Would homosexuality being a choice affect the morality of it

Post Reply New Topic

It is a truism well-known in philosophy circles: "For every philosophy, there is an opposing and equally valid philosophy."

The 1st corollary to this is: "And they are both equally wrong."

The only reason homosexuality is considered immoral is largely because of religion. Considering how many people think religion is a pile of crap in the modern world that leaves no reason to think it's immoral, whether intentionally gay or not.

What consenting adults do in privacy should be of no concern to anyone else.  Public displays of affection, however, can make others feel uncomfortable, especially those who feel bad about not being in their own relationships.

Ok, but look at how many Christian groups oppose alcohol consumption, or how many people participate in AA. Alcohol within reason objectively benefits the drinker in many ways—improved mood, relaxation, better sleep, and in some cases the comprehensive sensory experience of a rare wine or liquor: the bouquet, the tannins, the complexity of flavors all owing to the process and artistry of making alcohol and the investment of time during the aging process, blending products to get a superior, uniform quality, etc. Those kinds of things transcend the oblivion of intoxication and yield something that is costly to make and bears high objective value for the consumer. Less expensive alcohols exist to rob the drinker of reason. There is no difference between this person and someone who drinks Sterno or anti-freeze.

But, anyway, that’s the whole point—that all morals ARE objective, and to reject subjective morality. It’s not a logical fallacy if you presuppose an objective framework.

In other words, “objective” is defined primarily as existing outside of the mind, and man’s primary means of survival is through the rational mind rather than instinct or emotion. Applied to morality, this means that morality is inferred from the real world through the use of reason. For our purposes here, objective morality is a rejection of narrative. Social construction, otoh, is narrative-driven rather than objective. So rather than accept any, say, racial narrative, I prefer looking at facts on which narratives are said to be derived. Homosexuality as an inborn trait is actually all narrative and no substance—to make an objective case for being “born this way” would actually involve accepting Christian presuppositions into the objective framework, and the outlook is not good for supporters of the LGBT agenda. Bear in mind I’m a Christian and understand that any exposition I make of LGBT issues being immoral is within the context of discussing the beliefs and reasons behind them, not bashing gays themselves. Besides, it’s not a matter of whether homosexuality is immoral, but rather if someone can draw a conclusion from objective reality that it is. It’s logically possible that you could. Many Objectivists, including Ayn Rand, would describe homosexuality as disgusting but in the same breath point out that they aren’t hurting anyone and it’s nobody’s business what they do behind closed doors. Most of these Objectivists were atheists who would argue you cannot be both religious and objective.



Which is exactly why reason is so important to the development of one’s individual moral code. Suppose you are a Christian. It is unreasonable to accept any position on authority alone, and arguing a book as the supreme authority for morality defies reason. In order to accept the Bible as an objective authority, it must have basis in objective reality. It must reflect how the world actually works. A Christian presupposes that God created the heavens and earth, and that means those things which God intends as moral are written into creation itself and existed long before it was ever written down on a scroll. Incest, for example, is immoral because God never intended for it to be moral. God revealed from the beginning that men shouldn’t have children with their daughters. The consequences of incest are woven into the fabric of reality, which you can see for yourself when children are born with harmful recessive traits. Whether you are a Christian believer or not, objective reality will always yield the most consistent moral code because 1) objective reality isn’t going anywhere, and 2) rational conclusions are always the most reliable. On this second point, you might argue that some conclusions are contradictory and those corresponding morals are also contradictory. However, I’d tell you that contradictions by their very nature cannot exist. If you think you’ve found a contradiction, check your premises. One of them is wrong.


Any invasion or interference in another nations affairs is objectively immoral. I don’t think Christians at the time understood that, especially not Europeans. The proper role of any government is to protect its own citizens from foreign invasion. Aside from the first crusade, subsequent raids on the Holy Land were effectively treasure hunts that resulted in greedy people looting Palestine.

Greed is objectively defined as any desire or action to take things that one has neither created, earned, nor deserved. Envy is objectively defined as hatred for the achievements of others. Subsequent Crusades were instigated by greedy people, whereas the defenders of Palestine were literally fighting for their lives and the lives of their people. Without REASON, the Crusades were destined for failure. Had reason been involved, either they wouldn’t have happened in the first place, or every able-bodied European would have intensively trained for and committed their lives to victory against Saladin. In the end, it was shown that a protracted war against countries you have no legitimate interest in does not benefit a country or its people.

