2003-03-28 - 1:29 a.m.

��H�����P���ʡ��w�g�O�ӹL�F���D�ءA���o�x���~�����u�`���H�����D�j���w��A�誾���u�D���[���I���D�ءC���g�פ�g��2001�~4��A���e�L���A���L���F�����`���A�]�����m��F�C

Homosexuality and Morality

1. Introduction

Homosexuality is a prevalent social phenomenon that has a long history in most places in the world. Doubtlessly, it is still a controversial moral problem in modern world because it involves controversial elements like freedom and rights, social structure and sex orientation which may be a taboo for many people. We can always read from media or hear from others many arguments for and against the issue. Many people nowadays think that homosexuality is morally permissible but there are still some people do not think so, and both camps seem have provided valid and fecund arguments for their claims. Perhaps the controversy lies on their different conception of ��morally wrong��. One may claim that homosexuality is morally wrong because it is abnormal and unnatural, and his opponent may think that it is not morally wrong because we should respect those people having different sexual orientation with us. This may further invite a meta-ethical debate about the meaning of ��morally wrong��. To give a fuller explanation of the meaning of ��morally wrong�� is not a comfortable task that can be afforded by this short essay. Rather, I will try to organize the more plausible arguments into certain accounts that may grasp the concept of ��morally wrong�� or ��morally right��, with the erroneous and false elements eliminated. At the end, I will evaluate and weigh the relative importance of these accounts in the discussion of homosexuality. Perhaps it is difficult to give a definite answer whether homosexuality is moral or not but the main aim of this paper is to make clear what people are actually claiming when they say that homosexuality is moral or immoral. More importantly, it can prevent people from making unreasonable claim about the issue: if they claim that homosexuality is ��immoral�� and the reason is that they are abnormal, then they cannot use the name of ��immoral�� to claim that homosexuality should be legally prohibited. We do not think that we should discriminate abnormal people, right? The danger of confusing the different senses of ��moral�� or ��immoral�� is great enough to foster widespread misery and misfortune in society. We should make clear what people are claiming when they say that something is immoral and identify the correct implication from such claim.

Unlike many other controversial issues, people do not have much disagreement over the definition of homosexuality. I will hereafter refer homosexuality to the ��sexual behaviour between people of the same sex��, contrasting with heterosexuality which means ��sexual behaviour between people of different sex (i.e. between a male and a female)��. Therefore, homosexuality is a behaviour between human beings. One important point is worth to remind readers: we are discussing the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, which is a behaviour; but not whether the homosexuals themselves�Xthose who practice such behaviour, are morally balmeworthy. Someone may not be morally blameworthy for certain actions, but it is still possible that they are doing something wrong. The following discussion will be focused on homosexuality but not whether homosexuals are morally blameworthy.

