Can you objectively prove that being gay is wrong (in the same way you can prove rape/pedophilia is wrong)?

Asked by: chococat808
  • Here is an objective argument explaining why homosexual (sexual) behavior is improper/unacceptable

    The sexual system provides a set of facts about features and functions associated with the sexual system. If we wish to objectively determine how the sexual system is intended to be used, we must examine the facts indicated by the sexual system itself.

    The sexual system comprises physiological (organs, glands, hormones/chemicals and corresponding functions) and psychological components (attraction, emotions, etc). The physiological and psychological components are expected to be consistent and compatible with each other. Therefore, we can say the sexual system is expected to be a harmonious sexual system. If a sexual behavior introduces incompatibility, we identify the particular sexual behavior as improper for the sexual system (i.E., not based on opinion but based on the facts indicated by the sexual system).

    The same is true for the digestive system. In particular, we have, included within the digestive system, a physiological component to process food that we eat. With respect to the psychological aspects of the digestive system, we naturally have periodic desires to eat “real” food (which is targeted by the physiological digestive system) and some foods more than others. Furthermore, we don’t naturally desire “unreal” food such as paper when we are hungry.

    Considering the sexual system, a number of conclusions can be made.
    Fact1: The sexual system “indicates” that certain organs are sexual (genital) organs and certain other organs are non-sexual organs.
    Fact 2: The sexual system indicates that the normal expected sexual target is an ADULT, HUMAN of the OPPOSITE SEX.
    The objective conclusion is that the sexual system indicates that homosexual behavior is not a proper, expected or acceptable sexual behavior for the human sexual system. This same criterion in fact 2 allows us to reject other unacceptable forms or sexual behaviors.

    In fact, we can generalize and say both the attraction and the sexual behavior is unacceptable for the human sexual system.

    The sexual system tells us that a child is neither sexually developed physically nor psychologically for sex. Therefore, a child is not a logical sexual target for an adult. Therefore, we objectively conclude that pedophilia is improper and unacceptable sexual behavior or attraction (even before the behavior).

  • What's the difference?

    In some countries rape and pedophilia were not wrong under certain circumstances. Being gay can be called wrong if a lot of people call it wrong. Same with pedophilia and rape. I would say this is a leading question, because it assumes rape and pedophilia are objectively wrong. They aren't, and being gay is wrong in the same way.

  • Depends on who is being asked.

    First of all I want to say that I am not homophobic in any way and am a huge supporter of LGBT rights, and I am clearly stating my answer through philosophical reasoning. The truth is that being gay can not be objectively proved to be wrong or right, as I believe it is an opinion based issue. If you ask people throughout the United States and other civilized Western European countries, the majority of people will agree that there is no way to prove that being gay is wrong. However, if you were to ask people from other countries, such as the Islamic Middle Eastern countries, the majority of people would say that homosexuality is wrong. Also, we would have to know whether we are talking from a biological perspective, a religious one, or so on. For example, many Geneticists agree that homosexuality is an innate trait. Despite this, you would still have conflicting opinions from people. Some would say that since it is an innate trait, it can not be considered wrong since the person has no power over it. Another person would say that it is divine punishment that has a particular reason, as the 'all-powerful' god is not without reason. All in all, I say that YES it can be proved to be wrong by certain cultures, especially those that value religion above life itself.

  • Yes it is possible.

    At the outset i would like to clairfy that I am not against homosexuals and i feel that the way they are being treated by society is wrong.But there is a way to prove objectively that being gay can be morally wrong.(without refering to religion)
    The argument that i heard was something like this:
    1.It is morally wrong to misuse our organs and use them for purposes other than the things they were meant to do.
    2.The purpose of one's sex organs is very clear and that is procreation.
    3.To misuse one's organs solely for pleasure results in society as a whole sinking into Lust.
    4.Homosexuality cannot produce children, so homosexual sex invariably results in the misuse of one's organs.
    Hence it is morally wrong.
    Observe how this never says that homosexuality needs to be banned. A lot of immoral things like prostitution and pornography are tolerated in most modern societies, but that does not make them morally right

  • Even if society doesn't like it, it doesn't mean it is objectively wrong

    I have heard many arguments that try to prove how it is wrong, but all of them eventually failed. I am curious to see what kind of arguments people come up with.

