Homosexuality: A Chosen Harm

My aim here is neither to coerce nor to persecute. I have no personal hostilities toward homosexuals, any more than I have personal hostilities toward casual marijuana users. I believe that both practices ought to be legal and free from state intervention, but that both are colossally
 deleterious to the health and moral integrity of the individuals practicing them. I shall seek to persuade, civilly and rationally, as befits intelligent debate, of the verity of my three-pronged thesis: that homosexuality, in every variant thereof, is a practice volitionally chosen by the individuals engaging in it, and is harmful to its practitioners both physically and morally.

First, homosexuality is a practice that those engaging in it undertake of their own free will, and not an orientation that is somehow inherently pre-determined. The very nature of the human mind will imply such a conclusion. In his 1690 Essay Concerning Human Understanding, the British philosopher John Locke, whose theories were fundamental in the creation of the American Republic, wrote "No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience." This implies that, until an individual has experience with the reality in which he lives, he cannot have any knowledge. Until he has any knowledge, he cannot have any principles or inclinations, for those are themselves formed only through the use of the knowledge that the individual has already gained, as well as the principles of reasoning that he has discovered through his exposure to the external world. In other words, man's mind must be born tabula rasa, a blank slate, incapable of any innate "orientations" whatsoever. Therefore, one cannot be a homosexual, a heterosexual, a basketball enthusiast, or exhibit any other personality, behavior, or inclination without having at some point acquired this trait. Nobody is born desiring to have intercourse with members of the same gender; as a matter of fact, just about every child anyone has ever known was not born with any desires for intercourse whatsoever!

Related information
Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea, and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices.
 
Comments 1 - 10 of 12 Next >>
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

just converted to Christianity simply because it was detrimental to one's health to remain a Jew, because as we all know, Jews are more likely to be gassed than Christians, right? So that argument holds no water to me. Fix society to be more inclusive. Let's carpet the world instead of insisting that everyone wear slippers. Sorry for the multiple comments, but AC kept cutting me off.

Posted on 02/06/2008 at 9:02:57 PM

...more education about who is at risk and why. And dare I say it... a health care system that covers life partners instead of just married couples...! As far as gay men and women being more likely to smoke than straight men and women, I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Very clever in an argumentative essay, but also quite deceptive. Being gay doesn't predispose you to smoking, and therefore give you lung cancer. Perhaps people who smoke are just more likely to be gay because they're not of a repressive nature. And lastly, the emotional argument is the biggest I have a problem with. Because gays are made to feel guilt about their sexual practices is the fault of society at large that demonizes them for who they choose to be. In a free and civilized society, even if we do choose our sexuality, should we be made to feel ashamed for it, assuming it's consensual and between adults? We choose our own religions too, but going by your theory, all the Jews in Nazi Germany should

Posted on 02/06/2008 at 9:02:58 PM

This is extremely well written, but I take issue with a lot of it, particularly the idea that same sex love is immoral. In my eyes, that's why we're so messed up as a nation... because we make sex (any kind of sex) shameful. A lot of your essay seems to presume that because gay men have many more sex partners than straight tighty whiteys, they're less moral and their behavior is self destructive emotionally, not to mention they're at a higher risk for STDs. But that is true of both gays and straights. I don't care who you are, if you use sex as a hedonistic weapon, you're on the wrong track. But if sex is used as a symbol of love, it's an entirely different ballgame. If gays were monogomous, would these risks be so great? I think it's unfair to assume that gays cannot be monogamous. The lesbian health risks were new to me, as well, but a little research into the topic taught me that any health risks they might face could and should be combatted with better health care, more pap smears,

Posted on 02/06/2008 at 9:02:11 PM

Assuming your argument is correct I find that it would also be impossible to have the urge for members of the opposite sex to persue each other if there were no orientations. Also, Locke was referring to education not experience. In the letter concerning human understanding Locke's goal was to create an environment that would allow children to make rational choices based upon reason and suspension of desire. Upon a further reading of Locke one would find that Lcoke's argument in the Letter Concerning Toleration this article itself is a threat to society as it calls for alligience to a forgein type of government, Fascism.

Posted on 12/23/2007 at 5:12:21 PM

MasterPro, the same reason why racist white men don't encourage their white daughters to date black men. homophobic parents don't encourage their kids to be queer. it's pretty simple, surprising that people don't seem to have an answer to your question.

Posted on 12/15/2007 at 1:12:32 PM

I really don't have anything to add to the debate. I think your article is extremely well thought out and well written. You make excellent points here and I also am glad you didn't use the Bible as a source. I think it would have taken away from your work on this and made it into one of those articles notorious for being holier than thou. great work on this one!

Posted on 06/04/2007 at 6:06:00 PM

Very well researched and thorough article written with an earnest desire to help. Instead of 'suppressing' the desire to do something that may harm the self or others, one can 'overcome' the desire by focusing the mind on the breath, till the 'wave of desire' passes or wears out.

Posted on 05/27/2007 at 6:05:00 AM

Former New Mexican: Thank you for your readership and comments. I agree entirely with what you say. I wanted to use sources that could persuade readers irrespective of their religious beliefs, and I am glad that I was able to succeed at that at least.

Posted on 05/12/2007 at 9:05:00 AM

I found it refreshing that you did not use the Bible as a source. Primarily because the Bible is not believed by all, and therefore does not have credibility to all. I personally believe in the Bible, but in your case it was a wise choice not to use it here. Morality can be subjective, but scientific evidence is not.

Posted on 05/11/2007 at 10:05:00 PM

Mr. Sweeney: Thank you for reading. My sources are not all "conservative right publications." Among those that are not are: The Medical Institute of Sexual Health; Michican's statewide "gay" newspaper, "Between the Lines"; Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology; and The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. I also argue using the thought of historical thinkers like John Locke and Charles Darwin, which existed before the contemporary "conservative right" label came to be. Furthermore, what evidence do you have that the studies cited included prostitutes to a greater degree than studies with heterosexuals? If you could point me to some information on the subject, your argument would have more credence.

Posted on 05/08/2007 at 10:05:00 AM

Comments 1 - 10 of 12 Next >>