2. The Account of ��Nature of Sex��

There are four main accounts in the discussion of homosexuality, namely, the nature of sex account, the psychological account, the social ethical account and the freedom and rights account. I will start with the nature of sex account first. The main claim of this account is that homosexuality is not natural or at least it violates the nature of sex. The argument goes on like this: homosexuality is unnatural and because it is unnatural, it is immoral. The weakness of such argument lies on the ambiguity of ��natural���Xthe question-begging term that can be used by both sides of the controversy. Homosexuality is so widespread today that many people would not think that it is ��unnatural�� anymore. And on the other hand, to do something unnatural is not necessarily immoral either. We will not think that to escape from a falling stone�Xa natural disaster�Xis immoral. Therefore, if the supporters of this claim want to maintain their argument to be reasonable and convincing, they must provide a clearer definition of ��natural�� that can possibly exclude homosexuality as natural and at the same time implies that anything unnatural in that sense is immoral. If they fail to do so, the accuse of homosexuality as ��unnatural�� is no better than the subjectivist argument that homosexuality is disgusted and queasy�Xan argument that is no longer convincing in rational discussions about moral matters.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality differ only in one aspect�Xthe gender of the partners involved in the sexual activity. On the basis of our acceptability to heterosexuality, I will examine whether this only difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality is legitimate to generate a difference in moral status between the two under different understandings of the nature of sexual activities. So what is the nature of sexual activities? Someone who supports homosexuality will claim that sexual activities are just normal activities for enjoyment and pleasures. Someone may claim that sexual activities are an expression of love. In these two understandings of the nature of sexual activities, the gender difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality is morally irrelevant. Certainly, gender does not play any role in an activity that the sole aim is to obtain pleasures. Everyone should have the right to play such game and they should have their free choice in choosing their partners given that they are voluntary, just like we can choose whoever partner in playing tennis or squash. On the other hand, if sexual activities are an expression of love, and given that the love between homosexuals is no different from the heterosexuals, then it is also legitimate for homosexuals to express their love with their lovers in the way of making love, provided that we accept there are ��real love�� between hmonsexuals. Another account for the nature of sexual activities is that the essence of sexual activities is the possibility of producing offspring. Under this perspective, the gender difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality is sufficient for the different moral status of the two. It is because principally, only heterosexual intercourse can provide the necessary condition for producing offspring�Xsperms of a male and an egg from a female. Homosexuality is not possible for us to produce offspring and therefore it has violated the nature of sexual activities.

We can then have a closer look to the three understandings of the nature of sexual activities. The scope of the sexual activities mentioned above can be limited to refer only to sexual intercourse for the efficiency of discussion, as homosexuality and heterosexuality are also by meaning involving at least two people. This will exclude sexual activities like masturbation and others that does not involve more than one person. The pleasure and enjoyment perspective seems convincing, and is in fact quite popular among young generations, for the reason that many people are in fact engaging in sex for this purpose. Sexual experiences can not only satisfy our physical desires but also gives us psychological and mental satisfaction. We should not be ashamed if we can get pleasure and enjoy very much from the process of making love. It seems quite natural for us to enjoy that�Xfor male, it is normal for them to have orgasm before their ejaculation and for female, even if they may not necessarily have orgasm every time in sexual intercourse, it is still a pleasurable experience for them in normal cases. I tend to accept the position that pleasures and enjoyment is a necessary condition for sexual activities. If people engage in sex only for the purpose of producing offspring without any pleasure or enjoyment, then it is a great misfortune. Not only misfortune, but it may also be a negligence of an important element in sex. Of course there are people who are sexually apathy and engage in sex just to satisfy their lovers, but their sexual life is not a complete and natural one. A natural and healthy sexual life must be the one that can produce pleasures for both parties involved.

However, even pleasures and enjoyment is a necessary condition for sex, it is not a sufficient one. We will surely reluctant to let young boys and girls engaging in sexual intercourse for obtaining pleasure. So at least we have to add the constraints to the perspective of pleasure and enjoyment that sexual activities can only be practiced by rational and matured adult. But it is still problematic. If pleasures and enjoyment is sufficient for sexual activities, then we have to say that incest, adultery, and prostitution are all natural sexual activities. Even if two people who just know each other in the street, they can have sexual relationship if they both enjoy making love with each other. Pleasures and enjoyment cannot be used to be the excuse and defense for ��casual sex��. Obviously, pleasures and enjoyment are not the whole of our sexual activities. We may do it for fun, but we cannot do it just for fun without other considerations. Using the pleasure and enjoyment perspective as an explanation of the nature of our sexual activities is inadequate: it provides a necessary condition only, but not a sufficient one.

Another perspective is to view sex as a possible chance of producing offspring. This perspective does not claim that the aim of sexual activities is to produce offspring�Xa similar but different claim. If it is the latter claim, then it will be bound to fail. It is very clear that many people engage in sex not for this purpose, and many of them even try very hard to avoid this possibility, either by contraception before or by abortion after. And in fact naturally, it is not necessary to give birth every time when people engage in sex. Eggs in female are produced once every four weeks and therefore not every time the male ejaculate his sperms into the vagina of the female will give birth successfully. Rather, this perspective is a weaker claim, that sex is an activity that may produce offspring. Anything eliminating such possibility is regarded as a breach of the nature of sex.

