Homosexuality is "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's

own sex."[1] Homosexuality has a number of causal factors that influence its ultimate
origination in individuals which will be addressed shortly. In addition, homosexuality has
a variety of effects on individuals and society at large which will be subsequently
elaborated on. Next, some of the historical events, religious matters, and legal matters
relating to homosexuality will also be covered. In regards to homosexuality research,
much of the research that has been in regards to the causes of homosexuality and the
effects of homosexuality has been done since the latter part of the 20th century.

Homosexuality in the society

by somy, Dec 20, 2006

Just a few things on being homosexual

Homosexuality is now a widespread topic for discussion among common people, movie
makers and especially for the politicians whose laws affect a lot of homosexual
individuals in a country. These politicians become very active during the election time
and try to lure these people by promising them special grants and flexibility.

Movies have been made for a long time covering various aspects of homosexuality and
bisexuality. There have been Oscar winning movies also like Brokeback Mountain etc.
Just to name a few, we had others like, kissing Jessica Stein, Chasing Amy, Fire etc. But
one strange thing is the impact of these movies in different parts of the world where they
are made. Its not that they are accepted everywhere and screened without any restrictions
but in-fact they are banned at most of the places, showing the narrow mindedness of the
people. But thinking rationally, this is kind of necessary also since same sex relationships
are not the one a growing world wants. For the human generation to evolve continuously
and develop in the future, it’s necessary to keep a check on same sex relationships and
promote opposite sex affairs (not by starting dating services obviously).

Its ok if a person is bisexual but homosexuality can be dangerous to a society with the
prospects of its evolution and growth. It will be the best way to educate people about all
these issues and not hide them from our children since it can be very important one day
when your child grows up and understands all this.

RESPONCES1
his argument makes perfect sense because the earth is, if anything, underpopulated. We
need to make sure our natural resources are being taxed to their full potential or else they
might just shrink into oblivion on us! Not only that, but with the way things are now,
surely promoting large quantities or breeding will only result in further development of
our countries, because we know that places such as Ethiopia, Africa and India, which
have much higher ratios of children to parents than the European countries or America
are heading in the right direction. Finally, when I stepped outside today, I found the
weather to be getting terribly cold. I think having even more people on our earth
producing more trash resulting in even more greenhouse gases can only mean good
things for our environment!

Look dude, this is bunk. First off, unless our species is to be weeded out by nature,
Homosexuality will never genetically outstrip Heterosexuality. Even if it did, that
wouldn't even detail the end of the human race. The urge to procreate and raise babies is
ingrained by genetics and biology, and if our society gets to the point where the girls
don't want to have any sexual contact with a man and vice versa (Let's face it, could you
imagine better sex with someone who knows how to best work the machinery or someone
who's only going on imagination?), I'm sure Emily Dyke won't mind getting some sperm
shot up by a turkey baster, to create a new life to be raised by her and Suzie Dyke.

RESPONCES1

I disagree, greatly, by hiding the homosexual influence society is saying that

homosexuals themselves should be hidden, and that they do not have the right to be in the
open. That in my eyes, is a sin, considering every person has the right to exist and be as
they are, in public, or in the bedroom. I find this article particularly offensive. Did you
ever consider that homosexuals are roughly 1/10 of the population thus leaving 9/10 to
procreate?

Not to mention the above which stated that the Earth is in fact overpopulated and thus we
do not need lots of people to reproduce until the population dies down

RESPONCES1

People were made for reasons surpassing JUST the biological. We are relational beings
by nature whether it be with Man or Woman. Wouldn\'t you rather have someone gay but
a good person, than some straight asshole who would have done the world a greater
service if he/she hadn\'t been born? That\'s what separates us from animals you know.
The fact that we can have sex not just because we want to procreate, but because it is a
sign of love between 2 people. I don\'t think any Religion can condemn love.:)

RESPONCES1
Im sorry i have to repectivly disagree with the last few comments, it is vital the
heterosexual behavior is promoted from the population standpoint and continuing
evolution of the human race. As for comment #3 you have no justifaction behind your
opinion, who are you to play god and decide how many people the earth has, not a good
point. #4 your getting off the issue and goin into moral ethics, weather a person is good
or bad. Religon doesnt condemn love but does put limits on who its with, thats what
seperates us from animals the fact that we have limits and do not try to cross boundries

Does Homosexuality Pose a

Threat to Society?
By Dr. Niclas Berggren
"[H]omosexuality is unhealthy, immoral and destructive to individuals,
families and societies." - Family Research Council

I. Introduction

It has long been asserted, primarily by various religious and politically

conservative groups, that homosexuality is detrimental to the well-
being of any society in which it occurs. In this essay, I plan to examine
this sort of assertions and, ultimately, demonstrate that they are
without rational foundation. In other words, it will be shown that
homosexuality does not per se constitute a threat to society.

