Reviews for The Morality of Homosexuality

Reviews For: The Morality of Homosexuality

Jasmine Olathe 2005-05-28 ch 1,	abuse"He is one of many who believe that homosexuality is an immoral decision that decays society as a whole." Wow, I thought that love and compassion were GOOD for society, and hate & condemnation were the things that erroded society. How wrong I was! “If you are Christian, you either believe what the Bible says condemning homosexuality, or you do not believe it and you are not Christian by definition.” Hm. I thought I was a Christian too. I guess I just wasn't aware that God said, "If you approve of gays, you can't be a Christian." Wrong again. When will I ever learn that religion is based on one human's interpretation of an obscure Bible verse, and not the belief in, and love of, God? You should read "The Children Are Free" I loved it, and based on this essay, I believe you will too.
Typewriter King 2005-05-15 ch 1,	abuseWell done! Most of the way, you were informative, “newsy,” setting a quality background for your opinion. I usually hate these gonad debate essays, but I had the fortune of reading this one. Go figure. A few problems not covered by the others, however. One, Wikipedia isn't a reliable sorce, because pranksters alter information regularly. A punk defaced Pope Benedict's profile, another inserted the rumor that Matt Drudge is a closeted homosexual (he isn't), and during the presidential campaign, hacks defiled the profiles of John Kerry and George Bush around the clock. Second, you lose some journalistic credibility by using pejoratives against the side you oppose. Belittling the anti-homosexual side as “ignorant” is an ad hominem insult that contributes nothing positive to the debate. It was a brief slide in one of the most civilized essays on this subject matter. Just out of curiosity, your pen name means roughly “girl love fox” in Japanese.Are you trying to tell us something about your own orientation? I won't hold anything against you, whatever the case may be.
On Mercury 2005-05-15 ch 1,	abuseBest essay I have read on homosexuality and gay rights so far (and I've read A LOT) I think your references were great, very well researched, solid arguement. I would agree with Tiefling however that you should use less shaky examples at the beginning. OM
Tiefling 2005-05-14 ch 1,	abuseInteresting essay, and quite well written. 'The zoo received heated letters and e-mails from gay groups around the world protesting the destruction of the penguins’ chosen life style. The gay community has taken the knowledge of gay animals to mean that since some animals are gay, homosexuality is therefore a natural phenomenon.' Wow. That's just silly. The penguins' behaviour may well be because they are in captivity and had no female penguins to mate with. Think of prison relationships-'If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're in with'- Rich Hall There are numerous examples of gay animals in the wild (eg. Bonobo chimps), so it's unwise to pick on a possibly dodgy example as 'proof'. In any case, why do they even need proof that it's natural? Why do they care? If it was 'unnatural' why would that make it bad? 'Animals should not be used to shape human moral issues' agreed 'however the fact that there are gay animals proves that homosexuality is not a choice.' Just to play Devil's advocate for a tick here, I don't think it does provet that at all. You would have to prove first that animals don't make choices. 'However through research, it has been discovered that homosexuality may have a biological basis.'Yep. So do aggression and a tendency towards alcolholism. You need to make a distinction between the urge and the actions. 'Historically homosexuality or “Sodomy”' The two words are NOT synonyms. 'Homosexuality' means the desire for one's own sex. 'Sodomy' (and you didn't need to put it in quotes as it is a real word) refers to one specific sex act. You can be homosexual without performing sodomy, or indeed any sex acts at all. ' New York's Central Park Zoo is home to Roy and Silo, the male Chinstrap penguins who were dedicated to each other and inseparable for over six years until Roy had a brief affair with a female penguin which strained the relationship. ' Lol! I am now picturing an all penguin soap opera. 'Animals are creatures of instinct and do what their biology tells them without having to deal with ideals and ethics. Animals do not have the ability to “choose” what they are since they have no notion of right and wrong.' I dispute that. Some of the more intelligent animals, such as gorillas, definately seem to make choices. 'Clearly, the Bible can be read in various ways depending on what beliefs the reader holds'Very true. 'An individual’s sexual orientation does not decay society as a whole'You never really disucussed that point in any detail.
No Trust 2005-05-13 ch 1,	abuseYou could have tacked this onto the essay series that it’s composed from. My points: Whether or not homosexuality is a “choice”, it is natural. Human beings like all organisms act in accordance with their nature, i.e. in the way their biological construction dictates they behave given the circumstances at hand. The category of ‘unnatural’ is a leftover from philosophy, that has nothing to do with reality. Everything that happens is natural by definition. Whether or not homosexuality is a “choice” is irrelevant to whether or not it is “moral”. If someone could prove to me that serial killers do not “choose” to be serial killers, I would be no less inclined to kill them when and where I can. If it could be proven that homos choose to be homos, I’d remain utterly indifferent to their sexuality. Biology and choice is a subtle issue you are apparently not interested in addressing with any degree of honesty or thoroughness, so I’ll leave you to your delusion that humans are uniquely rational. Your assuredness that homosexuality is NOT a choice is backed by exactly no hard evidence. Psychology is one of the biggest jokes mankind has made at science’s expense, second only to sociology and just barely worse than evolutionary biology. All of these fields of study are utterly divorced from sound method and are hopelessly normative. Society is not an entity with wants and needs and thus there is nothing “good” or “bad” for society. Trying to formulate morality based on what is “good for society” is as pointless an exercise in intellectual masturbation as trying to deduce what is “pleasing to God”.

Return to Top