Authored by: Nocterro.

Introduction

The position I will be defending is this: Homosexual behaviour is morally permissible in the same situations in which heterosexual behaviour is morally permissible; i.e., there is no qualitative difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex. I will be critiquing the position “all homosexual sex is immoral”.

First, a brief word on marriage. One might be inclined to object to my argument on the grounds that any sort of sex is only permissible within marriage, and since homosexuals cannot by definition get married, then homosexual sex is never morally permissible. This, however, must be defended. Why think homosexuals cannot marry? Perhaps because of religious reasons – I will address religious concerns in the second section of this essay.

That being said, I will begin my case by offering an argument for the moral permissibility of some instances of homosexual behaviour. I will then defend the premises of my argument; first by discussing the beneficial results of homosexual behaviour, then by refuting common objections to such practices.

Argument

Premise 1: In cases where the good-making properties of a behaviour are much greater than the bad-making properties, then that behaviour is prima facie morally permissible.

Premise 2: There is a subset of homosexual sexual relationships where the good-making properties are much greater than the bad-making properties.

Premise 3: There is a subset of homosexual sexual relationships that are prima facie morally permissible.

Premise 4: If there is a prima facie support for the permissibility of something, and there are no good reasons to support its impermissibility, then it should be deemed permissible.

Premise 5: There are no good reasons to suppose this subset of homosexual sexual relationships are impermissible.

Conclusion: This subset of homosexual sexual relationships is permissible.

The “set” referred to in premise 2 is all homosexual sexual relationships in which the participants are similarly situated to a heterosexual couple participating in morally permissible sexual acts.. For the purposes of this essay, I will take this to mean only those homosexual sexual relationships which can be considered committed, monogamous, and healthy/disease-free. I will exclude acts of rape, acts of infidelity, acts which may result in contraction of an STD, and other such behaviours. In other words, there is nothing about homosexual behaviour that renders it intrinsically immoral; that is, there is nothing that makes homosexual behaviour immoral just because it is homosexual.

In defense of 1, consider an analogy. Imagine you walk past a restaurant, and you see through the window that someone is eating a stick of celery. The man eating the celery has a smile on his face – it is obvious that he is enjoying it. Furthermore, you know that celery is fairly healthy for the body; it’s low in fat and calories. Now imagine that you enter the restaurant and speak with the man to find out more information. He tells you, “Oh, I absolutely love to eat celery. Not only is it delicious, but it’s good for you. And I eat only the finest – fresh, clean celery; only from this restaurant.”

It becomes clear that, at least on the surface, eating celery is innocuous, and should be considered morally permissible. Barring some not-so-obvious reasons, we can safely conclude that there is nothing immoral about the man eating the celery. In such a situation, given what we know about the circumstances, we would lack justification to conclude that eating celery is immoral – we cannot say things are immoral “just because”.

Love is All You Need

So, what are the great goods which homosexual behaviour results in?

The first good-making property is intimacy. Sex between partners (at least within the context of a committed relationship) fosters feelings of closeness and love toward one’s partner. It is also the case that when homosexuals in committed, monogamous relationships have children (either by adoption, artificial insemination, or other means), the benefits of the intimacy created by sex are passed on to the child in the form of a more loving, caring environment for child-rearing.

This also solves another current problem we have – children without parents. Currently, there are many children in orphanages and foster homes. As homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other naturally, they are good candidates for adoption. This gives these children a loving, caring home to grow up in. Research shows that children raised by homosexual parents do just as well as their peers raised by heterosexual parents. Professor of pediatrics Ellen C. Perrin testifies, “The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way…”In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.”[1]

Sandra B. Stier testifies that “marriage would be a way to tell ‘our friends, our family, our society, our community, our parents…and each other that this is a lifetime commitment…we are not girlfriends. We are not partners. We are married.’”; and Kristin M. Perry that “marriage would provide her with what she wants most in life: a stable relationship with Stier, the woman she loves and with whom she has built a life and family.”[2] When individuals provide testimony about their own mental and emotional states, we generally take them at their word (assuming they are not mentally ill). Richard Swinburne’s Principle of Testimony can be applied to such a situation – “with the absence of any reason to disbelieve them, one should accept that eye-witnesses or believers are telling the truth when they testify about religious experiences.”

