It is OK if you don't want to have gay sex. I don't want to have gay sex either. But if you think gay sex has to do with morality any more than straight sex, I worry about you, morally speaking. What else might you think if it is on the right list? [*This is just an opinion.]

@PhilosopherJoeC By natural law, men & women’s reproductive organs are complementary and ordered towards procreation. One fits like a lock & the other, a key. By themselves, they don’t make much sense. Together, they do, in a union that produces children. Morality is based on *natural* law.

@JZeilan @PhilosopherJoeC What natural law? 1500+ species perform homosexual acts. In some they are more common than heterosexual ones Considering almost all social species of higher order do it there is a stronger argument that homosexuality is natural than homophobia

@thricethethal @JZeilan @PhilosopherJoeC So is rape, incest, cannibalism. We're morally advanced enough not to rely on animalistic behaviours for our own morals.

@java_warrior @JZeilan @PhilosopherJoeC This is moving the goal post. The argument was that its bad because its not natural. We can go from the argument of harm - cannibalism, incest and rape cause harm. Consensual homosexual relations don't cause harm. 1/2

@java_warrior @JZeilan @PhilosopherJoeC Harming homosexuals or forcing them in heterosexual relationships creates suffering, as the gay person suffers distress and their partner suffers from not having a loving partner. From the moral praxis of harm reduction, homosexuality is more moral than homophobia.

@thricethethal @JZeilan @PhilosopherJoeC Harm reduction as a maxim could awry. If it does not work for all interactions, then the chips fall into a matter of selective moral bias. For example, how would one concurrently reduce distress for a pedophile while separating them from the objects/subjects of their 1/

@java_warrior @JZeilan @PhilosopherJoeC Also you misunderstand harn reduction thesis. Murdering someone who tries to murder your family is okay, because the total harm is reduced. An "unsatisfied pedophile" is less harmful than a molested child. Same sex couples arent harmful by default thus not comparable situation.

@thricethethal @JZeilan @PhilosopherJoeC Yes, I agree that delivering harm in certain situations is morally permissible. I understand the harm reduction thesis but I'm saying harm reduction as the sole or only way we evaluate moral situations does not work. Harm reduction certainly factors into 1/

@java_warrior @JZeilan @PhilosopherJoeC I have provided many reasons why for a social species gay people are not unnatural or immoral. Here is another: Gay men are the least violent subset of humanity per capita,less violent than women. Can you actually provide any reason they are immoral beside argument from disgust

@thricethethal @JZeilan @PhilosopherJoeC The argument you are presenting ignores certain dynamics: Men generally do not like to step on each other's toes or are more aware of boundaries when it comes to dealing with each other compared to how women relate with themselves. The reduced violence among gay men is 1/

@thricethethal @JZeilan @PhilosopherJoeC just the dynamic presenting itself. There is also no competition for women, hence no solid reason to flex muscles (not like it's a good reason in other contexts anyway) but as an analogy, a pathological liar might have just enough tales or lies to escape a bad situation but 2/

@thricethethal @JZeilan @PhilosopherJoeC this skill does not grant the license to lie. Likewise, being gay or engaging in homosexual relations might make you proximal to a certain beneficial dynamic but it wouldn't make it a good thing. I am not making an argument from disgust (you have assumed that for me) 3/

@thricethethal @JZeilan @PhilosopherJoeC , my argument is a form of natural law. The internal or natural tendencies of biological systems should be recognised and engaged respectfully 4/4