Sir, homosexuality is not immoral, sir!
Sir, homosexuality is not immoral, sir!
By Eric Zorn
Originally posted: March 13, 2007
Copyright by The Chicago Tribune
I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts... Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explaining to the Tribune why he supports the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving in the military.
Our click polling so far shows a very narrow majority disagree with Gen. Pace about the morality of homosexual acts, which leads me to a question that doesn't have an easy yes/no answer:
What is it about any given act or behavior that makes it immoral?
We throw the word "immoral" around rather indiscriminately, it seems to me. But what does it really mean? What test or tests do you apply when you're making distinctions, passing judgments and preparing to pull out "immoral," one of the biggest cudgels in the thesaurus?
This is a big, complicated topic, I know. The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a very readable, 5,200-word entry on the topic that hits a few high points.
But let's wade in: To me, the first test is whether there's a victim; whether the act causes significant harm to other people; kills, injures, takes advantage of or otherwise exploits or deprives them for no good purpose.
Such acts tend to be illegal -- murder, theft and so on. But certain legal, self-destructive acts -- gambling or drinking to such excess that you burden your family, friends and community -- are also arguably immoral in my view. Adultery. Lying to gain personal advantage. I will not name them all.
A common argument is that any act that harms society, even indirectly, tangentially or abstractly, qualifies as immoral.
It's immoral (as well as illegal) to use cocaine, I was told in the context of the discussion over Barack Obama's admission to having used the drug in high school, if for no other reason than your drug money supports the violent, predatory and destructive drug cartels.
It's immoral to have sex before marriage, some say, because acceptance of pre-marital sex weakens the bonds of family that ultimately hold society together.
Similarly, the non-scriptural argument I've heard saying homosexuality is immoral has to do with its biological purposelessness -- a version of the "what if everybody did it?" gambit. Homosexuality doesn't propagate the species and is therefore not constructive. If universally practiced, it would bring an end to humankind.
The same is true of celibacy, of course, though no one attacks that as immoral.
And the truth is that it will never be universally practiced and will never have a significant impact on the world's population. As is, homosexuality seems fairly benign to me -- not my thing, but not my business, either.
I'm interested particularly in hearing from those in the 46 percent of you who've clicked yes, homosexuality is immoral: What's your case?
By Eric Zorn
Originally posted: March 13, 2007
Copyright by The Chicago Tribune
I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts... Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explaining to the Tribune why he supports the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving in the military.
Our click polling so far shows a very narrow majority disagree with Gen. Pace about the morality of homosexual acts, which leads me to a question that doesn't have an easy yes/no answer:
What is it about any given act or behavior that makes it immoral?
We throw the word "immoral" around rather indiscriminately, it seems to me. But what does it really mean? What test or tests do you apply when you're making distinctions, passing judgments and preparing to pull out "immoral," one of the biggest cudgels in the thesaurus?
This is a big, complicated topic, I know. The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a very readable, 5,200-word entry on the topic that hits a few high points.
But let's wade in: To me, the first test is whether there's a victim; whether the act causes significant harm to other people; kills, injures, takes advantage of or otherwise exploits or deprives them for no good purpose.
Such acts tend to be illegal -- murder, theft and so on. But certain legal, self-destructive acts -- gambling or drinking to such excess that you burden your family, friends and community -- are also arguably immoral in my view. Adultery. Lying to gain personal advantage. I will not name them all.
A common argument is that any act that harms society, even indirectly, tangentially or abstractly, qualifies as immoral.
It's immoral (as well as illegal) to use cocaine, I was told in the context of the discussion over Barack Obama's admission to having used the drug in high school, if for no other reason than your drug money supports the violent, predatory and destructive drug cartels.
It's immoral to have sex before marriage, some say, because acceptance of pre-marital sex weakens the bonds of family that ultimately hold society together.
Similarly, the non-scriptural argument I've heard saying homosexuality is immoral has to do with its biological purposelessness -- a version of the "what if everybody did it?" gambit. Homosexuality doesn't propagate the species and is therefore not constructive. If universally practiced, it would bring an end to humankind.
The same is true of celibacy, of course, though no one attacks that as immoral.
And the truth is that it will never be universally practiced and will never have a significant impact on the world's population. As is, homosexuality seems fairly benign to me -- not my thing, but not my business, either.
I'm interested particularly in hearing from those in the 46 percent of you who've clicked yes, homosexuality is immoral: What's your case?
posted by Carlos T Mock at 11:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home