Question #7
Is there a moral difference between homosexuality and bestiality?
posted by Fenian Fox at 11:01 AM
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Previous Posts
I hope my questions cause you discomfort. You don't learn anything by staying where you are comfortable. But ask yourself, if you don't like the question, do you have a good answer? I look forward to your comments and your question suggestions.
posted by Fenian Fox at 11:01 AM
10 Comments:
Yes. Homosexuality happens between two consenting adults, who draw enjoyment from the experience and in some cases feel love for one another. Whereas the animal has no way to consent, hence the latter is not a victimless act and that is the moral difference.
You really think bestiality is wrong because it is harmful to the dog? Are humans and animals that interchangeable to to you? I think the point of this question is that they are both crimes against nature and harmful to man as a species. Men and women are meant to procreate and the sexual drive is given to them to facilitate that purpose. While I certainly do not believe that all sex should be solely for procreation, the point is that any action that further pushes men away from women or vice versa is detrimental to society as a whole. While this may seem extreme, it has already been postulated that in an age of frozen sperm and cloning, there is no need for men at all. This is the fallacy of composition. What might be ok for some people is not ok if everyone does it. If one person stands up to see better at a concert, then everyone around him has to stand up to see as well.
The real question is, however, do they have a choice? For moral condemnation to be dealt, a choice must be made. Homosexuals may have a genetic deformity that makes them more inclined to be one way or another. It has been shown that increased levels of certain hormones bring out different male and female traits. If someone is physically inclined to be attracted to members of the same sex then we should try to treat them as best we can through hormone shots, etc. On the other hand, if the homosexuality occurs out of choice, then the person is choosing to act outside the basic laws of nature and moral condemnation can truly be alotted. The same is true with bestiality. If the man believes himself to be a dog out of mental illness, then no one can lay moral blame on the individual. If instead, a person has sex with a dog full well knowing that he/she is not a dog, then moral blame is properly apportioned.
If someone is physically inclined to be attracted to members of the same sex then we should try to treat them as best we can through hormone shots, etc. On the other hand, if the homosexuality occurs out of choice, then the person is choosing to act outside the basic laws of nature and moral condemnation can truly be alotted.
Not so. What gives society the right to impose itself on an individual, whether to treat their "deformity" or whether it is a life style choice. That sounds very "authoritarian and dictatorial" to me, if you don't mind. As one of my friends is fond of saying, all we must apply is the "no harm" principle, when a homosexual decides (if it is a chosie) that they will be with men who have the same desires, does that hurt him alone, or does it hurt someone else? That is, given that our world is already over populated, can humans afford to ahve a few who do not procreate? So does he hurt anyone but himself? No. As such, there is no reason for society to impose itself on him, particularly if it is based on unproven and dogmatic beliefs. If it is a hormonal deficiency, why should we have to even treat it if it isn't causing the "victim" any pain and allows them to live a full life without any harm?
As to homosexuality being "unnatural" how do you explain flies, horses, giraffes, and other animals who have been shown to have homosexual tendencies? In most cases they have sex with others of their species of both sexes, so they are bisexual as opposed to homosexual. Would that also be better in humans? After all, not only could homosexual men and women still enjoy the pleasures of the flesh (with people of their same sex) but they would also fulfill your apparent need to have them procreate with the opposite sex. If their partners are in agreemen that they could do this...why should you or I or the government care?
What might be ok for some people is not ok if everyone does it. If one person stands up to see better at a concert, then everyone around him has to stand up to see as well.
Furthermore your argument is fallacious one, or are you telling me that just because you see a homosexual couple, that will arouse those same tendencies in you? In a concert everyone has to stand up because you block the person standing behind you, so they have to stand up, and the one behind them and so on and so forth. However, when it comes to procreation, if one person or two, or what 10% of the population don't do it, the rest can fill that void. After all, we seem to be doing a good job of seeding the planet without forcing gay and lesbians to procreate.
The difference still remains in consent given or taken. After all a man who has a mental illness that tells him that when women say no, they mean yes, and so goes ahead and rapes them is still culpable and it is society's responsibility to ensure he doesn't hurt anyone again or ever. That is not the case in a homosexual couple, both parties consent to sexual intercourse and both draw enjoyment from the same. The same cannot be said from bestiality for this is closer to rape. That pesky no-harm principle makes its way into this discussion yet again.
nykrindc,
I think you have well expressed one of the most prevalent misconceptions about democracies with your "do no harm" principle, i.e that it is wrong to legislate morality. In your defense, your discussion was societal rather than governmental but I think they are closely linked. Citizens of a democracy have every right to legislate their values and majority rules. The founders recognized that there must be some limitation, and thus we have the bill of rights. I see the Bill of Rights as an endorsement to the concept of legislating values regardless of the "no harm" clause in that it provides the logical and legal boundary for application of the principle.