We should certainly take the testimony of the above individuals to be true; they are not mentally ill, and there is no reason to suppose they are lying. It seems true that these two individuals at least, and likely many similar homosexual couples, view their relationships as ones based on trust, intimacy, and love. Indeed, their relationship is likely stronger, more beneficial to them, and more conducive to child-rearing than some heterosexual relationships.

Another good-making property is marriage. Keeping in mind that the topic of this essay is “Homosexual behaviour is immoral”, one can count not just sexual activities, but also homosexual marriages as “behaviour” (and of course marriages routinely include sex). It is certainly the case that allowing homosexuals to marry provides economic benefits to society – weddings are often expensive, and provide a good amount of cash flow into the economy; both from the marriage itself and from subsequent marriage-related purchases (wedding gifts, larger homes, etc.) To give a real world example, economist Lee Badget(A) is of the opinion that “Proposition 8 has inflicted substantial economic harm on same-sex couples and their children”, and that “Proposition 8 has imposed economic losses on the state of California”.[2]

I Am What I Am

However, perhaps the most important good-making property has to do with one’s very identity. It is agreed upon by almost all psychologists that sexual orientation is in fact not a choice – the causes of homosexuality are complex, and changing orientation is difficult if not impossible.

Despite claims from individuals with personal interests in showing that one’s orientation can be changed, it is the consensus that even attempting to change one’s sexuality can be quite damaging to mental health, and as such it is advised against – rather, homosexuals are encouraged to accept themselves. Actor David Yost, for example, spent two years in an ex-gay ministry; after which time he suffered a “nervous breakdown” resulting in a five-week hospital stay.[3] The official stance of the American Psychiatric Association is that “…some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable”.[4] This is a very important good-making property – accepting one’s orientation involves pursuing relationships which (usually) include sex. Of course, we could say that exactly when such an individual should or should not have sex is up for debate – but not that sex should remain unavailable to the homosexual in all situations.

There are also other (less important) good-making properties. Pleasure is one. Homosexuals derive pleasure from having sex with their partners. Some other minor good-making properties include stress relief and cardiovascular exercise. As these can be obtained in other ways, I mention them only in passing.

Rectifying Rectal Misinformation

One of the more common criticisms of homosexual behaviour is that it has negative health effects, both physical and mental. However, research into modern medicine and psychology show that this is simply not the case.

The first form of this criticism involves anal sex. It is a common misconception that most homosexuals regularly engage in anal sex. In fact, many do not – and many heterosexuals do. A poll from the Center For Disease Control shows that while only 6 percent of males age 15-44 have had “any same-sex sexual contact”, 34 percent have had anal sex. Furthermore, 30 percent of females age 15-44 have had anal sex.[5] It is a simple fact that anal sex is not exclusively homosexual.

It is another misconception that anal sex is often physically damaging. For example, anal sex is not a recognized cause of fecal incontinence (inability to control bowel movements)[6][7][8]; while childbirth is. While it is true that anal sex is riskier than oral or vaginal sex, it is not nearly as risky as some would like to say. When performed correctly (with an STD-free partner, slowly, and with a condom), the risks fall well within the “acceptable” range. In any case, even if it can be shown that anal sex leads to physical damage of the body 100 percent of the time, this is at best a case against anal sex itself, not homosexual sex – homosexuals have other types of sex available to them.

