Is homosexual activity immoral

Rochelle Manguino

Student No. 993397891

Professor Jonathan Peterson, PHL243

March 25, 2005

Homosexual Activity is Not Immoral

Homosexuality is a controversial topic for all groups and individuals alike – liberals, conservatives, religious, or secular. The morality of homosexual activity is a particularly long withstanding debate. Having carefully assessed the Natural Law and harm based arguments of Utilitarianism, I feel that homosexual activity is not immoral.

Homosexuality is immoral according to the Natural Law, an argument I strongly disagree with. I begin by introducing the Natural Law, which refers to a type of moral theory governing human behavior. It contains the principles of reasonable action, is binding on everyone by nature, and contains the notion of right action – do good and avoid evil. Basic goods – that which makes human life go best and perfect our nature - include procreation, reasonable conduct, and self-integration. Under the Natural Law, it is immoral and unreasonable to intend to destroy a basic good. John Finnis, in his publication, “Law, Morality and Sexual Orientation,” provides three claims that homosexuality violates the principles of the Natural Law. Firstly, homosexual activity does not allow the couple to biologically unite (specifically, the male and female genitalia). This unity is expressed only by sex, an act exclusive to married, (heterosexual) couples. He states, “Genital intercourse between spouses enables them to actualize and experience their marriage itself, as a single reality with two blessings (children and mutual affection). Non-marital intercourse, especially… homosexual, has

Manguino 2

no such point and therefore is unacceptable.” (Finnis 1064) Thus, homosexual sex undermines the basic good of procreation. Secondly, Finnis adds marriage to the list of basic goods under the Natural Law. This “marital good,” he feels is naturally good - that it has value in itself – because “the communion [and] companionship of the spouses – their being married – is the very good of marriage, and is an intrinsic, basic human good.” (Finnis 1064) Homosexual activity, then, is unreasonable because it is incompatible with, and an intrinsically flawed way of pursuing, the marital good. Thirdly, Finnis argues that homosexual acts undermine the unity of the person and are immoral for that reason. He claims that homosexual activity “can do no more than provide each partner with an individual gratification…[and] that conduct involves the partners in treating their bodies as instruments. …Their choice to engage in such conduct thus dis-integrates each of them precisely as acting persons.” (Finnis 1067) Therefore, non-marital sexual acts treat one’s body as a mere instrument of the experiencing self – a mere instrument for pleasure - and act against the basic good of self-integration. I oppose Finnis’ three theses with the argument that homosexual activity is not immoral. His first claim is that homosexual sex undermines the basic good of procreation, and therefore, violates the Natural Law. This is indeed true. However, under the same reasoning, it would be immoral for an elderly - yet heterosexual – long-married couple to copulate for the fact that they are not sterile. It would be immoral for a barren woman to indulge in heterosexual intercourse with her husband under the truth that she is incapable of giving birth. And it would be immoral for a married, heterosexual couple truly in love, yet without the need or desire to have and raise children to have sex because that couple is

Manguino 3

This is a preview of the whole essay

Manguino 3

not procreating. Marriage as the only permissible expression of sexuality peculiarly implies procreation is the center of marriage as its natural fulfillment. Clearly this ideology needs to be changed to place more objectively valuable ideals of marriage – love, companionship, and mutual support - at the center. Many same-sex couples would meet this standard, and their sexual acts would be morally just. His second claim is that homosexual activity is incompatible with the “marital good,” – a term he simply added himself to the basic goods of the Natural Law. Yet one must examine this claim with a critical eye and within its historical context. John Finnis wrote “Law, Morality, and Sexual Orientation” in 1994 – over a decade ago. His (and many others’) discriminatory view violating homosexuals’ human rights has over time changed (at least constitutionally) in Ontario, to redefine marriage as “the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others." () This definition allows for same-sex marriage, and as such permits inclusion to the goods of the Natural Law. Additionally, scientific studies prove that sexual orientation is a disposition caused in part by nature (one’s biological make-up). One does not choose to be gay any more than one chooses to be heterosexual. That being the case, just as it is unjust to say it is immoral to have brown eyes for instance (because it is something one is born with), it is unjust to say it is immoral to have a sexual preference for a person of the same sex as opposed to one of the opposite sex. Being physically attracted to and wanting to pursue same-sex relationships such as marriage may be ‘natural,’ and does not go against the principles of the Natural Law per se. Finnis’ third claim is that homosexual activity dis-integrates the