The problem with a narrative-based, subjective morality is not their internal inconsistency but their conflict with other individuals. To accept something as relatively moral means one must subject his own morality to the needs of the collective. Having freedom from moral absolutes looks good “on paper,” but the alternative is being enslaved by the group narrative. You think you get to break rules, play by your own rules, or not even have rules at all. But that’s never how it ends up. You do not have the right to be an individual thinker who happens to have a dark skin complexion; you are compelled to align your narrative with the black community. You do not get to be a gay man with your own ideas; you are compelled to wave the same rainbow flag all other homosexuals wave. Blacks and gays must accept the same narrative when doing so is deadly to individual thought and freedom. I’m not saying that there’s something wrong with solidarity—I’m a firm believer and practitioner of it. I’m saying that solidarity that sacrifices the individual on the collective altar is unreasonable and ultimately harmful to the entire group. Solidarity is achieved when values are willingly shared, which is postmodern movements such as Critical Theory, social construction, probably most LGBT groups, many feminists, and probably all grievance groups strongly oppose. In these groups, all values must be identical or you can’t be part of the group. Healthy social groups display not identical values, but a diversity of overlapping values. They are not agreeable people, but they are willingly cooperative people who mutually benefit from their interactions with each other. With something like CRT, it’s all or nothing.

And to be clear—I’m NOT making sweeping generalizations that all LGBT people are this or all black people are that, or that all Christians are good, holy people or scum of the earth. I’m pointing out the problems of postmodern, subjective, relative, narrative-driven morality and groupthink. I’m also not claiming that objective realism is the only possible way of constructing a moral code, nor do I claim that even most people are objectively moral. Most people are NOT objectively moral. But I do think the closer you can adhere morality to reality, the more freedom you have. You’re more free to be you the less morality is something you have to be concerned with. What does that mean? Do what you want within reason, don’t hurt yourself, and show kindness, love, and respect to others.

Hence the part where I address this. It is something that is overlooked by certain people. Especially in conversations about sex ed including information about same-sex couples, or discussions about whether children should hear or read stories where a character has two mums or two dads. It often descends into a panic that if children learn about gay people existing, they'll become gay and no one will have kids and the human race will cease to be. All nonsense, of course.

For this reason, some people see homosexuality as immoral because they have a doomsday scenario in their minds. I remember a group in the UK protesting the reading of a book in a primary school that featured same sex parents being mentioned. This was several years ago if my memory is correct. Protestors showed up with signs and told reporters about their fears and their issues with such topics being taught to children.

I do find such talking points to be rather odd sometimes, such as this idea of 'Oh, my child shouldn't see a gay character on TV, they'll ask me about how gay sex works and then they'll want to be gay!' Which, no. I very much doubt that a seven year old would see a gay character in a cartoon and turn to their parents to ask 'Mum, dad, how does that cartoon character have sex?'

Sheltered individuals do have some unusual misconceptions on the matter though. I've seen online conversations where people have assumed that all gay people are naturally infertile. Where people have had to explain that most cisgender lesbians who have not gone through menopause experience periods. That we can still have kids through IVF or RIVF or doing it the traditional way. However, the traditional route is a less favourable option. Some gay people even get married to the opposite sex and have kids together out of societal pressure and may not even realise that they are gay until midway through their marriage.

Homophobia is largely based on ignorance and misconceptions. People have different reasonings, sometimes stating religious objections but not always. I know people who are not straight and are also practicing Christians. Personally I'm an Atheist, but my point is that there are religious people within the LGBT community despite pushback.

Some people state spiritual ideas as a reason for not accepting homosexuality, such as the idea of men and women completing each other in a way that only they can. I think by far the most puzzling conversations I've been in are ones where the other person has used myths from Ancient Greece to argue that it is immoral. Which is highly ironic. By far one of the most common myths I've heard people use is the story of Narcissus. For those unfamiliar, Narcissus was a character that was cursed by Aphrodite (Goddess of Love) to fall in love with his own reflection as a form of punishment for rejecting the advances and pleas for help from the women around him (granted, versions of the story differ). He goes insane and ultimately drowns himself by climbing into a lake / river in an attempt to be with his reflection.