The structure of the essay is as follows. First, a list of the most some
common negative arguments against homosexuality will be
considered, namely:

1. "Homosexuality is harmful for society"

2. "Homosexuals do not reproduce and thus threaten the survival of
society"
3. "Homosexuals pose a threat to children"
4. "Homosexuality is a depressing and sad lifestyle"
5. "Homosexuals are obsessed with sex with different partners"
6. "Homosexuality causes AIDS and other diseases which are costly
and deadly"
7. "Homosexuality undermines religion and hence stability in
society"
8. "Homosexuals want special political rights"
9. "Homosexuality threatens the family"

After the critical analysis of these arguments, some concluding

remarks are offered.

II. Arguments Against Homosexuality

In this section, I will present nine arguments against homosexuality
and, in each case, analyze them carefully in order for us to see
whether or not they are valid.

Argument #1: "Homosexuality is harmful for society"

It is not altogether clear what this claim means; in fact, I consider it

meaningless. First, we have to ask ourselves what is meant by
"homosexuality". If it refers to a sexual orientation, which denotes a
non-chosen condition, it is trivially clear that homosexuality, in itself,
cannot be harmful in any direct sense. The reason for this is that a
condition cannot perform acts: it just defines a passive state. It thus
appears as if the statement above is incoherent.

However, it might be argued that what is meant is that the condition of

homosexuality influences acts, both acts performed and acts not
performed, in a manner which is harmful. On this reading, the
statement above is not incoherent; rather, to invalidate it, it is
necessary to evaluate each suggested way in which homosexuality
allegedly influences behavior in a harmful fashion. To this we will
return shortly, in the analysis of other arguments.

If "homosexuality", on the other hand, is not meant to refer to a sexual

orientation - that is, if the existence of such a thing as sexual
orientation is denied - then the statement is simply a shorthand way of
writing "homosexual acts are harmful for society". In essence, this
amounts to the same thing as the coherent view espoused in the
preceding paragraph: in no way is the condition of homosexuality said
to be harmful (in the one case because it is realized that only acts -
performed or not performed - that are influenced by this condition can
be harmful and in the other case because it is thought that this
condition does not exist).

Second, we must define what we mean by "harmful". On both an

objective and a subjective ethics (these are two mutually exclusive
meta-ethical views, one of which must be held with regard to
normative statements), whether one considers a certain phenomenon
harmful or not depends on what one's moral guidelines assert. A
believer in an objective ethics may refer to a sacred rule book which
states that certain acts are always harmful, whilst a believer in a
subjective ethics may refer to his sentiments or some consequentialist
arguments. My counter-arguments generally belong to the second
genre: as a believer in a subjectivist ethics, I wish to motivate my
normative views by referring to effects of certain types of behavior. If a
person who advances Argument #1 thinks that this approach is
agreeable, it is possible to meet in rational discourse. If, however, such
a person believes that a set of acts is intrinsically harmful, no matter
what anyone has to say about its consequences, then it is not possible
to discuss this issue rationally. It is my hope that this category of
persons is insignificant in number.

Third, we come to the term "society" in Argument #1. This is normally

taken to mean some aggregate of individuals (along with their formal
and informal institutions) who live together in some politically defined
area. Hence, when one says that a set of acts is harmful for society,
one implies, in some way, that these acts are harmful for a large
number of individuals who live together in some political arrangement.
This understanding then reduces the argument to the micro level,
although this is seldom made explicit. So, in order to explain how a
some acts are harmful to society, one must (i) explain how they are
harmful to individuals and (ii) that the number of individual thus
harmed is quite large or that the harm in question is of a particularly
serious nature.

So what about Argument #1? Is homosexuality harmful for society? My

claim, based on the reasoning above, is that this is a meaningless
question. For it to obtain meaning, it must be rephrased as "Are the
acts which are influenced by homosexuality harmful for a large number
of individuals?". And then, to answer this question, it must first be
specified what acts that are being discussed, how they relate to
homosexuality, what our normative view of what we consider harmful
is, and how the effects of these acts spread to encompass a large
number of individuals or, alternatively, how the effects of these acts
are sufficiently serious to render them harmful for society. Below, such
detailed arguments will be conscientiously considered.

Argument #2: "Homosexuals do not reproduce and thus threaten the

survival of society"

On our tour of the more precise arguments for why homosexuality

could be said to pose a threat to society, we begin with this classic
argument. This argument is rather unique in that it bases its view of
what is harmful by defining it passively: homosexuality does not lead
to the good act of having children and, for that reason, is harmful.

