Morality is a vast phenomenon that can be argued from a
personal viewpoint (ethical egoism & utilitarianism), from one society to
another (relativism) and depending one's ability to be tolerant of the society around
you. However, the homosexual bug is a multipronged thorn that has pricked into
many a societies' moral subscription.
Many advocates for the societal acceptance and embracing of homosexuality have always claimed that homosexuality is genetically predetermined. While this is a dubious scientific claim, let’s grant for the sake of argument that people are genetically disposed to certain behaviors, including homosexuality. The problem is that genetic disposition has zero implications for the morality of a behavior. I am not a specialist in genetics and sex development and as such this argument is not proven.
However, to argue out my stand, let's take these three other classes of 'abnormal' sexual builds - necrophilia, zoophilia and paedophilia. If a homosexual claims he was born that way, these three classes can also lay the same claim. Consequently, then, we might be convinced that paedophiles are born with a predisposition towards sex with children, necrophildds turned on at the site of corpses and zoophiles just can't resist animals. But few would want to claim that therefore it was moral, right, and good. How moral is an adult having sex with an underdeveloped human being? Man having sex with animals? The dead? Don't these people need to be accepted in society too, based on the yardstick being used by the homosexual community as armoury?
Alcoholics might be born with a predisposition to drink, but the Alcoholics Anonymous has never proclaimed alcoholism to be a moral activity on these grounds.
Maybe, I'm just being too shallow. Someone educate me.
Many advocates for the societal acceptance and embracing of homosexuality have always claimed that homosexuality is genetically predetermined. While this is a dubious scientific claim, let’s grant for the sake of argument that people are genetically disposed to certain behaviors, including homosexuality. The problem is that genetic disposition has zero implications for the morality of a behavior. I am not a specialist in genetics and sex development and as such this argument is not proven.
However, to argue out my stand, let's take these three other classes of 'abnormal' sexual builds - necrophilia, zoophilia and paedophilia. If a homosexual claims he was born that way, these three classes can also lay the same claim. Consequently, then, we might be convinced that paedophiles are born with a predisposition towards sex with children, necrophildds turned on at the site of corpses and zoophiles just can't resist animals. But few would want to claim that therefore it was moral, right, and good. How moral is an adult having sex with an underdeveloped human being? Man having sex with animals? The dead? Don't these people need to be accepted in society too, based on the yardstick being used by the homosexual community as armoury?
Alcoholics might be born with a predisposition to drink, but the Alcoholics Anonymous has never proclaimed alcoholism to be a moral activity on these grounds.
Maybe, I'm just being too shallow. Someone educate me.
