America is sliding backwards in time.
Republican support for same sex marriage is dropping. (https://apnews.com/article/samesex-marriage-acceptance-polling-lgbtq-bcaa1e606e5d2e498247b027683f6e68)
I realize that advocating for gay rights on Tumblr is the equivalent of preaching Islam in Mecca. But I have to rant. I have to get this out of my system.
There is no intellectually respectable argument for believing that homosexuality is “morally wrong.” None.
-“It’s against nature.” The entire notion of “natural” v. “unnatural” is a conceptual construction which has no existence in objective, ultimate reality. Any boundary drawn between natural or unnatural is entirely arbitrary. One could very plausibly argue that airplanes are some gross violation of the natural order.
-“Homosexual behaviors are risky.” Heterosexuals also engage in anal sex, oral sex, etc. If these behaviors are done with protection, and caution, they are safe. And there is one little risk which pertains to heterosexual sex that cis homosexuals never have to fear, if you haven’t forgotten…pregnancy.
-“The homosexual lifestyle is promiscuous”. Promiscuity is not inherent to homosexuality, try another one.
-“I personally think it’s gross.” This has no relation to ethics. You would be repulsed at the sight of two ugly cishet people having sex. That wouldn’t make it immoral. Keep trying.
-“Homosexuality makes men weak…” In antiquity, the Greeks linked homosexuality (being a top) with masculinity and strength. Phaedrus argued that an army in which men shared romantic & sexual love for one another would be invincible (Plato’s Symposium 178e). The notion that homosexuality equals weakness is a cultural construct.
-“The Bible says…”, “The Qur’an says…”, etc. I acknowledge the spiritual value of the Bible and the Qur’an. I don’t dismiss them wholesale. These texts have genuine wisdom to offer. I cannot say that about every single sentence in these texts. These scriptures contain scientific errors. Historical errors. Philosophically objectionable content.
To accept every single verse of either text as divinely inspired, inerrant truth is indefensible.
(Note: Many liberals will take the strategy of denying that the Bible or the Qur’an condemn homosexuality. The interpretive gymnastics required to arrive at that position are intellectually dishonest. Just ditch the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. Make philosophical soundness the criterion of which verses you follow.)
-“The official position of the church…” You don’t have to reject ALL of Catholic spirituality to reject one particular edict of the Vatican. You can believe that human fallibility has crept in. That doesn’t mean you have to toss your entire faith out of the window.
-“If we accept homosexuality today, we’ll accept bestiality tomorrow…” Slippery slope fallacy. “If we permit women to show their ankles today, we’ll have a nudist society tomorrow…”
-“The purpose of sex is reproduction” I don’t see you scolding married straight couples for just having fun. Also what a drab, nihilistic, disturbing perspective on sex. Do you apply this position to food as well?
-“Every child needs a mother and a father” How does this pertain to homosexuality as a whole?
-*Attempts to link homosexuality & pedophilia* There is no inherent relationship between the two. Your point has zero relevance to whether it’s permissible for two consenting adult males or two consenting adult females to have sex with each other. You failed.
2087
titsay
gracieabrams
germansingergirl