Secondly, I hope that you are a vegetarian or you have been complicit in commiting far worse actions than mererly raping non consentual animals. If you aren't a vegetarian, then I think your entire argument above falls apart. For more discussion of vegetables, see question #1 comment section.
I guess the argument was overstated. My main point regarding the Anonymous post was that the argument was there is no reason for society to legistate or ban homosexuallity because it is a naturally ocurring phenomena, otherwise, why has it been in existence since before the time of recorded history. Additionally, it is a process observed over and over in the animal kingdom, including in our closest animal relatives, hence it would be naive to expect it not to occur in humans as well. Given that fact, and the fact that people have free will and are consenting to be with one another (regardless of sexual orientation) who is the government to legislate that behavior. I guess my consent analogy escaped me, and you are right, the consent analogy crumbles at the point where one enjoys the next burger, however, the basic point still stands otherwise it would have been moral for Americans to have slaves in the South, given the fact that citizens of a democracy have every right to legislate their values and majority rules. After all, the slaves didn't count and were considered subhuman so any argument regarding the fact that they made up the majority of the population is a non-starter. The mob rule argument is a slippery slope Fenian Fox and leads to very dangerous conclusions. Further, remember our country is not a democracy, it is first and foremost a republic, with all that that implies.
Legislating morality is dangerous, and must be done carefully, after all that's what happened during the 1920's when they tried to legislate people's ability to drink alcohol (not because it was damaging to your health, but rather because it promoted immorality); taking the argument further, we can get to a point where some Middle Eastern countries find themselves legislating chastity, and enforcing it with an iron hand. Just look at what happened recently in Afghanistan, where converting to christianity is considered not only immoral, but also punishable by death (by the majority of the population). We wouldn't think of such things in our country, but there are some groups who do, like the folks who promote Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates the replacement of civil law with biblical law, including the execution of homosexuals, apostates and women who are unchaste before marriage. True, they are not the majority, but what if they were, would what they advocate be considered moral or just, mainly because in a democracy the majority can legislate morality and majority rules?
I would concur that the concept of legislating morality will necessarily bring some undesired consequences as no one can be in the majority on every issue, but I think two things potentially balance this: the Bill of Rights, which would exclud several of the examples you cite, and the relationship between state and federal governments. If the federal government takes on a properly limited role and allows individual states to legislate morality, then the predominant force of law is applied to the people who most directly support the legislation, and diverse environments exist in different states giving citizens access to the benefits of democracy without necessarily limited by prevailing moralities (unless every state has similar laws, which would put the citizen in such a minority that he might just have to suck it up.
As to your argument that since different species display homosexual actions, homosexuality is by definition a natural act, I might point out that Black Widows consume their mates after copulation. What occurs in nature does not necessarily translate to what we would define as natural or acceptable human behavior. I am not equating cannabalism and homosexuality, just pointing out that your argument is specious on this point.
A few additional "questions" have come to mind during our discussion. Please let me know if any occur to you that I ought to post.
I would concur that the concept of legislating morality will necessarily bring some undesired consequences as no one can be in the majority on every issue, but I think two things potentially balance this: the Bill of Rights, which would exclud several of the examples you cite, and the relationship between state and federal governments.
That may be the case, but how can you be sure that once the Christian Reconstructionist majority comes into power they won't appoint judges and others who will interpret the Bill of Rights, and other safeguards as narrowly as possible, slowly eroding the very fabric of the country. After all, if majority rules once they're in power, who's to tell them they can't do as they see fit? Additionally, your argument regarding the federal-state division, would leave us, taken to its full extent, with a country much like Nigeria, where the Muslim north has imposed Sharia (and made everyone including non-muslims) subject to it, while the Christian south continues to adhere to the constitutionally enacted laws of the Nigerian state. Hence, the division in our country would no longer be between liberal and conservative, but rather between secular and theocratic states.
I am not equating cannabalism and homosexuality, just pointing out that your argument is specious on this point.
I think you stretch the argument too much on this point. After all, you cite one or two species where this action is prevalent, whereas homosexuality has been documented in the majority of species ranging from insects to our closest living relatives in the evolutionary tree.