The argument of giving birth is quite sufficient for us to engage in sexual activities. If couples want to give birth for their own families, the only possible natural way is to engage in sex. Although ��natural�� is still ambiguous here, it is quite clear that test tube babies is not a borderline case but clearly an unnatural method in giving birth. The more important question is: whether such possibility is necessary for sexual activities or more precisely sexual intercourse? I have argued that the aim of sexual intercourse is not necessary to give birth, and it is not necessary in the intercourse we will give birth. In this sense, what is the importance of such possibility? Why we have to insist that such possibility is necessary for sexual behaviour, given that we may not aim at producing offspring and may not succeed in doing so? For those who cannot give birth permanently because of physical defects, is it unnatural for them to engage in sex? The idea of ��possibility�� of giving birth, if not supported by stronger arguments, seems only an articulated weapon invented by the attackers towards homosexuality.

The most plausible perspective about the nature of sexual activities is the view that they are an expression of love. Sexual relationship is the closest and most intimate relationship between one and another person, and such relationship should not be the one that we can establish easily with anybody. This closest relationship should be established only with our lovers�Xthose who are the most important to us except our families. On the other hand, lovers are natural to have the desire to have sex with the one they love. Sexual relationship is alongside with their lover relationship. The ��expression of love perspective�� has the merit over the pleasure and enjoyment perspective that prostitution and casual sex would not be regarded as natural sex relationships�Xloving each other is a necessary condition for engaging in sexual activities. It is a reasonable necessary condition for sex, especially in nowadays society in which ��sex without love�� is so widely accepted and ��love with sex�� is considered as impossible. If people can make love with anybody even without love, then people will not respect sex seriously. No one will think that it should be a relationship established on deep emotional basis. When we mistakenly think that pleasure is sufficient for establishing sexual relationship, the dignity and seriousness of sex will be decried. Sexual relationship without love is obviously a violation of the nature of sexual activities.

Even so, there is a more pressing question: whether loving each other is a sufficient condition for engaging in sex? If it is sufficient, then homosexuals can reasonably claim that their sex is natural, if they really love their partners in sex although it is not possible for them to produce offspring. Yet there are also some considerations here. If loving each other is sufficient for sexual activities, then we must also accept that love between young children and between family members are sufficient for natural sexual activities too. It may be argued that love between young children may not be matured enough and the ��love�� mentioned should be limited to the case of love between people from different families. However, it will give rise to the difficulty in defining ��love���Xwhat is the criterion of love that is sufficient for sex? On the other hand, if the nature of sex is just an expression of love, and people just ignore the possibility of giving birth when engaging in sex, then the result of their sex may become trivial�Xif their sex results in a new life, they may claim that it is just a by-product of their sexual activities. If people think that making love is just an activity for expression of love, then they will not respect the responsibility they bear in giving birth. Certainly it is not a correct view about the nature of sexual activities. Moreover, there are many ways in expressing love, and sex is only one of them. We can express our love to our lovers by concerning, caring, and respecting each others. It is possible to have love without sexual intercourse, though to some people, it may be a bit difficult to imagine. Sex is an important part in lovers�� relationship, but it is not the essential element. So even two people love each other, it is not necessary to express their love through sexual activities.

From the above analysis, we can see that pleasures and enjoyment, and loving each other may be the necessary condition for sex, while the possibility of giving birth is a sufficient condition. But neither anyone of them are both sufficient and necessary to capture the whole nature of sexual activities. Whether homosexuality is natural is still arguable, but two points are made clear here: that we cannot accuse homosexuality as unnatural by saying that it is impossible for them to give birth, which is not a necessary condition for engaging in sex; and we cannot defend homosexuality as natural by saying that it is indifferent with heterosexuality in giving us pleasure and is just as expression of love�Xthey are not sufficient conditions for sex. Viewing from the nature of sex account, it seems that it is a deal between the opponents and supporters of homosexuality.