Hit Me, Beat Me, Make Me Do My Taxes

Some individuals and organizations[9] claim that there is a higher rate of domestic abuse among homosexuals. While this may or may not be true (statistics on this are ambiguous, as most cases are never reported[10][11]), this is merely a correlation – it needs to be shown that there is something about being gay that makes one intrinsically more prone to abuse. Furthermore, here are some interesting statistics for abuse rates in various groups:

heterosexual – 17 percent, gay/lesbian – 28 percent, bisexual – 41 percent, married – 13 percent, single – 13 percent, single no children – 19 percent, separated divorced or widowed – 41 percent. [12]

gay men – 15 percent, lesbians – 11 percent [13]

gay and lesbian couples – 25-33 percent [14]

As one can see, different studies have concluded very different abuse rates. However, here’s a reductio for this argument:

1) If a population has a significantly higher abuse rate than the heterosexual population, being a practicing member of that population is always immoral.
2) The population “homosexuals” has a significantly higher abuse rate than the heterosexual population.
3) Being a practicing member of the population “homosexuals” is always immoral.
4) The population “separated, divorced, or widowed” has a significantly higher abuse rate then the heterosexual population.
5) Being a practicing member of the population “separated, divorced, or widowed” is always immoral.

The group in premise 4 can be replaced with any group that a study shows has high rates of abuse/violence. We should be wary when one cites statistics to support such an argument – remember, correlation does not equal causation, and statistics can vary. Of course I agree that domestic abuse of any kind is immoral, however statistics regarding domestic abuse cannot show that a certain lifestyle is always immoral. the 72 percent of gay/lesbian individuals in this study should not be deemed immoral just because 28 percent of their population experiences domestic abuse. It’s also easy to just say “Homosexual sex which occurs in abusive relationships is immoral, while homosexual sex in stable, loving relationships is not”.

You’re My Favorite Damn Disease

Another common criticism of homosexual sex involves STD rates. It is claimed that homosexuals have a much higher risk of contracting an STD. This is highly misinformed. The average prevalance of STDs (gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV) among men who have sex with men is about 9%[15]. While it is true that the prevalence of STDs is higher here than in heterosexual males, three things must be noted.

First, the difference is actually only a few percent. While 9 percent is twice as high as 4.5 percent, it’s still only a small difference; the risk is still low. Second, in 2008, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis rates were highest among african-americans, representing 49, 71, and 49 percent of total cases, respectively.[16] If an argument against homosexual sex from STD rates works, then an argument against sex with african-americans from STD rates works as well. The implied syllogism in the argument from STDs seems to be this:

1. If an action is likely to result in contracting an STD, that action is immoral.
2. Homosexual sex is likely to result in contracting an STD.
3. Homosexual sex is immoral.

However, considering the STD rates in african-americans cited above, we may replace premise 2:

2’. Sex with an african-american is likely to result in contracting an STD.

thus leaving us with a morally repugnant conclusion: that it is immoral to have sex with an african-americans. Third, there are actually (as of 2005), no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV.[17]

This is also irrelevant. It is important to note (although this should not even need to be stated) that homosexual acts do not create the pathogens which infect one with HIV and other STDs. Rather, one contracts an STD by having sex with someone who has that STD already. So, this is at best an argument for safe sex, not an argument against homosexual sex – as well as an argument I completely agree with.

So, if we restrict our moral scope to the question “Is it immoral for a committed, monogamous, disease-free homosexual couple to have sex?”, objections based on perceived dangers of anal sex, domestic abuse, and risk of contracting an STD fall flat. What other objection to such acts might one give?

Breaking the Natural Law

Another criticism of homosexual sex is the so-called “natural law” objection. This objection, in essence, says two things:

1) We should only use our faculties and abilities for their intended, primary, or natural purpose.
2) The intended, primary, or natural purpose of sex is for procreation.

The issue here is what is meant by language such as intended, primary, and natural.

First, ‘intended’. To assign intent to something requires personhood. When we say “a corkscrew is intended to open wine bottles”, what we mean is that a corkscrew is for opening wine bottles. This is its purpose. If no persons existed (and yet somehow a corkscrew still did), then the object would not be intended for anything – it would just be.