To this, one might offer the following replies. First of all, if the one who
advances this argument believes it to be true, one wonders why he
holds this belief when one of the major problems for the survival of
many people, and perhaps human life as such, is the serious
overpopulation of the earth. With this in mind, it should rather be
welcomed that not all reproduce as intensely as most heterosexuals
do. If one holds that the problem of overpopulation is only a problem in
certain third-world countries, then at least one should modify one's
argument to say that homosexuality is harmful only in the Western
world, or something like that.

Second, one wonders why all people must have children, even if there
is no problem of overpopulation. Homosexuals have existed as a small
minority in all cultures throughout history (see the essay "Revolutions,
Universals, and Sexual Categories" by historian John Boswell), and
obviously, most societies have been quite able to sustain themselves
over long periods of time anyway (assuming that homosexuals have
not reproduced). People who do not bear children may fulfill other
important duties in society, such as support other families, work more
for the benefit of others, etc. We do not generally look down on
spinsters who do not want children or sterile couples because of their
inability to have children. This reveals that Argument #2 seems to be
used, not because the ones proposing it really think it good, but
because of other reasons: this argument is just added on, because it
sounds useful in the overall effort to defame homosexuals.

Third, the fact is that many homosexuals do have children. Historically,

due to social disapprobation, many homosexuals have married persons
of the opposite sex and have had children with them - and this is
certainly not an unknown phenomenon in our modern days (I
personally know of quite a few such situations). In addition, many
homosexuals who are not in heterosexual-type relationships
inseminate and hence have children. Ironically, the very same persons
who claim that homosexuals pose a threat to society because they do
not reproduce also combat any attempt to legalize or facilitate
insemination - which leaves homosexuals in a Catch 22 situation.

Fourth, what about the common claim that homosexuality is harmful

because if all were homosexuals, the human species would die out?
First, this is not true, since homosexuals can and do reproduce, e.g.,
via insemination. Second, this claim considers a hypothetical situation
which has never been, and never will be, realized. The fraction of
homosexuals, as far as we can tell, has always been rather small in
any society, and for that reason the claim is not really interesting when
discussing reality: a homosexual minority coexists well with a
heterosexual majority.

To conclude, Argument #2 does not hold, both because it may be good

not to have children (or at least not bad) and because many
homosexuals do have children and do want to have children.

Argument #3: "Homosexuals pose a threat to children"

"I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies.
Such people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate
destruction of the family and our nation. I am unalterably opposed to
such things, and will do everything I can to restrict the freedom of
these people to spread their contagious infection to the youth of our
nation." - Pat Robertson, May 24, 1994 letter

This argument is based on several misunderstandings: that

homosexuals are more prone to molest children and that it is possible
to recruit children into homosexuality and that homosexuals carry out
such acts of recruitment.

On the issue of molestation, this is what Dr. Gregory M. Herek at the

Psychology Department of the University of California at Davis has to
say: "The empirical research on adult sexual orientation and
molestation of children does not show that gay men are any more
likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to suggest
that molestations of children by adult homosexual men never occur.
They do. But molesting children has nothing to do with whether a man
is heterosexual or homosexual." For more on what Dr. Herek has to
say, including an exposition of the false claims of right-wing favorite
Paul Cameron (ousted from the APA), click here.

On the issue of recruitment, this idea entails two theories: (i) that
homosexuality can be induced by conscious acts, and (ii) that
homosexuals wish to and do recruit. As for the first theory, this is
clearly at odds with almost all expertise. Let me offer two arguments
as to why it is false. First, almost all the research in psychology and
biology indicate that homosexuality is a part of a person's inner
personality, just like heterosexuality, which is not the result of
conscious acts (see The American Psychological Association, The
American Psychiatric Association, and the site The Gay Gene, which
documents the biological findings of a genetical component to
homosexuality). And if this is so, it is not possible to recruit. Second, an
overwhelming majority of homosexuals surveyed by The Advocate
(over 90 %) a few years ago stated that they did not choose to become
homosexuals. I know, for one, that I did not choose to be gay, nor did
anyone act consciously to make me gay, and all my gay friends have
the same experience.

As for the second theory, that homosexuals wish to and do recruit, this
is without any basis. First of all, as has just been argued, homosexuals
would have to know how to make someone gay, if they were to engage
in attempts to recruit. Yet I do not think anyone can safely say that
they know how to determine the sexual orientation of someone.
Parents, that spend much more time with their kids than anyone else,
do not possess such knowledge, presumably, since straight parents
often have gay kids. Traits like sexual orientation are very complexly
determined, and homosexuals in general do not think that it is possible
to change a person's sexual orientation, period, and if so, that no one
really knows how to do it. (On the so-called ex-gay movement, see
several articles on my homo page under the heading "Is It Possible to
Change from Gay to Straight?")

