In most states, homosexuality is defined as existing only between a woman and a man, and male homosexual conduct (i.e. sodomy) is outlawed in many states. Many people defend these laws as necessary to protect society and the sanctity of marriage, and to keep people from performing “unnatural” acts, while others oppose these laws as unconstitutional because they create laws that put restrictions on the private sector. Using Kantian theory, I will analyze the major reasons people oppose homosexuality, and provide evidence as to why homosexual conduct is not “wrong”, and also natural, and why marriage should be a union between two loving individuals regardless of sex.
There are numerous arguments against homosexuality, but when you analyze them closely, they can be placed in one of two categories: The Religious Argument and The Unnatural Argument.
The Religious Argument: This argument is most simply stated as “homosexuality is wrong, because the Bible says so; therefore homosexuality violates the law of God.” People using this argument typically cite Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination,”; however, do people “who cite what they take to be condemnations of homosexuality in Leviticus maintain in their lives all the hygienic and dietary laws of Leviticus?” (Mohr 457). People have also been known to use “the story of Lot at Sodom to condemn homosexuality”; however, “do they also cite the story of Lot in the Cave to praise incestuous rape?” (Mohr 457). Clearly any attempt to cite the Old Testament in support of anti-homosexual views is hypocritical unless the arguer supports the entire context. Another strong piece of evidence against this argument (for Christians, at least) is that Jesus never once mentions homosexuality, so people claiming that Jesus was against homosexuality and would be against gay marriages as well would be hard-pressed to provide support for their claim.
In the article “Homosexual Conduct Is Wrong”, one of John Finnis’ reasons for opposing homosexuality is based on his belief that sex should only occur between a woman and man that are married to each other, and then only to procreate (451). This belief is presumptively a religious one, and a Catholic one at that, and because most of America is not Catholic, this argument appears rather absurd, because it would also mean that married men and women could not use contraceptives of any kind. Also, if a person is known to be sterile or barren, they are not permitted to marry ever, because any sexual intercourse could not conceivably result in children and is therefore wrong. Not to mention he assumes that his audience believes extra-marital sex is wrong, which is also a religious idea, and therefore not applicable to all people.
In the religious argument, the arguer makes all their claims on an assumption that all people acknowledge the same religious authority as them. In contrast, many people do not accept the Torah or the Bible as sacred or meaningful texts, and they therefore cannot be held to the standards established in these texts. It would be like having an in-depth debate about astro-physics in English with someone who speaks only Thai, for in order to have a debate in the first place, both parties must be speaking the same language, and not all people even acknowledge the validity of the Bible or Torah, and therefore do not speak that “language”. As far as the United States is concerned, the religious argument has no strength because according to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, laws cannot be created on religious bases.
The “Unnatural” Argument: Another argument that many people use against homosexuality is the “unnatural argument”, which can be stated as “homosexual conduct is unnatural because it does not produce children, therefore it is wrong.” This argument is faulty on two levels: 1) it makes the assumption that all people believe sex’s purpose is to procreate, which I have already argued against as a factor of the religious argument, and 2) it makes the assumption that body parts (in this case the genitals) have only one function (in this case reproduction) (Mohr 458 ).
The second assumption of the unnatural argument is easily disputed. Think of the mouth. It would be absurd to say that the mouth is only to be used for eating, when it can also be acceptably used for “talking, licking stamps, blowing bubbles, or having sex” (Mohr 458 ). The same can be said for any body part, including the genitals. “The possible use of the genitals to produce children does not, without more, condemn the use of the genitals for other purposes, say, achieving ecstasy and intimacy” (Mohr 458 ). Furthermore, what human is to say what the exclusive purpose of any part of the body is? The people that make such claims do so with the supposed order of a Creator; however, to call upon such an authority is to return to the religious argument, which, again, violates the inability of one to hold “others accountable to one’s own religious beliefs” (Mohr 458 ). Therefore, if achieving ecstasy and intimacy are natural functions of the genitals, homosexuality cannot be labeled “unnatural”, for it fulfills one of the natural functions of the genitals.
Now that I have given plenty of reason not to accept the argument against homosexuality, no doubt can reasonably be left to say homosexuality is in any way inferior to heterosexuality, for both are means of attraction that can lead to similar ends of either temporary or long-term coupling. In regard to long-term coupling, there is the institution of marriage which many heterosexual couples happily take advantage of, and also abuse. Unfortunately, you can count on one hand the amount of states in which homosexual marriages is permitted. If both sexual orientations are acceptable means of obtaining a partner, then the exclusivity of marriage is surely an injustice, for many people are being deprived of the status of being married for previously-proved, misguided notions, and Kantian theory calls for a system in which the minimum amount of people are kept from benefiting. I propose that this minimum consist only of people who are not of legal marrying age, so that all consenting adults who seek a marriage may obtain one, thus satisfying Kant’s idea, for if one were to be placed behind a “veil of ignorance”, they would agree that the desire to marry should be the only requirement to marry (assuming the couple consists of consenting adults).
What excuse can there be, therefore, to withhold the pleasure of marriage, or even the pain of marriage, from homosexual couples? One cannot say beyond reasonable doubt that homosexuality is wrong, and if that is enough for a jury to be kept from convicting someone in court, then why should we keep homosexuals from marriage (and divorce for that matter, for you really cannot have one without the other) if the people who do not like or “agree” with homosexuality have no right to impose that belief on others, and no secular basis to oppose it? If we are to truly be a nation of equality, we must live up to our self-proclaimed mission of equality, and allow all consenting adult couples to marry.
300
200
200