So, who decides what sex is intended for? Perhaps God – but I’ll get to that later. If not God, then it is surely us, ourselves. Thus, if homosexuals decide that sex is intended for something other than procreation, then it is. It cannot be nature – there is no “ought” in nature, there is only “is”. So, this line of reasoning can only possibly work if God is the one deciding the intent.

What about primary purpose? We use other faculties and abilities for non-primary purposes all the time, and no one ever questions it. We use our legs and feet for leg presses in addition to walking, for example. So, what’s wrong with “hijacking” sex for non-procreative purposes?

There are also purposes to sex other than procreation. These can be referred to as “natural purposes”, or more simply, “effects”. Surely we would not say a situation in which a heterosexual couple has sex only for procreative purposes is equal to or better than a situation in which the couple uses sex for procreative purposes, and also experiences pleasure and intimacy. So, even if it is the case that it is better for one to use sex for all of its functions (procreation + everything else), what’s the problem with dropping the procreation function? Dropping procreation might be less good (just as donating a thousand dollars to charity is less good than donating two thousand), but I fail to see why it would be bad.

Through a Glass, Ignorantly

Despite the supposed “secular arguments” against homosexual acts, we notice one very telling fact: these secular arguments are posited almost exclusively by people with prior religious motivations.

What would we expect to see if the secular case against homosexuality worked? Let’s use another issue as a case study: the issue of the death penalty. There are people from all walks of life against the death penalty – Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, and atheist; and they generally all use similar arguments. This is not the case with regard to homosexuality. The arguments against it are all but quarantined to religious fundamentalism. Why is it that so very few liberal Christians, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists are convinced by these arguments? Probably because they just don’t work. There seems to be no working secular case against homosexual acts.

When You Assume…

Other than natural law, the most common objection to homosexual behaviour has to do with one’s religion. As the religious portion of the people reading this will be mostly Christian, I will focus on Christian objections exclusively; although some of these objections might also work for adherents of other religions.

The objection consists of citing verses from the Bible which (implicity or explicity) point to divine commands from God prohibiting homosexual behaviour.

While such a case against homosexuality may seem convincing to the believer, there are a number of hidden assumptions that not everyone is going to accept. Here is a list, in order of logical progression (from general to specific):

persons exist -> some sort of deity exists -> that deity is a “personal God” -> Divine Command Theory is true -> that deity is Yahweh -> Jesus Christ is divine -> the Bible is the inspired word of God -> the Bible is infallible -> the correct interpretation of certain verses in the Bible is that all homosexual acts are immoral

There are a great many assumptions here – and all of them must be adequately defended before a Christian can make a convincing case for the immorality of all homosexual behaviour. Such a case will not convince a Buddhist, as Buddhists deny actual personhood. Such a case will not convince a Deist, as deists deny that a “personal God” exists. Such a case will not even convince a liberal Christian, as liberal Christians deny either the interpretation assumption, or the infallible Bible assumption.

Now, I could critique any of these assumptions in order to defeat the Christian case against homosexuality. However, I will be extremely generous here. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that every single one of the above propositions is true.

Past, Present, and Future

1. God’s commands hold if and only if those commands benefit us in some way.
2. God’s commands prohibiting all homosexual acts no longer benefit us.
3. God’s commands prohibiting all homosexual acts no longer hold.

First, some clarification. By “command”, I mean any rule, law, prohibition, obligation, or moral statement that can be evidenced via scripture as being declared, either implicitly or explicitly, by God. By “benefit”, I mean to say that such a command has some positive influence or result such that we are better off following it than not.

There is biblical evidence that God’s commands can, and have, changed. For example, in Genesis 4:3-4, Cain and Abel offer sacrifices to God – No one nowadays would even think of arguing that this is permissible. Furthermore, we were not required to have faith in Christ before (roughly) 5 B.C., while we are now. Other commands only apply to certain groups of people at certain times, in certain situations (see Hebrew ritual laws). So, we can establish that at least possibly, commands against homosexuality no longer apply. We can also run this argument with any of God’s other commands – as a thought experiment, replace “prohibiting all homosexual acts” with “prohibiting the eating of pork”, and the argument still works.

