuality, since it is a denial of the complete natural function of procreation. if this is established, then it is illogical to accept a celibate partnership between those who are sexually attracted.

some people are naturally attracted by members of the same sex. they experience their feelings as completely natural, and difficulties that arise are the result of the social condition, not nature.

Sexuality can be said to achieve three ends:

physical pleasure
the deepening of a relationship
the conception of children

of which 1/3 is precluded by homosexual relationships. But is not the search for pleasure and for deep relationships as natural as the conception of children? if a marriage is known to be infertile, are heterosexual acts between its partners therefore immoral simply because conception is impossible?

Marriage is a social function, and promiscuity can be practised equally by homosexuals and heterosexuals. the fact that homosexual couples cannot marry does not preclude deep and permanent relationships.

If a homosexual couple form a stable relationship, they may be able to offer children a home that is, at the very least, as valuable to their upbringing as one in which there is either a single parent, or a heterosexual couple with a bad relationship. Hence, it would seem illogical to discriminate in this matter.

the above is an extract of a book I am reading.
answer this :

Is what they wish to do morally right?
my answer is yup.


Qwaider قويدر said...

"Is what they wish to do morally right?
my answer is yup."

What exactly are you referring to? Homosexual marriages? Or adoption? Or homosexuality in general?

Anonymous said...

homosexuality is a sign that a civilization is in the last stages of decay. It has always been like this and it will always be. It is all about emotional disturbance or mental disorder.

Tala said...


"Two adults of the same sex are attracted to one another. They wish to express that attraction physically. to live together with the same legal and social support that they would receive as a heterosexual couple, to adopt children, and to bring them up in a family home. Is what they wish to do morally right?"

the rest of the post is a set of arguments with and against the above statement, the question is " is what they wish to do morally right before it being anything else? if yes, if no, provide a counter argument. what do you have in mind?

ps: thanks for commenting

Tala said...


how did you come to this conclusion?

Historian said...

First of all thanks for the post..
I would like to ask a question though before i answer... Do they wish to declare that to the entire world or is it a private matter ?

Tala said...

Historian, hello & Welcome to the discussion, to answer your question, yes they wish to declare it to the rest of the world

Historian said...


I don't think its "sign that a civilization is in the last stages of decay" since Homosexuality is present very long time ago.. as Classical Greece serves as an example to us.

Is it morally right? I think Yes too. As long as they doesn't affect other people's life, i can't find any reason why can't they follow their path of happiness. Whether they chose that path or want that path.. its non of my business.. as everyone choses certain paths.

Now other aspects... which don't correspond to the moral part.. are another story.

The Observer said...

I am proud of you Tala :)

Zait o Za3tar said...

Yes I think it is morally right. They are not harming anyone and no-one should decide for others how they should express their love to one another

Tala said...

Historian, Thanks for your input
I like to hear more from you, where do you think it becomes problematic?

Fadi, ZoZ Thank you for your comments =D appreciated

with the few people who read this, we can agree - I hope - that this statement is morally right. good

now, the next big thing, how applicable is it?

ps. I enjoy thinking in parallel with ppl

Historian said...

Well, it gets problematic when viewed in religious context. Since most religions condemns such acts if not prohibit.

Is it applicable? Yes and No. Yes in an open minded society where everyone minds his own business.. and where freedom of expression is granted provided it doesn't harm anyone. No in a growing society where conservative values are the basis of ethics and moral which requires further effort.

p.s. i like the level of understanding in the discussion :)

bambam said...

"Yes and No. [...]No in a growing society where conservative values are the basis of ethics and moral which requires further effort. "
Then doesn't mean in this case that they are elements of positive change and allies for such causes ? and wouldn't them coming out to the open and challenging those values be a good thing ?

Historian said...

I think it is a good thing. Thats why i said it requires further effort, but it needs some time.. and its not easy at all.. for both sides.

Qwaider قويدر said...

I think Morality [should] have nothing to do with the whole argument pro or against homosexual rights. These are human rights regardless of a person's sexual orientation or choice.
However, there are certain rights that I dot see homosexual "couples" able to perform properly. Raising children, because they don't represent a nuclear family. Which means they will greatly influence the children.
Now the moment the relationship between two (or more) people starts affecting other lives, is the red line we all need to draw. The argument that "having a home is better than having the kids grow up with a dysfunctional couple", although that is true, it is not the rule, it's the exception. On the other hand having the children grow up in a family that has a completely skewed version of a family will likely cause them to follow the same steps. In other words, that is also -possibly- influencing their true heterosexual nature, in favor of homosexuality that they have grown into.

AbuSundus said...