3. Psychological Account

We can then turn to the psychological account. The main debates of this account focus on whether homosexuality is normal or abnormal, and whether it is innate or not. Like the nature of sex account, this account is used by both opponents and defenders of homosexuality. Defenders of homosexuality claim that homosexuality as a sexual orientation is innate with the homosexuals and homosexuals simply cannot control themselves in engaging in homosexuality�Xit is not a free choice. Their desire for sexual satisfaction cannot easily be replaced by other desires. Therefore we should not blame the homosexuals morally, just like we will not blame a mentally disabled person for doing something bad. Opponents disagree with such argument by rejecting the empirical premise that sexual orientation is innate with and therefore uncontrollable by the homosexuals. They claim that their sexual orientation is nurtured and developed by the environment and external circumstances. If they can choose their sexual orientation in normal circumstances, they would not choose to become homosexuals. It is interesting that both opponents and defenders claim that their empirical premises are supported by empirical psychological findings. Whether sexual orientation is uncontrollable or not is a psychological debate and I would not take a stance here. Rather, I will argue that it is not a relevant argument in the discussion of homosexuality. As I have argued in the beginning of the paper, we are discussing the behaviour of homosexuality but not the homosexuals themselves. We can reasonably say that the homosexuals should bot be morally blamed for their sexual orientation, provided that they cannot control it. However, it does not straightforwardly mean that homosexuality is not morally wrong. A mentally disabled person should not be blamed for his unintentional harm to another, but we cannot say that his behaviour of harming others is not morally wrong. Similarly, even if sexual orientation is innate and cannot be controlled by the homosexuals themselves, it does not mean that their behaviour is necessarily not immoral. When a rapist appeal to the court that his desire for sex is uncontrollable when he committed the crime, should we accept such an excuse and accept that his act is not wrong? Even if a desire is uncontrollable, it does not necessarily mean that the satisfaction of such desire is morally acceptable. Whether a person is morally responsible for his act should be distinguished from whether his act is morally right or not.

A more possible defense for homosexuality is to claim that sexual orientations, including both homosexuality and heterosexuality, are innate that we should not suppress our natural instinct in their satisfaction. This claim is certainly not attractive without further clarification, as we can see that even not all kinds of heterosexuality are justified�Xsatisfaction of basic instinct is not sufficient for the rightness of heterosexuality. Moreover, not all innate desires should be satisfied. The desire of attacking others or plundering others�� properties may also be innate, but it does not mean that we should not at least try our best to suppress these irrational desires. A refinement of the argument can be made here, that homosexuality is innate and is difficult to change or substituted. If someone is born to love and can only have sex with people of the same sex, then we cannot and simply should not force them to suppress their sexual orientation. We should not force the homosexuals to become heterosexuals, just like we should not force the heterosexuals to become homosexuals. Here, the defenders of homosexuality adopt a strategy of analogy to heterosexuality: homosexuality is indifferent from heterosexuality as sexual orientation�Xthey are both innate preferences which should be respected by all of us. If opponents fail to differentiate heterosexuality and homosexuality here, then they are bound to accept that the two should have the same moral status.

Opponents of homosexuality claim that we should not have the same treatment for heterosexuality and homosexuality morally. It is because homosexuality is driven by abnormal desires. Many psychologists claim that a cluster of undesirable traits is associated with homosexuality. Homosexuals satisfy their sentimental and sexual needs by appealing to people of the same sex. They are thus said to be egocentric, supercilious, and narcissistic. If homosexuality is really driven by these abnormal traits, it is reasonable to say that it is an abnormal behaviour. On the other hand, if such behaviour further encourages the development of these undesirable traits, then homosexuality is also undesirable too. However, there is no strong empirical evidence that homosexuality and these undesirable traits are necessarily related. Is there any concrete evidence that all homosexuals are self-centered, arrogant and hostile to others? Is it impossible to have homosexuality without all these undesirable traits? The answer tends to be no. Homosexuality and heterosexuality as sexual orientations differ only in the gender involved, and such difference is not necessarily related to these undesirable traits�Xthey are equally available for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Why we won��t accuse those heterosexuals who possess such traits?