What occurs in nature does not necessarily translate to what we would define as natural or acceptable human behavior
I would agree with that up to a point, just because it is found in nature does not mean that we should define it as unacceptable human behavior.
NYKRNDC,
Your discussion makes it sound as if I am advocating a change in our governmental structure, whereas I believe that our republican democracy has always had this philosophy and that current libertarian (which is not to say that libertarianism isn't as old as the country itself, just that it is currently strengthening) tendencies, exactly the "no harm" concept you describe, are moving the country away from this. If the no-harmers are the majority, then I have nothing to say. I would be disappointed, however, if citizens believed that they did not have the right to legislate their values. "To each his own" is a distinct value system in competition in the political landscape. I don't believe that democracy and moral relativism are synonymous (nor are they necessarily opposed). I believe that in our democracy I have the right to impose my values on my fellow citizens inasmuch as I participate in a majoritarian political will and within the limits of the Bill of Rights, and I think that every citizen should feel similarly empowered. I don't think that I should execute this right for every value, but that is the citizens discretion.
Not to be picky, but I still don't think that you have answered the original question concerning homosexuality and bestiality. (you assume I am anti-homosexual when in fact I may just REALLY like horses).
While John Stuart Mill's Harm principle (to which I can only assume you are referring) does dictate that society should not prevent others from engaging in acts that do not harm other people, he makes it very clear that this extends only to prevention or punishment and should not constitute a reflection of the morality or immorality of the act. Thus, any discussion of what should or should not be legislatable should be kept distinct and separate from what is or is not immoral. The original question was "Is there a moral difference between homosexuality and bestiality?", therefore we should be discussing morality and not crime and punishment. I recognize that I may have tipped the conversation down this path when saying that we should attempt to "cure" homosexuality, but I did not mean to describe a definitive course of action for the government to take.
With regard to the Bill of Rights, I think a history lesson into the deep seated contention over the Bill of Rights could be useful. The Bill of Rights was hotly debated between Federalists and Anti-Federalists at the Constiutional Conventions because the Anti-Federalists believed the rights to be innate and that by attempting to write them down, the government would be leaving out other rights that also exist. Therefore, the Bill of Rights should not be seen as "the logical and legal boundary for application of the [harm] principle" because it is still needed to ensure that the government does not overreach its bounds. On this point, I am in full agreement with nykrindc.
As to the "naturality" argument, I concede that I misused the phrase "crime against nature". Anything that exists in the natural world can be considered part of nature and therefore "natural". I was referring to the abberation that homosexuality or bestiality represents. I earlier suggested that I believed some homosexuality to be a tendency brought on by genetic dispositions or improper proportions of hormones. If this is true, then of course animals can have it too. It is just like having a blind dog, or a deaf bird, or a fox with sickle-cell anemia. Choosing to remain gay, however, would then be like the Jehova's Witnesses who refuse to get blood transfusions. Is it immoral for a human to refuse treatment for a disease? Perhaps this is another question for the list.
If you were to take Mill's theory farther than Mill himself, and chose to call moral all actions that do not directly harm others, then you are faced with the difficult task of determining what consitutes harm. This is where the harm principle always lands into trouble. Certainly Mill would find seat belt laws distasteful, but the burden on the state from accident victims was clearly deemed harmful enough in they eyes of the legislators in order to enact them. Recent smoking bans have illustrated that the cost of medical treatment for lung cancer victims and the price of second hand smoke can be seen as ways that an otherwise "victimless" crime can in fact harm others.
I began my argument with a statement of how homosexuality DOES harm other people. I said that any action that drives men away from women or vice versa is detrimental to the continuation of the human species. The EXTENT to which it is harmed may in fact be minimal, but I would argue that society is nonetheless worse off because of homosexuality. Petty thieves are still considered criminals, no matter what the worth of the goods they have stolen.
Where does this leave us? Well, we are ALL guilty of some small moral crime or another, whether it be white lies or sexual promiscuity. Even the hardcore Christianity that you rail against declares that "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God". And it also teaches that "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" (a lot of Christians ignore this one). I do not believe we should all be jailed and I do not think that all homosexuals should be prosecuted. Instead, I think that we should do the best we can to lead our own moral lives and to punish immorality to the extent of its harm as determined by a majority consensus of one's peers. While this may not be the best form of government I would agree with Winston Churchill that "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." The republic-democracy distinction is an important one, but not in an age where politicians are merely representatives (i.e. excessively respondent to the populous) as opposed to duly elected delegates who vote their own conscience.
no, definitely not.
Post a Comment
<< Home