ANAL SEX AND THE MORALITY OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Over at Liberty Forum it is a noticable fact that what started out as a discussion board and fora for discussing and promoting libertarian ideas has become a place where libertarians are a drastic minority, and most people are conservative populists or Nazis, seeing Jewish conspiracies every where. I don't know why I stay there, but I do, so there we go.
Because of this populist takeover, criticisms of homosexuality are common. Usually these are religiously grounded. Or they make assertions about nature. However, what I always note is that they often come down to complaints about anal sex. These complaints are varied: That anal sex is risky, endangering particpants with long term damage, or with risk of disease. Or that it is simply gross and distasteful to put a penis near shit. Or that it is not what is "intended," that the anus is a "waste chute" not a sex organ. I have even been told that anal sex messes up a person's aura, or some New Age crap like that. Whatever the complaint, these arguments for the immorality of homosexuality generally deduce this immorality by claiming that all these criticisms of anal sex make it immoral.
Of course, one can refute this argument by refuting these criticisms, or the idea that these criticisms imply the immorality of anal sex. For instance, if anal sex is immoral because it is risky, then all risky behaviour is immoral; so crossing the road is immoral. If anal sex is immoral because it is distatseful, well then... well this argument is nonsense anyway, since it cannot be proved objectively; whilst one can make a prescriptive rule about never being distasteful, particular applications would be imposible because it is subjective. If anal sex is immoral because it is using something (body parts) in ways they were not intended, then using things in ways in which they were not intended is immoral: Nobody should use a knife to jimmy the lid off a paint tin, for instance. Woe betide me, because I have sat on tables when teaching. And anyway, there is no intention behind the design of human body parts, and even if there were, I own me now, so he can but out.
But all these refutations of why anal sex is immoral are beside the point. This is because discussion anal sex is beside the point. In a resent debate on Liberty Forum I basically explained that anybody who started a debate about the morality of homosexuality and then started using arguments as to why anal sex was immoral to prove his point is changing the subject.
My argument was this: Straight people as well as gays engage in anal sex. Maybe not as many, but there are straight people that engage in it and enjoy it. Given this fact, anybody that wants to have an argument that homosexuality is immoral, who doesn't also what to condemn heterosexuality will have to have some other argument besides this anal sex argument with which to condemn homosexuality. But if he has such an argument, the anal sex argument is redundant, it is not necessary to prove his case.
In addition to this, though, it is also true that not all gays participate in or enjoy anal sex. Not many, perhaps, but some. Beyond this, it is possible to be homosexual and not have anal sex at all. Given this, showing that anal sex is immoral will not serve to show why those people who don't do it and yet are gay are immoral.
Given both of these points, it is evident that proving the immorality of anal sex, were this even possible, is neither necessary nor sufficient to proving that homosexuality is immoral. On these grounds, any discussion of anal sex in a debate about the morality or homosexuality is quite simply beside the point, and irrelevant issue. Those who do it are changing the subject, and should be told to get back to the discussion and shut up about such irrelevancies.
Because of this populist takeover, criticisms of homosexuality are common. Usually these are religiously grounded. Or they make assertions about nature. However, what I always note is that they often come down to complaints about anal sex. These complaints are varied: That anal sex is risky, endangering particpants with long term damage, or with risk of disease. Or that it is simply gross and distasteful to put a penis near shit. Or that it is not what is "intended," that the anus is a "waste chute" not a sex organ. I have even been told that anal sex messes up a person's aura, or some New Age crap like that. Whatever the complaint, these arguments for the immorality of homosexuality generally deduce this immorality by claiming that all these criticisms of anal sex make it immoral.
Of course, one can refute this argument by refuting these criticisms, or the idea that these criticisms imply the immorality of anal sex. For instance, if anal sex is immoral because it is risky, then all risky behaviour is immoral; so crossing the road is immoral. If anal sex is immoral because it is distatseful, well then... well this argument is nonsense anyway, since it cannot be proved objectively; whilst one can make a prescriptive rule about never being distasteful, particular applications would be imposible because it is subjective. If anal sex is immoral because it is using something (body parts) in ways they were not intended, then using things in ways in which they were not intended is immoral: Nobody should use a knife to jimmy the lid off a paint tin, for instance. Woe betide me, because I have sat on tables when teaching. And anyway, there is no intention behind the design of human body parts, and even if there were, I own me now, so he can but out.
But all these refutations of why anal sex is immoral are beside the point. This is because discussion anal sex is beside the point. In a resent debate on Liberty Forum I basically explained that anybody who started a debate about the morality of homosexuality and then started using arguments as to why anal sex was immoral to prove his point is changing the subject.
My argument was this: Straight people as well as gays engage in anal sex. Maybe not as many, but there are straight people that engage in it and enjoy it. Given this fact, anybody that wants to have an argument that homosexuality is immoral, who doesn't also what to condemn heterosexuality will have to have some other argument besides this anal sex argument with which to condemn homosexuality. But if he has such an argument, the anal sex argument is redundant, it is not necessary to prove his case.
In addition to this, though, it is also true that not all gays participate in or enjoy anal sex. Not many, perhaps, but some. Beyond this, it is possible to be homosexual and not have anal sex at all. Given this, showing that anal sex is immoral will not serve to show why those people who don't do it and yet are gay are immoral.
Given both of these points, it is evident that proving the immorality of anal sex, were this even possible, is neither necessary nor sufficient to proving that homosexuality is immoral. On these grounds, any discussion of anal sex in a debate about the morality or homosexuality is quite simply beside the point, and irrelevant issue. Those who do it are changing the subject, and should be told to get back to the discussion and shut up about such irrelevancies.
posted by Richard at 12:55 AM
2 Comments:
I once read about a man who could only have an orgasm if grapefruits were thrown at him. Wonder what the chaps on Liberty Forum would have to say about that.
Thankks great blog post
Post a Comment
<< Home