May be the real claim is: homosexuals are egocentric about their sex. Homosexuality in fact signifies a departure from the traditional life-style: a possible totally independent life-style for only male or only female because they no longer need to depend on the opposite sex even on the satisfaction of the most basic desire in their life. Such homosexual life-style based on the egocentricity of sex is less preferable to a heterosexual life-style based on equality of sex. The latter can give us a fuller picture and meaning of life, given that the world is made up of male and female. In this sense, homosexuality is less preferable than heterosexuality but it does not mean that homosexuality is abnormal, for the evidence that they are driven by abnormal desires is not strong enough. We can then draw a conclusion from the psychological account: homosexuality is no different from heterosexuality in psychology, except that the former may stimulate egocentricity about sex. Such egocentricity may not be healthy for human beings, but we can hardly accuse homosexuality as abnormal psychologically.

4. The Account of Social Ethics

The next account discussed is an account about social ethics, which is usually used by the opponents of homosexuality. The most common accuse from this account is that homosexuality is always associated with other immoral sexual activities. Homosexual relationships are found to be non-durable, fragile, casual, and confusing. Polygamy and adultery are common among homosexuals and many of them will have more than one lover at the same time. It also gives an impression that they do not care much about ��safe sex��. The argument has some point here. But we should be noted that not all homosexuals are like that. Homosexual lovers may also have relationships as pure and as healthy as the heterosexuals. Another point to be noted is that the above situation is resulted partly because the norms for homosexuality have not been established fully. It is not common for us to discuss publicly about the ethics for the homosexuals, and the homosexuals are used to be silent about the issue. We have a very comprehensive ethics for the heterosexuals in sexual relations, however, we do not have such thing for the heterosexuals. Using this standard to compare heterosexuals and homosexuals is unfair. If we can discuss the issue more openly and establish norms within the homosexuals, it is possible that they can have more regulated and healthier sexual relationships. Homosexuality should not be condemned solely for its relations with these other immoral sexual behaviour.

Another argument in the social ethics account comes from old-line hard paternalists like P. Delvin. The claim is that if homosexuality is allowed and become widespread, it will destroy the shared morality of our society. In this way, our society will breakdown with the loss of cohesion. This argument is not so convincing because it implies that no moral improvement can ever be made. Another point is that it does not seem the acceptance of homosexuality will lead to a breakdown of social morality. In fact, homosexuality is commonly accepted today and its acceptance does not mean that we have to become homosexuals ourselves. Delvin��s claim seems very weak in this sense.

