Categories: Sexual orientation and society | LGBT issues and religion

Homosexuality and morality

Opinions on the morality of homosexuality vary strongly among different cultures, time periods, and belief systems. In recent decades, many societies where homosexuality was a crime have repealed those laws on the basis of civil rights, privacy rights, and new scientific advances. These changes can be attributed to many events, the sexual revolution, the gay rights movement, to a better educated understanding of the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, new scientific research on the causes of sexual orientation, and the greater separation of Church & State compared to earlier ages such as the Middle Ages when many of the laws making homosexuality a crime were enacted.

On the other hand significant segments of human society on all continents continue to strongly oppose homosexuality, calling it a sin and an aberration. These attitudes are usually presented as based on religious beliefs. These people, called social conservatives, call for punitive consequences for homosexual behavior ranging from social censure and counseling to so-called reparative therapy and even death in certain theocratic forms of government where Church and State still remain as one entity, for example Iran and Saudi Arabia.

At the same time, within the past hundred years, societies which had been historically open to love and sexuality between males, have been influenced by Western colonial attitudes and have become antagonistic towards same-sex love. This development can be seen in many African societies, China, Japan, and, most recently, Papua-New Guinea.

Contents

1 Views that homosexuality is immoral

2 Reactions To Homosexuality

3 View that homosexuality is moral, morally acceptable, or is not an issue of morality

4 The role of reproduction

5 Controversy over parallels with other civil rights movements

6 Genetic determination, choice, and change

7 Attacks based on stereotypes linking homosexuality to other behaviors

Views that homosexuality is immoral

People who view that homosexuality as immoral consist chiefly of sub-groups of followers of various religions, or those raised in cultures influenced by them, especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Based on their interpretations of various verses in the Qur'an, the Old and the New Testaments, and other religious texts, they conclude that God has forbidden same-sex relationships. Adding this prohibition to their concept of sexual morality as a code of conduct or set of rules governing sexual behavior, they conclude that same-sex couples are immoral.

Reactions To Homosexuality

Opinions differ on how homosexuality should be treated. Proposals that have been made (or implemented) include:

Execution of gay men and lesbians (many being burned at the stake during the Middle Ages)
Execution of those who have had sex
Mandating "therapy" of lesbians and gay men
Imprisoning lesbians and gay men who have sex
Prohibiting the adoption of children by gay couples
Limiting membership of congregations or organizations to heterosexuals
Shunning lesbians and gay men
Segregation of lesbians and gay men (E.g. gay schools).
Castrating gay men
Attempting to change sexual orientation by offering "therapy"
Informing lesbians and gay men of the ineffectiveness of so-called "reparative therapy"
Regulating media content which views lesbians and gay men in a normal light
Regulating speech that incites violence against lesbians and gay men
Praying that God will change those have same-sex orientation
Acceptance of lesbians and gay men as full members of the congregation, as is
Encouraging the adoption of children by gay couples
Encouraging gay couples to form families and produce biological children through medical advances such as in vitro fertilization and / or surrogacy
Encouraging the marriage of gay couples.
Banning the marriage of gay couples.
Ordaining lesbians and gay men into Church clergy

Others believe that people can simply "walk away from homosexuality" when integrated into a loving community, an idea which has found expression in the so-called ex-gay movement, promoted with the help of individuals who claim that they have successfully given up homosexuality. They offer gay men and lesbians reparative therapy. Medical and scientific organizations in the United States have denounced such therapy as of no value with potential to do harm and cause depression leading to suicide. There are also people who hold that homosexuality is immoral, but they shouldn't impose their beliefs on others who are not the same.

The view that homosexuality is immoral is held by some secularists who view reproduction as an ultimate end. This is typically associated with Darwinist ideas of morality, i.e. lesbians and gay men cannot reproduce naturally without the help out artificial means or undermines traditional family roles and is a psychological construct, perhaps even a mutation of certain genes. Others ponder the possible evolutionary benefits of homosexuality within a gene pool. Secular disapproval of homosexuality is also associated with the stereotypes that homosexuality is inherently weak, unhealthy or dangerous, and that lesbians and gay men are prone to disease (see 'Homosexuality and medical science' for more information). All of which have proven groundless.