Furthermore, why would homosexuals be interested in recruiting

youngsters when, clearly, each new generation brings with it gays and
lesbians quite spontaneously? And why is it assumed that gays and
lesbians want everyone else to share their sexual orientation?

It is often said that homosexuals wish to portray homosexuality in an

attractive manner in the media and in the schools in order to attract
young, impressionable children. This accusation is incorrect, for the
reason that almost all homosexuals do not think it possible to influence
the sexual orientation of a youngster by means of movies, articles, or
factual classroom information. Even if that were the case, the
heterosexual lifestyle is clearly so predominant in society (which
heterosexuals most often do not even reflect upon), that the
impressions taken by youngster must be much stronger from that side
than from the side of homosexuality. As President Weinberg of The
American Psychiatric Association stated in 1977: "A parent's fear that
their child will be recruited at school or elsewhere is without scientific
foundation".

Rather, the information about homosexuality in media and schools is

desired by gays and lesbians solely to help kids who feel attracted to
kids of their own sex to accept those unchangeable feelings. The sole
purpose is to make these kids feel better about who they are, because
most of us who grew up with homosexual feelings felt quite lonely and
scared of society's reaction. Good information can help these kids to
grow up to be healthy and self-confident. This must be considered
especially important, since gay and lesbian teens are two to three
times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers and
account for up to 30% of all completed suicides among teens - in 1989,
suicide was the leading cause of death among gay, lesbian, bisexual
and transgendered youth (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 1989). It should be obvious that honest information, positive
role models, support from well informed teachers, counselors and
friends could be immensely helpful to a teenager who is struggling to
come to terms with his or her sexual orientation.

And, in addition to this, the argument presupposes that there are solid
reasons to think homosexuality harmful in the first place. As we shall
see in this essay, there are no such reasons, and hence, even if
homosexuals did recruit (which they do not), this could hardly be
considered a bad thing, aside, possibly, from the negative attitudes
that one has to endure as a homosexuals, not the least from
condemning Christians and conservatives.

But what if it were the case that there was a larger proportion of
homosexuals than heterosexuals who molested children, for instance
(which is not the case)? Of what use is that information? Consider if it
was found that the proportion of heterosexuals who molested children
was higher than that of homosexuals, what conclusion would be drawn
from that information? Should we therefore make life as hard as
possible for all heterosexuals (perhaps on the belief that they would
become homosexuals, and hence less prone to molest kids, through
that type of treatment)? Clearly, such ideas seem bizarre and at odds
with basic notions of justice: both because all would be punished for
the activities of a minority (the molesters) and because the actions are
probably counterproductive (repressed molesters are probably more
prone to molest). And we must not forget that underlying this idea is
the erroneous theory than one can consciously change the sexual
orientation of people.

To conclude, then, the claim that homosexuals pose a threat to

children is defaming and without basis. Homosexuals, just like
heterosexuals, generally love and care for children and wish them only
to lead good, rewarding, and honest lives.

Argument #4: "Homosexuality is a depressing and sad lifestyle"

As we can see, one argument easily leads to another: the high

incidence of suicide among gay teenagers could also be used as an
argument against homosexuality, along with other problems, such as
discrimination or violence. But let us first ponder upon why gay teens
feel depressed to a large degree.

I know, as I have been a gay teen (you can read my personal story for
a fuller explication), and it is not because of something inherent in
homosexuality. The reason is instead to be found in the religious and
social attitudes of the surrounding society. Everyone is brought up on
the presumption of heterosexuality; one hears questions all the time to
that effect while growing up along with movies and examples from real
life around you which illustrate that boy meets girl. When one feels
that this is not the case, one feels confused and sad, because there is
discordance between the signals you receive from society and your
inner feelings. This conflict can be made more severe in a religious
context, where also a god may be said to be against what one feels
inside. This is hard to handle for a young person. Ironically, those who
think that they do gay and lesbian teens a favor by withholding
information in schools and by preaching harshly against
homosexuality, they are the ones who are largely responsible for
causing them their problems.

As for discrimination and violence, these things unfortunately occur,

but it would be as incorrect to deem homosexuality a sorry condition
because of that as it would be to deem being black a sorry condition as
a result of the discrimination and violence that happen to blacks. In
addition, although it is not a tactic that I mention here without some
reservation, it is possible to lead a life as a homosexual without others
knowing about it. In that manner, discrimination and violence can be
avoided. But, of course, this problem should not be overstated. I have
never been discriminated against or been subjected to violence,
although I am quite open with my orientation; and this holds for all my
gay friends as well.