The most powerful argument against homosexuality in the social ethical account is the one concerning family structure. Defenders of homosexuality claim that homosexual family should have the same moral status as heterosexual families. It is a great challenge to the traditional heterosexual families with only one father and one mother. Homosexual families imply that we may have two mothers without father or two fathers without mother in a single family. The situation is further complicated by modern reproduction technologies�Xhomosexual families can also have offspring now by test tube babies or other methods. Even leaving aside the moral disputes about these technologies and discuss the homosexual familial structure alone, the problem is still controversial. Although it may be argued that homosexual families are not prevalent and homosexuals are not willing to force others to follow them in creating homosexual families and thus will not lead to the breakdown of the family system�Xjust like the availability of divorce does not lead to the breakdown of the marriage system, there are more and more homosexuals claiming that they should have the right to form their own families. It is still a potential challenge to the traditional family system. Surely, these new families are introducing a reform in the family system, the problem is whether we think that such change is preferable. The point we have to make clear is whether there is any difference between homosexual and heterosexual families that is important in fulfilling the aims and functions of the family system in society. My answer is that there is a difference, and the difference lies in the possibility of giving birth to their own children. Such difference is relevant in two main functions of a family as a social unit. Families are stabilizing agents and bonding units in a society. Their importance in stabilizing society may be reduced when traditional big families are broken down to modern small families, but it remains essential in modern societies. They are also the most basic unit offering mutual assistance among individuals. The strength of families in bonding individuals and stabilizing society comes from its composition�Xit consists of people form the same heredity. It is why the role of families cannot be replaced by other social units like economic and occupational groupings. Therefore, to fulfill such function successfully, a very close relationship between family members is necessary. Homosexuals, due to their physical structure, can never give birth to their own children. If they would like to have children, they cannot give birth by themselves. I am not challenging that those take-home children are not cared by their registered parents, nor do I arguing that their relationship is not intimate enough. The point I would like to make is that if we accept this mode of families, there may be undesirable results. Familial relations may be alienated between generations, and it is possible that they will even become remote after two to three generations. How can we imagine that a grandmother to live with her granddaughter which is not given birth directly her daughter, who is also not given birth by this grandmother directly? This is particularly worrying especially when familial relationships with heredity are even also declining nowadays.

Another important function of families is the role they play in reproducing and nurturing the next generation. A homosexual family may possibly fulfill the function of nurturing the youth, although it may not be a comprehensive and healthy one. But obviously, they cannot fulfill the function of producing offspring of their own. Family in this sense loses its continuity in generations. If we accept the importance of these two functions of families as social units, we have to admit that the gender difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is a sufficient reason for the different moral status between homosexual and heterosexual families. Viewing from the social ethical account, homosexuality may not be as preferable as heterosexuality.

5. The Freedom and Rights Account

We can then come to the final argument: the freedom and rights account. It is often claimed by the homosexuals as the most powerful weapon against discrimination. Again we can draw an analogy between heterosexuality and homosexuality to facilitate our discussion. If heterosexual sexual activities are justified on the basis that it is the rights and freedom for people to satisfy their desires in sex, given that the involved parties are voluntary and such activities would not affect others, then is there any differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality that will make them different in moral status? Here, the gender difference in the parties involved is not sufficient for moral difference. If we perceive freedom as equal liberties and rights as mutual respect of agencies, then homosexuals should possess the same freedom and rights with the heterosexuals because homosexuality will not affect the freedom of other people and we should respect the rational choice and preference of the homosexuals. We can also outline the possible limit for the rights of the homosexuals in the society. In all social aspects that sexual orientation is irrelevant, they should enjoy the same rights with the heterosexuals. Therefore they should have equal opportunities with heterosexuals in education, employment, medical care and social welfare. They should have equal legal and political status with other members in the society. However, they could not claim that they have a right in forming a homosexual family�Xat least they cannot claim for the same legal status for their family with a heterosexual one, because they cannot perform the function as well as a heterosexual families as I have mentioned above. This also implies that homosexuals may not have the same right as heterosexuals to use modern reproduction technologies in giving birth to children. They have to admit that the nature of their sexual behaviour is impossible to reproduce children of their own, and they should not have equal right in using the reproduction technology with the heterosexuals in forming heterosexual families.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, we can see that whether homosexuality is moral or immoral is a complicated matter, depending on the different senses of ��moral��. Homosexuality may be immoral in the sense that it will stimulate egocentricity in sex and their lifestyle and family structure is less preferable than (but not damaging to) heterosexual ones. These are not grounds for discrimination or prohibition of homosexuality. If we also consider the rights and freedom of the homosexuals, and reflect deeply into the difference of homosexuality and heterosexuality, we will find that they are acceptable though not preferable mode of life. The best way to determine whether we accept homosexuality may be by asking ourselves: if we are in the position of the homosexuals, do we want to be discriminated against, just for the difference in sexual orientation or because we are sometimes too egocentric about our sex?

?lt;/P>

previous - next

?lt;/P>