Lesbians and gay men have been murdered, subjected to gross human rights violations, or otherwise persecuted under various jurisdictions, most notably by the Nazi regime (see History of Gays during the Holocaust). Persecution of lesbians and gay men is also common in conservative Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia, where gay men have reportedly been beheaded, or forced into therapy. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan reportedly murdered lesbians and gay men by burying them alive. Prior to the repeal of laws regarding lesbians and gay men as criminals, persecution was common in many Western countries, such as the United Kingdom and the USA. Lesbians and gay men were frequently imprisoned and/or forced to undergo barbaric treatments such as chemical castration, forced sex changes and electroconvulsive therapy.

Expression of the view that homosexuality is immoral can also be found in the form of verbal discrimination against lesbians and gay men in hate speech which is aimed at inciting physical violence ("gay bashing"). Specifically, some translations of the Old Testament have been used to argue that gay men should be punished with death, and AIDS has been portrayed by some such as Rev. Fred Phelps as a punishment by God against gay men and lesbians. However, as of 2005 according to the United Nations more heterosexuals are contracting AIDS compared to lesbians and gay men on a global scale.

View that homosexuality is moral, morally acceptable, or is not an issue of morality

The view that homosexuality is moral, morally acceptable, or that morality does not apply come from religious groups, human rights groups, political groups, some governments, medical organizations, and gay rights groups. Predominantly, political support for this view comes from gay right organizations that lobby governments across the world for better treatment of lesbians and gay men and equality. Entities such as GLAAD (USA), Stonewall and OutRage! (United Kingdom), Reform Judaism, certain segments of the Anglican Church , the European Union, Amnesty International, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc.

Generally, these groups believe that relationships that occur safely between consenting adults cannot be immoral, and/or it is immoral to create laws that criminalize lesbians and gay men involved in relationships. They maintain that homosexuality is normal, pointing to the contributions that gay men and lesbians have made throughout history and continue to make in modern society. They also assert that a minority within every population will always be compromised of gay men and lesbians, and that homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation for them.

There also exist groups and denominations whose interpretation of scripture and doctrine states that homosexuality is morally acceptable, and a natural occurrence. While explaining their views of the concept of sexual morality, they conclude that there are no specific prohibitions against homosexuality itself or that scripture itself is open to interpretation and it was written by men who may have altered the divine will. Generally, these groups hold that morality which applies to heterosexuals should similarly apply to gay men and lesbians, i.e. sex is acceptable within a monogamous relationship or a same-sex marriage.

Other proponents of these views seek a more Darwinian justification for the view that homosexuality is moral or that morality does not apply, pointing to evidence of the existence of homosexuality in animal and primate behavior and is, therefore, natural behavior, perhaps even intregal to a species survival.

The role of reproduction

Some believe that sex acts which are conducted for reasons other than reproduction are immoral. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, officially condemns the use of physical contraceptive devices on natural law grounds (though it does not prohibit the use of the rhythm method.)

Homosexual sex acts, because they do not contribute to biological fertilization and pregnancy, are often condemned on these grounds. The idea that homosexual couples cannot produce children is also a frequent objection to same-sex marriage.

Gay rights advocates point out that many heterosexual couples engage in accepted non-reproductive acts and marriages, including those who use contraception, practitioners of oral and anal sex, biologically infertile couples, and the elderly. Many homosexual couples also do have children, whether adopted, carried forward from previous relationships, or produced with donor sperm or egg. In the future, new technology may even allow homosexual couples to produce children which carry their genes, without the help of reproductive cell donors.

Controversy over parallels with other civil rights movements

Many gay right advocates draw parallels between homophobia and racism and sexism, saying just as Western society concluded that racism and sexism were immoral, it will eventually come to the same conclusion about discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is a sort of general argument against anti-homosexuality opinion - the ideas is that it doesn't matter how correct "homophobes" think they are in their views or what their justifications are. Just as people were thoroughly convinced in the correctness of white racial or male sexual superiority and later realized they were wrong, the situation is the same with regard to attitudes about sexual orientation (because discrimination is discrimination, no matter what the particular dividing line is).