You're probably wondering what this has to do with anything. Well, some people interpret this as a cautionary tale against homosexuality, since they view narcissism as being the same as being gay. I've had people ask if I am attracted to myself because I like women, and to answer that - no. I do not find my body sexually attractive. Yet this is a weirdly common misconception, so the logic tends to go 'homosexuality = vanity, vanity = bad, therefore homosexuality = bad" but that's not at all how any of this works. Personally I've always interpreted the story of Narcissus as a cautionary tale against being self absorbed and how being self absorbed could ultimately be a person's downfall. I suspect that was the original meaning of the myth. Narcissus is where we get the terms Narcissism and Narcissist from.



Thank you.

Yes, it is. Ancient greek society was know for that, wasn't it. Yeah, you do write well. Very professional.

Thank you for such a beautiful read, the Narcissus story, and the nonsense reminder. I don't think homosexuality is a choice for most and therefore the morality question is a moot point. The question is "what if" and I do think some people may choose it for what ever reason. In principle, this would be the end of the human race at the extreme but in reality, it's nonsense.

I would think those that choose or even those that refuse to accept it are doing self-harm by not being true to themselves.

Last edited by txfz1 on 30 Dec 2021, 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This sounds a bit like a No True Scotsman, that any belief you might not think is right, has to be a subjective one, while the ones you believe have to be objective. The thing is that pretty much everyone convinces themselves that their morals are the objective truths, especially in regards to competing religions, religions being one of humanity's largest group thinks, which makes it highly ironic for people part of it to complain about more liberal groups having group think.

A lot of what you would find about LGBT, gender or racial groups that impose what you think as irrational group thinks, often have very rational reasoning. Such that supporting a certain political person will likely harm many people part of that group, which can come across as certain people who have been successful, to close the door behind them because they already made it, so they don't really care about those who are still disadvantaged. It isn't about needing to share the exact same kind of think, but that people who have been part of a minority group should be able to understand what it is like to be treated as a minority and disadvantaged just for what they are. It should be their objective reality to have seen that things have not been fair, and so want to make things better and fairer for others.

If we are really talking about looking more objective truths and realities that can figure out what should be more moral as to do good, I am all for that. But a part of that is seeing that a lot of people convince themselves that they have the one true morality, without really having to prove it, which is what faith is. And a lot of the people who will say they are really looking at the facts will still try to put a narrative and manipulate the facts to what is most convenient to them. If you want to be objectively moral, you have to essentially throw away any holy book as an authority, because those are all based on faith, and were probably more relevant in a time when written where some of their sillier rules had reasons at the time.

If you really want to arrive at some objectively moral positions, then you have to actually listen to people with different experiences to yours, to understand maybe why their experiences are different, and not something just poisoned by faith. And as someone who has been on a whole journey of denial and needing to escape the groupthink that I was fed as a kid to hate and supress certain parts inherent to myself, there is nothing objectively immoral about being LGBT. Rather, I think that it is pretty immoral to afford the same kind of benefits that are offered to straight cis people, and those against it are either ignorant based on their environment, or maybe even willingly ignorant because accepting it gets in the way of their happy feelings of their faith.

Despite ragging against faith, I don't think it moral to stamp out all faith, like some sort of idea of banning religion. Instead I think that there should be understanding and accommodations of different faiths, up to when they might hurt someone, and then the right thing to do is speak up, and make it clear how people are getting hurt.

It certainly wasn't a choice for me. Growing up, gay was nearly always used as an insult. I perceived it to be a negative and I was in denial for a couple of years. Frankly it was scary, I had this image in my head of what my future was going to be and being gay didn't factor into this mental picture. So I had to reassess my perceived sense of self.

However, with time I accepted it. I am fortunate to be in a position where I am allowed to be open. Although it's a small thing, it makes me happy when I can talk about my crushes with my friends and it's treated normally. That we can tease each other, make stupid jokes and have fun. After all, that's how it should be. Unfortunately, it wasn't always like this. I've come out to the wrong people in the past and had it backfire. One time it backfired significantly and people hurt me. I decided to go back into the closet for a couple of years after the incident. Learning to trust people again after that was not an easy process.

The community has seen a lot of progress but it's certainly not over. I am fortunate that my family accepted me, but not everyone experiences this. Within my peer group, I know people that cannot return home because their family found out and they are no longer welcome. I know other individuals who can never go back to their home country because they would be thrown in prison and ultimately killed. Sometimes people talk as if we've achieved complete equality, but that's inaccurate. We've certainly come a long way, I take comfort in the fact that under the equality act you can't just fire someone for being gay anymore. That I am living in a time where I am legally allowed to marry.

