Does Science show that Homosexual behaviour is immoral?

[McCulloch]

It has been argued that science shows that homosexual behavior is immoral. Anatomy and physiology and biology and DNA can help deescalate the words "ignorance" and "bigotry" about the sexuality of the human being. And of course sticking a penis into a rectum cannot find any scientific justification unless the person is mentally feeble, or a fumbly lover. In either case, science cannot support wrongdoings with the body's design. Someone putting their genitalia into the anal opening or into the mouth is empirically wrong. And female homosexuality is even more deviant to the norm. Any woman that ovulates is by physiology or anatomy or biology, heterosexual. Their body is expellinh an ovum that was not fertilized. Sexuality can only be defined by anatomy. That is perfect logic. Anything else is faith-based beliefs. And we all know that is a big no-no. [..] yet, when anyone thinks that the digestive tract is part of the sexual organs, it is laughable when they are protected by people who demand science be the final say in all matters of faith.

The argument runs like this:

1. Homosexual behavior is not procreative.
2. Non-procreative sexual behavior is not natural.
3. Unnatural sexual behavior is immoral.

therefore

• Homosexual behavior is immoral.

Is this argument true? Does science condemn homosexual behavior? The logic is flawless. If you accept these three premises, you must accept the conclusion. So, lets view each of the three points:

1. Homosexual behavior is not procreative. This premise is true. I am unaware of any anatomist, psychiatrist, biologist, anthropologist, sociologist, parent, gay activist or plumber who would argue against this premise.

2. Non-procreative sexual behavior is not natural. This premise is false. Psychiatry, anthropology and sociology all show that sexual behavior is far more than for procreation. Sexual behavior has social and psychiatrical functions in human society. This can also be shown in other primates. In nature, primates exhibit sexual behavior, even homosexual behavior, which is not procreative. Therefore, is is very clear to me that non-procreative sexual behavior is not necessarily unnatural.

3. Unnatural sexual behavior is immoral. I have not seen any support for this premise. Some natural sexual behavior can be shown to be immoral in human society. Forced sexual submission, rape, does occur in a number of mammalian species in nature including humans. It is immoral since it violates the will of one human by another. But, I have not seen any reasoning or logic which shows that unnatural sexual behavior is immoral. If someone were to show that unnatural sexual behavior is, in fact, immoral, then there might possibly be many common sexual activities which might be thus condemned. Could one say, "Lips are made for keeping food in your mouth when you chew, closing off the airway when you breath and forspeechh. Kissing is not natural. It is wrong to teach my children that kissing is a valid life choice. I don't want my children to learn to tolerate those left-leaning-bubble-headed people who have a kissing agenda."

Conclusion It cannot be shown that science proves that homosexual behavior is immoral.

[whatthe?]

Don't gay bashers have more important issues to deal with? How about world hunger? How about environmental polution? How about child abuse?

Even if I were opposed to homosexual activity (which I'm not - and I'm completely straight by the way not that its anyones business) I would tackle some of these OBVIOUSLY MORE URGENT issues first. World hunger vs Homosexuals? Tough call but I think I'll have to say that world hunger's gonna be taking up most of my time for a while?

[Chimp]

I don't think science is in the business of determining morality.

The scientific method is all about data and hypothesis, from which
interpretattions arise.

Where does picking your nose fall in the pantheon of immorality?

[ST88]

2. Non-procreative sexual behavior is not natural. This premise is false. Psychiatry, anthropology and sociology all show that sexual behavior is far more than for procreation. Sexual behavior has social and psychiatrical functions in human society. This can also be shown in other primates. In nature, primates exhibit sexual behavior, even homosexual behavior, which is not procreative. Therefore, is is very clear to me that non-procreative sexual behavior is not necessarily unnatural.

I would also state that the usual argument for "unnaturalness" has embedded within it that physical sexual arousal is shameful, and is unnatural in itself, which is clearly false since it has been shown to be an autonomic biological function. The immorality can't stem from biology because the biology denies it. If it were based on biology, then there would be no arousal for anything but behaviors that were reproductive in nature.

[Jose]

If "science" were to define "immorality," I'd imagine it would be something like this:

immorality: actions or behaviors that harm significant numbers of other living things. Not to be confused with "immortality."

Among humans, homosexual behavior between consenting adults harms no one, except, perhaps, for offending the sensibilities of those who like to imagine what other people do in private. Doesn't look very immoral.

In bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees)--our close cousins--disputes are typically resolved by female/female sexual activity. When two troups encounter each other, the leaders (females) work things out by this type of activity. Consequently, there are few aggressive interactions, and few fights between different troups. This sounds to me like highly moral behavior.

By contrast, the Prince of Morality (GW Bush) seems to think that bombing people is more moral than diplomacy. I think the world would be better off if we had a bonobo in charge. To quote a bumper sticker I saw recently: we're making enemies faster than we can kill them.

To bonobos, it would probably go the other way: we're making friends faster than we can enjoy them.

[Chimp]

By contrast, the Prince of Morality (GW Bush) seems to think that bombing people is more moral than diplomacy. I think the world would be better off if we had a bonobo in charge. To quote a bumper sticker I saw recently: we're making enemies faster than we can kill them.

There is no way I would watch peace negotiations if we did things the bonobo
way ....hehe

[Sender]

Don't gay bashers have more important issues to deal with? How about world hunger? How about environmental polution? How about child abuse?

Even if I were opposed to homosexual activity (which I'm not - and I'm completely straight by the way not that its anyones business) I would tackle some of these OBVIOUSLY MORE URGENT issues first. World hunger vs Homosexuals? Tough call but I think I'll have to say that world hunger's gonna be taking up most of my time for a while?

So we should put their issues on the back burner? I don't understand why we have to discuss our sex lives at work. I mean, if I am straight, I don't go to work saying, "Hey, I have sex with women". Gays seem to make it a point to get out "hey, I like having sex with my gender, I am gay". Big fvcking deal, who gives a rip. I think they let it be known, so then if their job becomes in jepardy, they can cry foul, and the poor guy owning the company is in deep sh!t. That's not fair. If you are gay, GREAT! But don't bring it to the work place.

[juliod]

Gays seem to make it a point to get out "hey, I like having sex with my gender, I am gay".

So, you've actually seen this behavior? It's characteristic of homosexuals?

I mean, all homosexuals I know (100% of them) are "in the closet". I know this because I know no one who is openly gay.

You seem crowded by open gays. I think we should do a scientific study of that...

DanZ

[Chimp]

I have many gay friends and have worked with many gays...

Usually the only stuff that does get mentioned is in the context of dating
or breaking up...standard relationship chitchat...not details on what they
do in private. Intimate details regardless of orientation shouldn't be discussed
in the general workplace. If it's with a friend or in confidence, that's a little
different and usually with your consent. This is based on my experience, and
of course purely anecdotal.

[Sender]

Gays seem to make it a point to get out "hey, I like having sex with my gender, I am gay".

So, you've actually seen this behavior? It's characteristic of homosexuals?

I mean, all homosexuals I know (100% of them) are "in the closet". I know this because I know no one who is openly gay.

You seem crowded by open gays. I think we should do a scientific study of that...

DanZ

Don't make me out to be a gay basher sweetheart. Re-read my post. Go ahead and be gay if you want, just keep it out of the work place, thats all I said. How do you get gay bashing out of that? That is typical though. Someone dare say something even remotely negative, and you make them out to be the bad guy. Sorry again, looking under the wrong tree.

Hey! I am having trouble with adding a signature. I go to profile, then profile, then signature, then type a sig, then click preview, then submit. Nothing. What am I doing wrong?