Moral Issues: Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

As sort of an intro to my upcoming Moral Issues series, this article will briefly cover the morality of Homosexuality and Gay Marriage.

Firstly, homosexuality. Is it morally wrong? No. It doesn't affect anybody except the homosexual couple themselves. No one is hurt, no rights are compromised. Logically, there is no reason to be against homosexuality. Almost all opposition to homosexuality is religious in nature - which still doesn't warrant hatred or discrimination towards gays, in addition to denying them equal rights. Here are some commonly voiced concerns (besides "that's gross"):

It's not natural. Therefore, it's not moral.

This is an extremely common argument brought up to "prove" that homosexuality is wrong. Using this ridiculous argument, such things as rape could be justified, as it happens in nature all the time. Hell, using this argument, even homosexuality can be justified, as it is seen in nature as well. Take for instance the African Ape, the Bonobo. They have sex all the time, and with anything, male or female. Up to 75% of Bonobo sex is nonreproductive. I guess homosexuality is only natural, huh?

Above all, trying to gauge an action's morality based on its naturalness is ridiculous, and often used with inconsistency. Nature is neither inherently moral nor immoral - it's amoral.

Reproduction is only meant to occur between a man and a woman, not two men! Our bodies just weren't made that way. As a result, homosexuality is wrong, and actually a danger to the human race.

Another common objection to homosexuality, which is really just another form of the "it's just not natural" argument. Sensationalist bullshit as well: come back when the human race is in danger of extinction due to rampant homosexuality.

Gays spread STDs like crazy! AIDs would erupt!

It seems as if they didn't even take the time to reason this one out. Heterosexuals also spread disease as well, and aren't any less likely to cause a massive outbreak than gays.

Now, we come to gay marriage. For such a controversial issue, it only has one rational solution - allow gays and lesbians equal marriage rights. Again, there is no logical reason to oppose this stance. Only good would come from allowing gays equal rights under the law. The only negative that would come from it is the disappointment of some people that they did not get their way. And yes, you guessed it - most opposition is religious. Here are some common fears:

It would infringe on my rights as a heterosexual.

How? What rights would be violated by the evil gays? You would retain all of your rights. The only difference is that gays would be happy too.

Our church does not want to be forced to perform gay marriages against our will.

Again, no one will be forced to do anything against their will. Churches that do not want to marry gay couples will not have to, and churches that want to can.

Legalizing gay marriage would lead to the spread of STDs!

See above (homosexuality portion). Also, wouldn't allowing gays to enter into monogamous (through marriage) relationships lead to a decline in STDs?

It would lead down a slippery slope to bestiality!

Again, they didn't think this out did they? It's a different topic entirely. There are legitimate reasons to prohibit bestiality (consent, for example), but for homosexuality, there are not.

It's not the traditional family way! The traditional family unit would be destroyed!

Ridiculous. Just what is a traditional family? There has never been a "traditional family" throughout history, and there never will be. All that is needed are loving parents and a child - something that gay parents are just as capable of providing. There's no evidence whatsoever pointing to the emotional scarring of children of gay parents. They are perfectly healthy.

It would redefine marriage! Marriage is only supposed to be between a man and woman.

A very commonly voiced concern over gay marriage, which really doesn't boil down to anything at all. Yet agian, somewhat reminiscent of the natural=moral argument. John Stewart actually did a good job of refuting Mike Huckabee when he brought up on the Daily Show. If we went back to traditional (i.e. Biblical) times and used that definition of marriage, then practices such as polygamy and arranged marriages would be perfectly acceptable. The "definition" of marriage has definitely evolved over the years, and there's no reason that two homosexuals who love each other should be excluded.

Recently, I have also seen a trend in most bigots - prefacing their argument with something like "I know my argument is going to get dismissed as a bigoted/religious in nature, but...

In conclusion, homosexuality is not immoral, but amoral. Gays should be given equal marriage rights as well. The fact that they are not is blatant discrimination of the highest degree. Personally, I also think it'd be much easier if all marriages were recognized as "civil unions" by the government, and marriage left to the churches - less headache for everyone.

Look for future entries in my Moral Issues series.

R.I.P. Hippocratic Oath, B.C.400-2008

Get a load of this bullshit, it's outrageous:

Reporting from Washington -- The outgoing Bush administration is planning to announce a broad new "right of conscience" rule permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly even artificial insemination and birth control.

For more than 30 years, federal law has dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further by making clear that healthcare workers also may refuse to provide information or advice to patients who might want an abortion.

I don't know about you, but that scares the shit out of me. Perhaps it's one last "Fuck you" from the Bush administration as they leave office.

First of all, this would completely undermine the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath. Let me site one passage specifically:

To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority.

That passage encapsulates the meaning of the modern Hippocratic Oath. Aren't doctors supposed to put the interests of their patients first? Before payment, pressure from their community or family, anything? This outrageous "Right of Conscience" horseshit would completely undermine a patient's right to receive treatment, essentially sending the "put the good of the patient first" idea down the toilet.

Secondly, this is essentially forcing the religious beliefs of the doctor onto the patient. Random religious asshats comment:

Proponents, including the Christian Medical Assn. and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, say the rule is not limited to abortion. It will protect doctors who do not wish to prescribe birth control or to provide artificial insemination, said Dr. David Stevens, president of CMA.

"The real battle line is the morning-after pill," he said. "This prevents the embryo from implanting. This involves moral complicity. Doctors should not be required to dispense a medication they have a moral objection to."

Hmm, let's think about that one for a while. What this bill is actually doing is forcing to the patient's to succumb to the religious beliefs of the doctor - which may defy the best course of medical action at the time (and it could be urgent). Consider this scenario. Say a 14 year old gets crazy (and I mean CRAZY) at a party, and gets knocked up. When she goes to her doctor the next day, she is denied the morning after pill on the grounds that the Christian doctor refuses, as he is morally against it. Now, because of the fact that the doctor is morally against it (due only for religious reasons), even when medically there was no harm, (AND it was the best possible course of action at the time), the girl gets pregnant, and her life is ruined, as she is completely unready to have a child.

Okay, that may not be the most likely scenario, but it could happen under this new act. Organizations such as Planned Parenthood are already fighting against it. Above all, this is one last dirty attempt to try to please social conservatives. This is politicizing women's health. The health of the patient must come first.

The potential implications of this act are harrowing. A patient would be denied not only an abortion, simply because the doctor is against (usually for religious reasons), but also such acts as artificial insemination. Hell, the doctor could even reject essential treatments such as blood transfusions on religious grounds. Lesbian couples would be denied artificial insemination. Furthermore, as stated in the article, this could re-open the abortion debate for the Obama administration. With the current state of the world and our economy, that's the last thing they need on their plate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-conscience2-2008dec02,0,7013690.story