To conclude, most people are sad sometimes, for some reason or

another, and there is no reason to think that homosexuals are sadder,
on the whole, than others. One exception might be during the teenage
years, when it is hard to come to terms with oneself sometimes. That is
why encouraging information is so vital and should not be suppressed.

Argument #5: "Homosexuals are obsessed with sex with different

partners"

This argument may be true, but then it is also true of most

heterosexuals (especially heterosexual men). If there is a difference,
on average, between hetero- and homosexuals in terms of how much
sex they actually have, this difference, I argue, stems from different
views on sex between the two sexes and not from anything inherent in
the respective sexual orientation. But no such reliable knowledge is
available, so we may merely speculate about it. In any case, I think
that the argument is of no relevance.

First, there seems to be a difference between male and female

sexuality, which probably accrues both to biological and social factors.
Biologically, it can be argued that the role of the woman for the
survival of genes over evolutionary history has been one of nurture,
building on her limited capacity for having children. Men, on the other
hand, have acted so as to spread sperms quite a lot, since they can
father a very large amount of children, which is in their interest. Thus,
men are more keen on temporary sexual encounters and are more
direct in their sexuality than women, who desire more of romantic love
in order to have rewarding sex. For more on this, see Chandler Burr's
review of Gabriel Rotello's book Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny
of Gay Men (which I highly recommend). The gender roles have been
supported by social traditions over time. Now, this has some
implications for the argument under consideration, since sex between
men then incorporates two or more persons who have a sexuality
which probably is more directed towards temporary sexual encounters.
It is not that they wish to have more (or less) nonmonogamous sex
than heterosexual men, but it is probable that they have some more
sex, simply because of their gender. The woman is, so to speak, a
"stabilizer" on the male sexuality which is absent in homosexual sex
encounters. But the opposite holds for lesbians: there, the total wish to
have sex with different partners could be expected to be lower than in
heterosexual relationships. So, if the number of gays in relation to
lesbians is about the same, that means that the average fraction of
persons that are "promiscuous" is about the same for homo- and
heterosexuals. It is possible that the average number of partners is
higher for homosexuals, as it could be harder for heterosexual men to
find willing women.

But however interesting this might be, I claim that it is of questionable

relevance. Argument #5 presupposes that "promiscuity" is harmful,
but my own position is that there is nothing morally wrong with having
multiple sexual partners per se. Rather, if anything, I think most people
value sex positively, and homosexuality enables "promiscuous" men to
have sex with each other and "faithful" women to cling to each other,
which means that preference satisfaction is quite easily secured. If one
does not subscribe to the absurdly strict view of sex espoused by
conservative Christians, sex with different partners is something to
enjoy. I fail to see how my having safe sex with different partners from
time to time affects anyone at all but myself and the ones I have sex
with. If we all enjoy it, how can it possibly be inferred that our behavior
is harmful to society? (I comment on diseases in my response to the
next argument. And then, if it turns out that "promiscuity" leads to
disease in a large amount of cases, I think there may be a case for
voluntary attempts to promote mongamy.)

It has been suggested, in the Swedish Pentecostal daily Dagen (July 25,
1997), that casual sex is damaging to people's mental health, that it is
intimately connected with violence, drugs, and prostitution, and that it
prevents people from developing a sense of closeness to others. Of
course, these are nothing but absurd, unsubstantiated allegations
which are proclaimed, not on the basis of facts, but on the basis of a
reactionary ethics and an interventionistic political philosophy, which I
think should be rejected. In fact, these statements remind one of the
warnings that used to be issued, not the least by Christians, on the
dangers of masturbation - warnings which today are viewed as
seriously erroneous.

However, as always, this argument rests on the mistaken idea that one
can choose one's sexual orientation. Since that is not the case, this
argument is not really pertinent, since even if gay men are more
"promiscuous" than straight men, and even if that is viewed as a bad
thing, there is nothing one can do about being gay. The question is, if
one is against casual sex, how to best alter such behavior.

This, in turn, hinges on what one perceives to be the reason behind the
possible relative "promiscuity" of gay men. In addition to the male
biological sex drive, with the characteristics referred to above, there
might be an influence from the ostracism which has traditionally
accompanied open and stable gay relationships. That is to say,
religious and conservative people seem to have a hard time dealing
with homosexuals who live just like them, in form and content, and
therefore such "traditional" homosexual lifestyles have been socially
(and legally) punished. These enemies of homosexuality seem much
more content with gays and lesbians remaining "in the closet" - but
interestingly, that might foster "promiscuity" among gay men. If there
are no traditions of, say, the institution of marriage, there is every
reason to think that people will be less inclined to form stable unions
and instead satisfy their sex drives with different partners. So, to
reduce casual sex between gay men (if one should view that as
desirable), my suggestion is to institute same-sex marriage, which
would add stability to gay unions.