Many supporters of racial equality, including prominent socially conservative Black Christian leaders, find comparisons between racial equality and gay rights to be offensive. They believe that the former is a question of judgement based on an unchanging, irrelevant aspect of identity, whereas the homosexuality is a behavior, and thus entails moral accountability.

This raises the question of whether or not a homosexual orientation is changable, and if not, whether or not same-sex behavior should necessarily be allowed to result from it, which is discussed in the next section.

Genetic determination, choice, and change

Some view that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, but rather genetically or otherwise inherently determined (see causes of sexual orientation). They reason that if an individual's attraction to members of the same sex is the result of heredity as is skin color and the shape of facial features, then it should not be a moral concern at all. They further argue that lesbians and gay men should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, just as blacks have come to be regarded as being entitled to the same rights as whites. Most believe that sexual orientation is defined by a variety of factors, including genetic, and that you cannot change it.

Those who believe that homosexuality is immoral either deny that sexual orientation is genetically determined, or state that not everything genetically determined is consequently healthy or moral.

Attempts to change sexual orientation in a scientific environment have failed, and while the question of whether homosexuality is genetically predetermined or formed later is not settled, it is acknowledged by most scientists now that there are no simple conditions that can be met to make a child gay, and that sexual orientation can not be reverted.

The belief that children could be made gay was propagated by opponents of homosexuality and developed into a general fear that lesbians and gay men would "seduce" or "recruit" children. Anti-gay crusader Anita Bryant started an organization called Save our Children which used the anti-gay slogan "Homosexuals cannot reproduce -- so they must recruit." Her claim that one can change their sexual orientation is in contrasts to many medical and scientific communities which see sexual orientation unchangeable. Some groups have likened such language to that seen targeting Jews in earlier ages with false accusations of drinking the blood of Christian children.

See Causes of sexual orientation, Environment, choice, and sexual orientation, and Genetics and sexual orientation.

Attacks based on stereotypes linking homosexuality to other behaviors

Historically, homosexuality has often been linked in the public mind to other sexual behaviors, such as pedophilia, and even to serial murders. Homosexuality was listed in psychological manuals as one of many sexual disorders, and many attempts were made to treat it. This perception of homosexuality as a disease can in part be explained with psychology's roots in the theories of Sigmund Freud, who believed that early childhood influences determined the later sexual orientation of a person. Researchers concluded that children could be "made gay", deliberately or involuntarily. However in modern times out of new research this claim as been debunked. And homosexuality is no longer considered a disease.

Public misconceptions linking pedophiles to gay men contributed much discrimination. Today, society recognizes lesbians and gay men as distinct from pedophilia. This was also exploited by anti-gay groups who tried to support their "recruitment" argument with statements often gleaned from "boy lovers" operating within or outside the gay community (see pedophilia and homosexuality). The recruitment argument in turn was used to argue that gay men are a danger to children.

While psychologists, anthropologists and criminologists in the 1960s and 1970s, such as Harold Kant, Michael Goldstein, James W. Prescott and Paul Gebhard increasingly understood sexual repression to be one of the core causes of homosexuality, supporting the argument that public repression of homosexuality would cause an increase of lesbians and gay men. Lesbians and gay men were stereotyped by anti-gay groups as perverts and criminals.

Despite a better understanding of homosexuality, the causes of sexual orientation, the general consensus within the medical and scientific communities that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and the lack of connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, some anti-gay groups continue to use moral arguments based on linking homosexuality to other behaviors to oppose the gay rights movement.

The US based group Restoring Social Virtue & Purity to America by Judith A. Reisman, for example, claims that homosexuals have deliberately subverted the mass media in order to garner support for a wide range of previously condemned sexual behaviors, including pederasty, and that their goal is to turn them children into homosexuals. Slippery slope arguments against homosexuality as a "gateway behavior" are also common.