A Word About Homosexuality, Part I

As requested, I’m going to talk about HOTGAYSEX. I’m not going to lie, I’m actually looking at notes from last semester’s Sex class for tangental inspiration. But the three things I wanted to hit, perversion, naturalness, and functionality, I already had in mind. Everything else is just filling in the gaps. I’ll try to stick to those things which haven’t be drilled into the ground by everybody else. But whatever.

I think this section in my notes, where I’m getting the ideas, was about how people say homosexuality is “unnatural”, however people mean many different things when they say something is “natural.” Just some context. Or was it the many interpretations of perversion. Heck, now I forget. I know we talked about one of them.

Perversion.

I’ll just say that the concept is socially relative, and as such, irrelevant for absolute moral conceptions. There could exist a society where exposing your ankles is perverted. Oh wait, such a society exists. Or where, if the nipple is covered while the rest of the breast is exposed, it is not perversion. Oh wait, that’s our society. Even if you declare things intrinsically perverse, it doesn’t mean anything. To declare perversion to be morally damaging is to hold oneself up to a standard nobody can hold. Oral sex is perverted. Heck, in the right light, straight sexual intercourse is perverted. Is farting perverted?

Some people like to divide this into two things, what the homosexual is, and what he does. Or so it seems to me. Depends who you’re arguing against. Some will be under the impression that homosexuality is dependent on homosexual behavior; the bad moral consequences of homosexual only occur when engaging in homosexual activity.

Now wait a minute. What is homosexual activity? Two guys watching a movie together – and if they happen to be gay it’s suddenly wrong? Kissing – and if they happen to be gay it’s wrong? Is it okay for two straight guys to kiss, since they’re just joking around. What about two guys fellating each other? Is it wrong in just the homosexual case, or both cases? What about heterosexual oral sex? Are they exempt solely on the basis of their genitalia? Why should genitalia dictate who we’re allowed to have sexual interaction or emotional attachment with? (I’ll talk about functionality later.)

So it is the feelings? Is the simple act of feeling emotion for a member of the same sex? The simple act of being a homosexual? To condemn one’s very existence to be immoral is irrational, and completely without base. Why is it bad/wrong? Let’s continue.

Unusual/abnormal = unnatural.

Speaking in Klingon is very abnormal and unusual, but not morally damaging, therefore doing unusual or unnatural things does not incur any intrinsic moral consequences.

Oh, and there a lot of gay people, so it’s not that unusual in the first place.

What other animals do not do is unnatural.

We do lots of things animals don’t do. We also do a lot of things humans didn’t do a mere 1000 years ago. There is nothing natural about typing, flying, tampons, playing video games, or pepperoni pizza. Also. There are gay monkeys. So homosexuality is natural in the first place.

And I’m just saying, they didn’t have the technology to make the tampons you use today. *smirks*

What does not proceed from inate desires is unnatural.

This assumes that our inate desires are good in the first place. Actually, this argument is more bullshit than I thought. Some people have the inate desire to molest children. This implies argument implies that non-inate desires are bad, and that homosexuality is one of them. Newsflash: People don’t just decide to be gay.

“Hmm. I could GOTO college. Get a job. Get married. Have a house with 2.5 kids, a white picket fence. Pay my taxes. Vote Republican. Leave the seat down. Enjoy the life of being a married heterosexual.

Or, I could be gay and enjoy a life of torment by religious zealots who tell would tell me that my very existence is an abomination.”

We all know this, moving on.