To conclude, while gay men may be as keen on sex with different

partners as heterosexual men, lesbians are probably as inclined to be
faithful as heterosexual women. But since it might be easier for gay
men to find willing sex partners, it is possible that they actually have
more sex than their heterosexual counterparts. This effect might be
reinforced by the traditionally negative treatment of gays and lesbians
in open, stable relationships. But "promiscuity" need not be a negative
thing, so long as sexual acts are carried out safely (e.g., by mutual
masturbation); and it is not a necessary thing either - which is
important for all gay men to realize. If one dislikes casual sex, then one
should, and can, stay away from it.

Argument #6: "Homosexuality causes AIDS and other diseases which

are costly and deadly"

According to a fact sheet from UNAIDS, the joint AIDS program

sponsored by the United Nations and The World Bank, between 5-10
% of the total HIV infections in the world at the end of 1996 had been
caused by male homosexual intercourse - which corresponds to most
estimates of the proportion of homosexuals in the general population.
Almost no cases of lesbian sex has resulted in HIV spreading. And over
70 % of the total number of HIV infections had been caused by
heterosexual intercourse. Are we to conclude that "heterosexuality
causes AIDS"? Of course not: unsafe sex may cause one to become
infected with the HIV virus, and this holds for all persons. (But to be on
the safer side, we should perhaps recommend all girls to become
lesbians? - This, of course, is an ironic note to those who argue as if it
was possible to choose one's sexual orientation on the basis of how
many with a certain orientation that contract a certain disease.)

So it does not do to argue that homosexuality threatens society

because homosexuals cause AIDS more than heterosexuals; as we just
saw, the opposite holds. Actually, it is more fruitful to analyze the
types of behavior that are conducive to HIV infection, and such
behavior can be displayed by gay and straight alike. That is, e.g., why
gay men in the West and straight people in parts of Africa and Thailand
experience high rates of HIV infection: because they engage in high-
risk behavior. Hence, there is nothing inherent in homosexuality that
causes AIDS. How to change risky behavior is an issue which I do not
go much into here, but I have strong sympathy for the message of
Gabriel Rotello. That is, even though I do not perceive "promiscuity" as
bad in itself, when it is common in a context where people seem
unable not to take very high infection risks, I think there is a case for
attempting (through voluntary means) to encourage gay men towards
more of monogamy. In any case, it is somewhat hard to see how AIDS
threatens society as a whole. It threatens the AIDS victims, of course,
and their close ones, in a very direct way. It could be costly for the
government, if the government finances hospital care - but then, that
is a political system chosen democratically and cannot be blamed on
the small minority of gay men. (Do the enemies of homosexuality
attack fat people for eating fat foods and for not exercising, as this
causes diseases? Do they attack smokers in the same manner? If not,
why?)

As for other diseases, there are some statistics that indicate that gay
men are overrepresented in cases of sexually transmitted diseases.
Again, it is hard to see how this, in any clear way, threatens society. It
is, admittedly, a negative thing for those affected, but it is the result of
a choice of behavior which presumably entailed a net utility gain for
the person who chose it. In addition, lesbians can be expected to have
very few instances of diseases of this sort, which is normally not taken
into account by those who attack homosexuality.
And if one is concerned with diseases, is not the proper question to
ask: How can their incidence be reduced? Gay men are gay men, and
that cannot be changed. But certain patterns of behavior can be
changed, such as inducing people to use condoms. Interestingly, those
who complain that homosexuals spread diseases are unwilling to
supply condoms in schools, colleges, etc. - which reasonably
contributes to the continued spreading of these diseases (as free
condoms would increase the demand for them, as revealed to us by
the basics of economics). More transformative changes of sexual
patterns of behavior may also be called for.

To conclude, there is no basis for stating that homosexuality as such

causes more diseases than heterosexual behavior. Furthermore, it may
not hold that homosexuals are more disease-ridden than heterosexuals
- especially not when including lesbians. But even if they were, one
wonders what the point is, since homosexuality is not a choice that can
be avoided if it was shown that it was linked to various diseases.

Argument #7: "Homosexuality undermines religion and hence stability

in society"

This argument is problematic on several counts. First, many of us think

it highly beneficial if religion is undermined (see my atheism page),
and we furthermore think it incorrect to equate the spread of religion
with "stability" (whatever that is; probably, the definition is
tautological, such that stability is defined as following some religion).
As is clear from several essays on morality on my atheism page, it is
quite possible to have a well-functioning society with caring individuals
without any religion at all.

Second, even if it is probable that quite a few homosexuals are

negative towards (conservative) Christianity, due to the simple fact
that (conservative) Christianity is negative towards homosexuality,
there are, in fact, many gay and lesbian Christians. The total effect in
this area, if there is one at all, must be considered small.