How are we to tell whether they still apply? Simple – look at whether such commands still benefit us, either individually or as a society. Let’s look at some facts (see previous section):

A) Homosexuals can love each other.
B) Homosexuals can have safe sex.
C) Homosexuals can raise children.

Looking at these, and other related facts, one is now rather hard-pressed to think of a benefit that a command against all homosexual behaviour might have today. One might say that the command still holds in order for humanity to continue to procreate and thus keep the species going, however this objection simply does not work. Only about 8-10 percent of the population is homosexual – it’s not as if removing/voiding this command would cause a huge chunk of the population to become exclusively homosexual. This percentage has, as far as we can tell, remained roughly constant in most societies throughout recorded history.

Furthermore, even if the entire human population (for whatever reason) suddenly became homosexual, humanity would not even then die out. Homosexuals, despite their attraction to the same sex, still desire to raise children. Just like a sterile couple who relies on sperm donation and/or a surrogate mother to reproduce, so too can homosexual couples reproduce (and, just like the sterile couple, will not love or care for their children any less due to the method of procreation). It seems that, today, the procreation rate would be wholly unaffected by lifting a command contra-homosexuality.

Now, one might object to premise 1 on the grounds that the purpose of God’s commands is not to benefit us. One might say that, as Calvinism states, God’s commands serve the purpose of bringing him glory. To this I can only say that there are good reasons for thinking, even if one is a Christian, that Calvinism is false. Here’s a brief sketch of how one might go about showing this:

1 Timothy 2:4 says that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth”. Now, obviously not all people are saved – this fact must be accounted for. Under non-Calvinistic theologies, this is accounted for via libertarian free will. Since Calvinism does not admit libertarian free will, (pending other theodicies) either Calvinism is false, or Christianity as a whole is false.

While much more can be said on whether Calvinism is true and/or correct interpretation of scripture, such a discussion is beyond the scope of this essay. Furhermore, one could also simply argue that Christianity itself is false (perhaps via Schellenberg’s divine hiddenness argument), or that God does not exist, or attack any of the above assumptions. However, these are topics for another time. My argument above will hopefully convince at least some of my readers that some instances of homosexual behaviour are permissible even within Christianity.

Conclusion: All Good Things…

To summarize: if there are many good things about homosexual behaviour, and no good reasons to think it is immoral, then we should conclude that homosexual behaviour is indeed permissible, at least in certain circumstances. I have shown that there are some very good things that result from homosexual behaviour; among these are intimacy, identity, child-rearing environments, economic benefits, and pleasure. I have also attempted to refute some of the more common arguments for thinking it is immoral; such as health concerns about anal sex, STD and abuse rates, natural law/proper fuction objections, and religious objections.

Enjoy your celery.

————————————————–
(A) Badgett received her PhD in economics from UC Berkeley in 1990; and has co-authored two reports analyzing the fiscal impact of allowing same-sex couples to marry in California.

[1] http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
[2] https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmlcuY8bOUk
[4] http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
[5] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf
[6] http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/seniors/common-older/067.html
[7] http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/003135.htm
[8] http://www.mayoclinic.org/fecal-incontinence/causes.html
[9] http://afaofpa.org/archives/news-release-same-sex-domestic-abuse-greater-threat/
[10] Frieze, I.H., Browne, A. (1989) Violence in Marriage. In L.E. Ohlin & M. H. Tonry (eds.) Family Violence. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[11] U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Criminal Victimization,” 2003.
[12] http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/pubs/files/IPV_PB_031810.pdf
[13] http://new.abanet.org/domesticviolence/Pages/Statistics.aspx#same-sex
[14] http://www3.uwstout.edu/cvpp/same_gender_stats.cfm
[15] http://www.cdc.gov/STD/stats08/msm.htm
[16] http://www.cdc.gov/STD/stats08/minorities.htm
[17] http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm