So I find this topic so fascinating because I have such a difficult time understanding the motives of those who disagree with me. With most things, I can usually come up with some motive to assume of my opponent - but here I am mystified, though I recently read a few things about which I'll write later on.
To date, the most persuasive, convincing argument I've heard in support of suppressing homosexuals is that homosexual activity is unnatural since the natural purpose for sexual intercourse is procreation, and homosexual intercourse is non-procreative. There is an underlying assumption here that sex in humans is the same as sex in animals, so humans should be restricted to those activities that happen with other animals.
If we accept this assumption, then we cannot also argue in favor of monogamy, since that is not something naturally happens in the rest of the animal kingdom. So to assert that human sexuality is the same as all other animal sexuality is an argument against all marriage.
Now, one may make an argument in support of marriage but against homosexual conduct and base this assertion on religious grounds, essentially saying that homosexuality is evil because God says so. This may be true, but as it is wholly unverifiable via any process of natural science, I fail to see how this is an appropriate point to raise in any debate of public policy outside of a theocracy.
So if we believe that marriage is a good thing, then it follows that human sexuality is different from that of animals. If we accept this assertion, then we no longer have any rational basis for discriminating against homosexuals OR homosexual behavior. Now, it could be argued that promiscuity among homosexuals is destructive, but this only lends strength to the argument in favor of allowing (and supporting) marriage for same gender couples as this would strengthen homosexual monogamy.
Thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment