The crux of homosexuality debates
This isn't a debate about what causes homosexuality, or how God cursed gays to eternities of hell-fire, or how we all deserve equal rights and protections. I think I just wanted to point out that these are all side issues. The heart of the homosexuality debate (or at least why there is a debate at all) is that there are people who feel that they are entitled to dictate or regulate how someone else should use their own body. I guess that makes me social libertarian then (if that's a thing?). And please, don't turn this into a debate about fixcal libertarianism.
Correct me if I'm wrong, or maybe point out that this was obvious, but maybe it's just my sleep deprived brain that made this dawn on me just now.
|
1
point
"Over himself, his body, and his own mind, the individual is sovereign." ~John Stuart Mill So basically, no. What I do with my own penis is my business, not the government's, unless I am harming another being (without their consent, some like it rough y'know). If I want to stick it in a man's arse, and the man whose arse it is gives consent, there is nothing immoral about the act, as it doesn't harm anyone, and therefore there is no reason for it to be prohibited. Agreed, there is no sufficient reason why someone else, not involved in your actions, should be able to dictate, "You may not use your bodily appendages for such and such actions because I find them immoral; your brain must not release endorphins or other pleasure hormones when engaging in sexual activity with a member of the same sex; and you may not display your affection for a member of the same sex because I am uncomfortable with displays of affection of this nature." It's silly, and the religious, naturalist, evolutionary, population control, and those kinds of issues just muddle the core issue: the liberty to do with your body what you would like to with consenting adults, if it doesn't harm the other individual or the rest of society. Even the "rest of society" clause I put in there is a little iffy, because such a thing would be much too difficult to quantify. The government already tells us what we can and can't do with out bodies through laws and regulations. In terms of laws I can't use my body to kill another person, even if the person has given me the consent to do so. I also can't do drugs because the law permits this. In case of regulations, the government already regulates what we eat - certain kinds of foods and chemicals used on them are banned and foods generally have a set criteria of qualifications they must meet. That's to protect our own health. So, if we are to be consistent with the ''government shalt not dictate what we do with out bodies'' - will you support the legalization of all drugs and will you lobby for the disbanding of the Food and Drugs Administration. Your examples are based on regulations that affect substances or actions that harm the individual and/or surrounding individuals. Killing the person (obviously harmful), banned chemicals (because they harm humans, the animals or both, as you note in your last sentence), and drugs (because they may harm the individual, although for certain drugs I disagree with the government's interpretation of "harm"). However, homosexuality and homosexual activity has not been conclusively proven to harm the individual or surrounding individuals (many would in fact argue that allowing homosexuals to be open and honest about their relationships without fear of prejudice would be beneficial to them (obviously) and their surrounding individuals (less obviously, but clearly possible)). Therefore, your argument that "if I say homosexuality shouldn't be regulated/prohibited, then neither should other things do to their body such as murder, drugs, and foods" is completely invalid because you misunderstand the point of these regulations. |