Hi Tala,

I don't agree with your answer for a simple reason:
all the arguments that agree with your answer depends and assumes one fact which is:
"Some people are naturally attracted by members of the same sex".
i think that we should think in how natural are these relations, and let's take the sexual relationship between animals as a neutral sample, animals need sexual relation for the sake of procreation and the physical pleasure as humans but not affected by social,moral or even logical conditions (everything is going instinctively)we will see that all these relations are heterosexual, we will never see a heterosexual animal because this is very far from nature.

according to this argument we can't say that homosexual relationship resembles a heterosexual relationship with a marriage that is known to be infertile. homosexuality should be regarded as a crime and should be prohibited (by the authority of the community) the same way suicide is prohibited, we should not allow any one who enjoys seeing his arm bleeding, or feels good if he murders himself from doing that even if he is not harming any one.

AbuSundus said...

one more idea.. (sorry if i talked too much).

your argument that divide the achievements of sexuality is also not accurate. i think that all the 3 points can be summarized into the last one "the conception of children".
All the basic physical needs of human being life (food,water,air,survival,..) are always associated with some kind of instinct. we eat food because we are hungry, we drink water because of thirst, and in the same way we avoid extinction by procreation, human is forced to procreate by the mean of sex, looking at the sexual relation itself as an abstract physical behavior is very disgusting to the human. accepting this argument implies that: *physical pleasure is closely attached to the procreation **"the deepening of a relationship" doesn't need to be expressed by a sexual relation. and this support "the natural law" in the first argument in your post.

I hope that enrich the discussion .. :)

Tala said...

"it gets problematic when viewed in religious context"

this is true at the individual level, but in a multi-faith and multi ethnic society, who decides what is acceptable?

"Morality [should] have nothing to do with the whole argument"

the essence of the problem is moral, and mostly I think for heterosexuals, for, a crucial moral question for one person maybe of negligible significance to another. if I am troubled about a thought and I cant make up my mind about it, some other person could just not go through all what I thought of as a problem in the first place. weighing things out, thinking of final causes, intentions and values is a moral issue

"These are human rights regardless of a person's sexual orientation or choice"

yes, if you take the declaration of human rights as a reference it says that human rights are birth rights and they include " the right to marry and to found a family. ppl are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution "

now, think how a homosexual would get married if you follow Christianity or Islam, here is one problem! someone could start asking " what is marriage in the first place? " and if marriage is done through religions and is embedded in the social order, then they present a social function. now, I want to introduce new functions, what to do ?? religion is fixed but humans are expansionists ppl...

as far adoption is concerned, "what is a nuclear family" comes to mind, should the focus be on having 2 natural sexual role models (mom and dad) , or should we focus on loving, nurturing parents, whether a single mother or a gay couple living in a committed relationship?

as for the part where qwaider mentioned that growing up with homosexual couple could affect the kids orientation, here you assumed that orientation is a choice, then you said it could skew the kids natural heterosexuality, so I don't get where you stand. if a boy is naturally hetero, how he/she would turn to homo ?

Tala said...

Abu Sundus,

Welcome on board, of course you enrich the discussion, write here all you want, I love to hear some feedback.

ok, lets go back to the natural law theory, it says that God created the world, and everything therefore should have god's ultimate purpose as its final cause, so to understand god's will for it, and what is the right thing to do to get there, you only have to look at the purpose for which it has been made, what we temporary do is like an efficient cause that gets things done, till we get to the final cause which is the end product, apply it to heterosexual intercourse, you will find that the efficient cause is sexual arousal & the act itself, and the end product is - drum roll - producing another human being

so if you follow this line of thought, you will conclude that abortion is wrong, homosexual activity is wrong,contraceptive pills are wrong,condoms are wrong, masturbation, oral sex are wrong. you strictly should have sex to bring kids! that's how religions think.

as for animals, I assure you if you take a look at the cats in your neighborhood, you will spot homosexual activity.

so if it really was about the end cause, we are made to fulfill our purpose, who knows what our purpose is? really? its something that is constantly modified based on our understanding, we always try to develop an understanding to what we are and where we are.

and if you want to look at it the other way around, if heterosexual intercourse was the only right, why should I celibate? what if I chose not to get married at all, or a marriage was infertile, all drains to the same conclusion.

one choice is morally acceptable, while the other is not. one choice no one complains about, the other we socially mark as wrong.

(3 points can be summarized into the last one "the conception of children".)

if so is right, then why you commit to a single relationship throughout your life? why do you marry a certain someone? can you marry anybody?

Ali said...

This is an interesting debate, thanks Tala for sharing. I don't think Homosexuality is the sign of an ending time as people assume since it existed long time ago. I do agree that Homosexuals are free to do what they want and yes they can adpot if they are capable of that, but there should be certains rules for that just like with hetrosexual parents. A child will not be raised gay or lesbian because his/her parents are, this is a dumb assumption. I have to agree that it is not the norm for kids ot have gay parents, but actualy kids do have gay parents who are in the closet or who are bisexual. I have met a couple of cases and the kids were just fine.
I think that the society and culture in general is what makes it diffciult for homosexual couples. We chose to make it hard on them/