It felt odd, growing up in a time where I'd show up to school and be working away whilst others would debate whether same-sex marriage should be legal or if gay couples should be allowed to raise children. All whilst I was starting to notice that aspect of myself and was starting to wonder what my future might look like. People around me would always talk as if it were a given that everyone in the room was straight. In a way I felt invisible in plain sight.

Personally, there's a bitter sweetness to seeing gay cartoon characters. I'm happy that pre-teens and teenagers get to see that representation, but it is a shame that growing up the only characters I would see in the media I consumed were usually jokes*. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that things are improving, but in a way it hurts.

I really hope that sex education improves for future generations. My sex education was terrible. I was stuck with a homophobic teacher who openly mocked a student for asking about same-sex relationships and most of the class laughed along with him. Personally I stayed quiet, I couldn't bring myself to fake a laugh.

On a more positive note, my situation improved. I do meet the odd jerk, but for the most part I am surrounded by accepting people and I can comfortably be myself. Maybe one day I'll even experience a relationship.

*Better content existed, I did later discover a couple of book series from this time that included serious gay characters, but there weren't any mainstream gay cartoon characters and representation aimed at a young audience was considerably limited.

So what you are telling me is the old sitcom Three's Company wasn't real? I remember the history. I was living in Lubbock, Texas when the first gay bar opened in the 70's. The group of us cowboys decided one night to check it out. I saw a co-worker and he later talked to me thinking I was gay. In telling him the truth, I felt the shame of my actions for just going along with the group.

I also agree there is some improvement wrt to rights and acceptance but needs more, especially on the global scale. Just takes time to make changes and forgive us for the old hurts.

In terms of sitcoms and many other examples of historical representation I have been a big fan of someone called Matt Baume who makes videos on YouTube about different milestones of LGBT representation. Not being able to experience them first hand myself, his videos did a lot to inform me on interesting examples of representation, and the changing opinons.

This is one of many cases where "morality" is determined by cultural values, which are learned. Personally, I have no issue with two consenting adults doing what they will (so long as it isn't criminal, or puts an unconsenting party at risk). Homosexuality isn't my thing, but far be it for me to take a hard stance against the freedom of others.

Back then I mainly stuck to watching reruns of 90's cartoons and the formerly current 2000's and early 2010's TV shows aimed at preteens and teenagers in the UK. I also watched films such as Mean Girls. I never really went looking for representation (at least not in the form of TV, I did however watch YouTubers that talked about such topics), I would just watch whatever was popular in my demographic at the time for the most part. Personally I didn't really watch many sitcoms and I haven't heard of Three's Company (not saying it's not real, I'm just unfamiliar). Shows such as Degrassi existed back then, but that wasn't on the channels we had. I only really discovered shows like Degrassi when my family switched over to streaming services. Which occurred in my late teens.

It was a bad sitcom based on a man pretending to be gay as to be roommate with two women. In the later seasons, Don Knotts was the gay apartment manager. It was bad TV but had the ratings here in the US.

Being a stereotypical, I forget the world does not always keep up with hollywood.

What does "Three's Company" have to do with anything? Yes the show "existed", but you seem to be mistaken about the content of the show.

"Threes Company" was a popular Seventies sitcom about straight folks. One straight dude living (platonically) with two hawt straight chicks. But he had pretended to be gay when he moved in so that the landlord would allow a male roomate. And he had to keep up the ruse for the whole ten plus seasons of the show. That ruse, plus his actual hetero lusting for the two girls, was the premise for the comedy.

Not a homophobic show. But not about gays either. So if you thought the show was a Seventies precursor of "Will and Grace" you're hugely mistaken.



To:Lost Dragon: You might be familiar with the UK show "Man About the House". According to Wiki our American"Threes Company" was a ripoff of that show (so apparently if ya know one show ya know the other). Your younger self would not have found any gay "role model" characters in "Threes Company" contrary to Txfx mistakenly believes.

Just a reference to the media depiction of homosexuality. You musta miss the episodes where Jack was being mocked for being gay by the homophobic manager.

Never said it was precurser to Will and Grace but it was aired prior to it. You have no clue about my beliefs and please stop projecting.

Last edited by txfz1 on 31 Dec 2021, 11:06 am, edited 2 times in total.