Third, for an orthodox Christian, leading a non-celibate life as a

homosexual involves going to hell. This could be considered harmful.
However, it is both possible to question the existence of hell and, if one
believes in the Christian god, to question whether he would send gay
and lesbians to hell simply because of their loving someone of their
own sex. Such a cruel god could be capricious enough to send anyone
to hell, so perhaps even (conservative) Christians are in peril.
To conclude, this argument wrongly presupposes that religion is need
for "stability" and also thinks that gays and lesbians are less religious
than others, which is not certain.

Argument #8: "Homosexuals want special political rights"

Different homosexuals want different things in the realm of politics.

What almost all agree on is that there should be equality under the
law, which means that if a certain favor is granted to one group of
people, then it should also be extended to other groups. More
specifically, this means that two particular areas are important with
regard to homosexuality: marriage laws and government
discrimination.

As for marriage laws, it is clear today that heterosexuals can enjoy a

number of economic and practical favors that come about through
marriage. In the meantime, this is denied to those who wish to form
homosexual marriage unions. (Notable exceptions: the Nordic
countries and the Netherlands.) This is a clear case of inequality, which
could easily be rectified without causing any major problems (in fact, if
anything, it would promote an institution which is anti-promiscuous,
which should appeal to conservative Christians). Why are some against
it? It is clearly not a "special right" for gays and lesbians to be married;
rather, heterosexuals today have that special right. The most common
argument against this measure is that it threatens the "family", by
which is meant the traditional, heterosexual family. But how does it do
so? Allowing homosexuals to marry does not in any way make it more
difficult for heterosexuals to marry. And since being straight or gay is
not the result of a choice, giving equal rights to homosexuals would
not cause more people to be gay. The only plausible effect would be
for gays and lesbians to be able to enjoy the safety and comfort of a
legal union.

As for government discrimination, this means that the government,

who supposedly represents all citizens, does not treat gays and
lesbians differently solely because of their orientation. In the U.S., this
implies that the virtual ban on gays and lesbians in the military be
lifted (as it has been in most other Western countries, with no negative
effects) and that they, as well as everyone else, are judged on conduct,
not on who they love.

As for anti-discrimination laws, there are different views among

homosexuals. Although it is probably true that most are in favor of
laws outlawing their being discriminated against at work or in housing
solely because of their orientation. Are these special rights? Not really,
since they would state that sexual orientation is no grounds for
discrimination. This means that it would also be unlawful to
discriminate against someone who is straight. Anyway, I am opposed
to these type of laws on principled grounds, as I am a libertarian, but I
do think that as long as they are offered on some grounds, such as
religion or ethnicity, sexual orientation should be included as well.

As for adoption of children, this is clearly no special right either, since

heterosexuals today can be tried as adoptive parents. Their is no basis
for thinking homosexuals less capable of taking care of children (see
the current research from The American Psychological Association on
this issue). But what about the children? Well, children may be bullied
for many reasons, but it would be wrong, I think, to yield to ignorance
and hatred: that would give the opponents a triumph they do not
deserve. In fact, the studies that have been conducted indicate that
children to gays and lesbians cope as well as other kids, overall.

To conclude, gays and lesbians do not want special rights; they just
wish to be able to take part of government favors, just like all other
taxpayers. This involves marriage rights, adoption rights, an end to
government discrimination in the military, and, possibly, anti-
discrimination rights.

Argument #9: "Homosexuality threatens the family"

This argument involves similar considerations as the first one, namely,

that it is thought that people involved in homosexual acts - either in
stable, monogamous relationships or in temporary encounters -
somehow undermine a collective entity referred to as "family".

What, first of all, is meant by this term? If one defines the term as "two
married adults of the opposite sex with one or more children", then the
argument reduces to a few of the arguments above, as is seen when
considering what is threatened in this constellation of persons. For
instance, are children threatened by homosexuality? We saw above
that this is clearly not so - neither in the sense that reproduction is
hindered overall nor in the sense that children are more at risk to be
treated badly.

Is the institution of marriage threatened by there being gays and

lesbians around? Clearly not, since gays and lesbians have existed
throughout history alongside heterosexual marriage. And even if same-
sex marriage would be allowed, it is hard to see why opposite-sex
marriage would not continue to be the option for many straight
persons.
Is fidelity threatened, such that if gays and lesbians exist, some
(bisexual?) spouse is more prone to have sex outside of the marriage?
To this, one might first reply that the principle that Jesus put forth in
his Sermon on the Mount was that adultery can also be committed in
the mind. Hence, even without an actual possibility for, say, a married
man to have sex with a gay man, the married man would still have
fantasies about other men and, in that manner, still be unfaithful in the
heart. So there being gay men around does nothing to alter this.
Besides, most married men, when unfaithful, have sex with women.
Should we therefore say that heterosexuality poses a threat to the
family? That, rightly, seems bizarre. It is not a particular sexual
orientation which causes infidelity, it is unsatisfactory marriages.