Manguino 4

self by treating one’s body as a mere means for selfish pleasure. My response is this: two persons of the same sex engaging in sexual union does not necessarily imply any sort of use of the other as a ‘mere’ means to one's own pleasure. In fact, a gay couple may even have more respect for each other and themselves than a heterosexual couple. I use Kantian morality (from philosopher Immanuel Kant) to defend my rebuttle: morality rules out maxims which treat other persons as mere means. However, if you are using someone as a means to an end, yet still have respect for that person as a human, then it is not immoral. For example, one uses a cab driver as a means for transportation, yet still respects that cab driver as a person. In the same manner, a gay man uses his partner as a means to sexual pleasure, yet still respects himself and the latter as a person. For the reason that homosexual activity incorporates respect in its conduct, it is not immoral. In the end, homosexual activity does not violate the principles of Natural Law, and is therefore not immoral.

Utilitarianism shares the common view of Natural Law to do good, and I seek to defend my position on the morality of homosexuality and harm on the grounds of Utilitarianism as well. The difference between the two philosophies is their beliefs of what is good.The ‘good’ for Utilitarians is understood in terms of human desires, and well-being. That is, it refuses to allow the possibility that ethics is connected to what people are not concerned about. Instead, people’s wants and interests are to be satisfied. Given that, right actions are those that promote the satisfaction of such interests. Key features of the utilitarian criterion of rightness are consequentialism (which suggests one analyze and evaluate the consequence of an act to determine its rightfulness),

Manguino 5

impersonality, aggregation (taking in to account the welfare of every person concerned in a particular circumstance), and maximization (maximize every person’s happiness in that event.) If homosexuality causes harm, then it is not right. If it is not right, then it is immoral. Does homosexual activity cause significant harm to those who engage in it or to society? To answer this question, one must consider the three types of harms. The first type is primary harms, which are understood in terms of pain. With the exclusion of pain (yet in most cases I would presume pleasure) that may result from penetration during anal sex between gay men, homosexual intercourse does not cause primary harm. Secondary harms are understood in terms of producing fears in other people. Many fear that homosexuality promotes promiscuity and increases the risk of spreading aids. On the other hand, according to Jeremy Bentham in his piece, “Offences against one’s self,” “As to any secondary mischief, [homosexual activity] produces not any pain of apprehension. For what is there in it for any body to be afraid of? By the supposition, those only are the objects of it who choose to be so, who find a pleasure, for so it seems they do, in being so.” () Lastly, there are harms that cause danger. There is the danger that because homosexual activity can not procreate, the human population may fall. This risk is insignificant due to strength in numbers of the rising population of births from heterosexual couples over homosexual couples. It has little effect on the harm of homosexuality in question. Thus, three types of harms taken in to account, homosexual activity may or may not cause harm to an individual. Leaving the question of harm and homosexuality aside due to its inconclusiveness, we return to the matter of harm and wrong. According to Alan

Manguino 6

Wertheimer’s, “The Harm and Wrong of Rape,” the two “are not identical.” (Wertheimer 89). What is harmful may or may not necessarily be wrong, and what is wrong may or may not necessarily be harmful. Homosexuality, then, may be harmful, yet needs subjective reasoning to determine its wrongfulness (or rightfulness.) In my opinion, homosexuality does not act against utilitarianism’s key features noted earlier. The act of intense sexual activity (heterosexual or not) is performed primarily behind closed doors, so the consequences of which remain private. Thus, its rightfulness is neutral. The concepts of aggregation and maximization seek to maximize the well-being of the most number of people possible. To say whether heterosexual activity makes one happy or not is a matter of opinion, and is therefore neutral in rightfulness as well. If homosexuality is neither objectively right nor wrong, then subjective reasoning is required to answer the question of homosexuality and immorality according to harm-based arguments.

When evaluating the morality of homosexuality, one must employ reason in making a defensive argument. I have clearly illustrated facts against the principles of the Natural Law and harm based arguments to defend my position that homosexuality is not immoral. Generally. one should not discriminate against any minority because doing so is unjust.

Works Cited

Bentham, Jeremy. “Offences against one’s self” May 6 2002. < http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/exhibitions/sw25/bentham/>

Finnis, John. “Law, Morality, and Sexual Orientation.” University of Toronto Course Pack for PHL243 Winter 2005.

Wertheimer, Alan. “The Harm and Wrong of Rape.” University of Toronto Course Pack for PHL243 Winter 2005.