    If your argument is simply because your mom and dad said so or that your religion says so, then my religion and mom and dad didn't say so, and neither are objective reasoning anyways.

  • Human morality is dependent on one party being a victim.

    In nature, humans learned a sort of morality that is widely accepted across the globe: If it hurts someone, it's wrong. We learned this morality because we needed to keep others in our tribal groups alive to aid our own survival. If Betty, Paul, and Ryan are in the same tribal group and Paul kills Ryan, Betty will shun Paul because he has jeopardized her survival. If Ryan was the best hunter in the group, they will starve to death. If Paul raped Ryan there would be similar outcomes. Ryan would be hindered Psychologically, as he would have been if he had been sexualised before he became pubescent. However, if Paul and Ryan were consenting gay adults, there relationship wouldn't negatively effect Betty, though she would have to look elsewhere in the group to find a suitable mate. The lack of a victim means that homosexuality is not wrong by the standards of basic human morality.

  • No, I can't.

    I can't objectively prove that either is wrong if by 'objective,' you mean something open to third person observation. Ultimately, our justification for morality comes from our innate sense of it in the same way that we have an innate sense that our memories are giving us true information about a past that actually happened. One can engage in moral reasoning with another person only as long as that other person shares some of the same basic moral intuitions.

  • No. It's complicated.

    Bear with me a bit here.

    Objective morality doesn't exist; morality is a subjective creation. Therefore, rape and pedophilia are not "objectively (morally) wrong". However, there can be objectively-observed effects of rape and pedophilia that form a basis for labeling them subjectively (morally) wrong. Rape and pedophilia are claimed wrong primarily because of the psychological and physical trauma that results from them in the majority of cases. Furthermore, there isn't really any mitigating factors (to my knowledge) to offset the potential damage.

    Thus, to prove that "being gay is wrong in the same way you can prove rape and pedophilia are wrong" requires proving that homosexuality causes objectively negative effects in excess of their objectively positive effects. If we take the definition of homosexuality and compare it to heterosexuality, we find only one potentially negative effect attributed to homosexuality alone: lower population size. After all, homosexual intercourse does not result in sexual reproduction.

    The problem here is that "homosexuals can't breed" isn't a significant enough objectively negative effect. Infertile heterosexual people can't reproduce either, and population sizes are a nuanced issue and not simply "more = good; less = bad". Even the fact that homosexual people not being considered morally wrong allows them to be more content and satisfied with themselves (and not shamed for something they can't necessarily control) is a positive effect strong enough to counter that. Adoptions are also a factor: population (or useful population) might be being lost through children being discarded (whether callously or tragically), while homosexual couples could support them. That's not a positive effect of homosexuality, just a counter for the perceived negative, but you get the point.

  • There is no objectivity in that debate.

    There is no way to objectively prove that being gay is wrong, because the arguments come from moral viewpoints or a misunderstanding of science. "Because the Bible says so," cannot be considered objective in any sense of the word. "It's a biological flaw" is frequently used by people with no background in actual biology. It's just a matter of emotion, not reality.

  • No because nature has no rights. We made them up

    All those things are taboos depending on the culture. What is acceptable to one country may not be in another. Nature has no Repercussions to any of those. It's society that chooses what is right and what is wrong. We have to decide what is right and what is wrong. Example what age does paedophilia become so? Animals don't care. Rape, animals can do this aand they don't care. Homosex uality is something done in the animal Kingdom and they don't care. Humans are not completely instinctual. We impose morality on ourselves so it can be down to subjective views.

  • If you're not hurting anyone it's nobody's business

    Evolution does not have rights. Nature does not have rights. Hypothetical deities do not have rights. Only people have rights.

    There is nothing that says that we should use any part of our body exclusively for the function it evolved for. In fact chances are the eyeball emerged from things which were originally for other purposes.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
themohawkninja says2013-11-26T04:40:14.383
If you can show sufficient objective evidence towards homosexuality having some negative impact on either the homosexual, their peers, or society, then perhaps, but that hasn't been asserted yet, so I can't know for sure.