Lastly, could this argument mean that the forming of alternative family
arrangements in itself threatens the family? Well, this view only seems
coherent on the view that sexual orientation involves a choice and if
one thinks of "family" as meaning the future predominant existence of
the arrangement "two married adults of the opposite sex with one or
more children". But since sexual orientation is not the result of a
choice, there is no reason to think that the predominance of straight
marriage in any significant way will be undermined by gays and
lesbians. Even if it sexual orientation was the result of a choice, this
would probably not threaten straight marriage, at least not in the short
run, since - given the negative attitudes that still exist in connection
with homosexuality - most people, if given a choice, would opt for this
arrangement. Generally, given an appreciation of non-paternalism, it
seems odd to question the free choices of individuals: if more people in
the future decide that they will be more happy in same-sex
relationships, what could anyone have to say against their revealed
preferences?

To conclude, the assertion that homosexuality poses a threat to the

family is empty. In fact, gays and lesbians today form their own
families, some with children, some without, and they strive for love,
care, and stability just as much as any heterosexual couple. It is,
evidently, time to widen the definition of "family" and to embrace
nontraditional arrangements in this realm of affairs - without fear that
traditional arrangements will lose out.

III. Conclusions

This exposé has clarified that there are several common arguments
that have been proposed to demonstrate that homosexual acts, in
various ways, pose a threat to the a large number of individuals.
Likewise, it has been clarified that all these arguments are built on
loose ground indeed; in fact, most of them are either meaningless or
false.

So if there are no sound arguments to the effect that homosexuals

contribute negatively to their fellow human beings, are there
arguments to the contrary? I think that most gays and lesbians - and I
know quite a few - regard themselves as just as compassionate, caring,
loving, generous, intelligent, ambitious, honest, etc. as their
heterosexual friends. We are not really different than others in terms of
values or behavior which hurt others. And is it not quite clear from
history that homosexuals have contributed greatly to society? Need I
mention more than Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Tchaikovsky,
Benjamin Britten, W. H. Auden, Leonard Bernstein, the most recent
vice-chairman of Ford Motor Co., Versace, Elton John, k.d. lang, Martina
Navratilova, Henry James, Walt Whitman, Tennessee Williams, H. C.
Andersen, Oscar Wilde, Arthur Rimbaud, Julius Caesar, Aaron Copeland,
E. M. Forster, Rock Hudson, Lytton Strachey, W. Somerset Maugham,
Sir Ian McKellen, Sir Peter Pears, Alan Turing, Gertrude Stein, Ludwig
Wittgenstein, Niclas Berggren (just kidding )…

At this point, I think it proper to briefly touch upon the idea of the
liberal democratic state vs. the idea of theocracy, advanced by some
Christians. The basic idea of the former is that everyone in society are
allowed to do whatever they wish so long as they do not inflict harm
upon others. Clearly, as discussed above, it is crucial how one defines
"harm" here. It is clear that some Christians have a much stricter
definition than most, but I think I have showed, quite in detail, above
that there is no real basis for viewing homosexuality as being harmful
for anyone else. Hence, as long as we remain democrats in the
Western tradition, it seems utterly hard to retain the oppressive view
towards homosexuality which some give voice to. If individuals wish to
associate in churches which dislike homosexuality, I think they should
be so allowed, but they should not be allowed to legislate on the basis
of such views, viewed as irrational and demeaning by many other
citizens. In fact, due to the irrational foundation of such views, it may
be divined that a general and quite cruel homophobia underlies them.
And if so, the reason is ever the greater to resist and argue for
tolerance and full inclusion in society of all, including gays and
lesbians. Some of us may dislike Christianity, and it is our legal
privilege to do so; some others may dislike homosexuality, and it is
their legal privilege to do so. But it is wrong to use the law as a tool for
advancing views on the private morality of others. That is the tenet of
liberal democracy, and that is worth fighting for.

To conclude, I have shown that the arguments against homosexuality

do not stand up to critical scrutiny: homosexuality is as good or bad as
heterosexuality. I have also demonstrated that being gay is not
something one chooses, and hence, any political actions based on the
erroneous view that sexual orientation is a choice are bound, not as
their supporters think to reduce the number of homosexuals, but
rather only to cause unnecessary discomfort and misery to those of us
who happen to have been born as gays or lesbians. Such treatment is
unworthy of a modern society.