Homosexuality is not moral

DISCLAIMIER! The title of this article does NOT mean what you think it means. This article is not against homosexuality. It is much closer to being pro homosexuality, but isn’t that either. So please, sit back, relax and save your judgment until you’ve actually read the whole article.

Today, I want to answer one simple question – is homosexuality moral? The answer: no. Wait, let me elaborate. When I say it is not moral, I do not mean that it is immoral. I actually want to imply that the question as a whole is fallacious. It is based on an ungrounded assumption that homosexuality (or any sexuality) falls under something that I will call in this article the moral sphere. As soon as someone opens this debate and looks at homosexuality through a moral lens, they have already committed a major error. Everything we ever do falls in one of two categories:

1. The moral sphere

2. The amoral sphere (not in the moral sphere)

The aim of this article is to examine these two spheres and show you which one of these two is home to homosexuality. The main idea I will try to convey here is that homosexuality has NOTHING to do with morality and that people should have no right to morally judge homosexuals for it.

The hardest part of this article will be establishing an objective moral measuring stick of sorts. One moral benchmark that people often use, especially in my home country of Serbia is the bible. However, there are several huge issues with religion as a moral benchmark. First and foremost, which religion do you choose? Is it the gods of the Hindus? The Allah and the Quran? The bible? Which testament of the bible, the old or the new, or both? Most of these books deem slavery a moral act and we can all agree that slavery is egregiously immoral. Quran has some lines that kind of ignore the whole concept of consent, quoted here: “Your women are your fields (where you plant seeds). Enter your field as you wish.” Yes, that is an actual quote from the book. The bible is not much grander either, it justifies genocide, the murder of children (granted in war times), slavery, murder of adulterers (people who cheat on their spouse), and many other gruesome acts. Besides the clear issues with labelling clearly immoral acts moral, these books are internally inconsistent and contradictory. Above all, all of these books fail the scientific test of the 20th and 21st century spectacularly. You could argue that these books were not intended as literal explanations and more as holy guides, but that still doesn’t solve the problems of internal contradictions or the fact that there are so many competing religions. Hell, even one religion like Christianity has so many competing official denominations that you would never be able to unify all believers. In short, religion can’t be used as a benchmark.

I can’t claim to be a moral paragon or that I have the authority on morality. I am no saint nor have I ever claimed to be one. However, what I can do is make a very simple rule that will help us categorize actions as either within the moral sphere or within the amoral sphere. It is a two-factor verification system:

1. Conscious agency

2. Effect on wellbeing

You might come from the school of thought that morality can’t be objective and that is fine, what I am proposing here is that our sense of morality (subjective or objective) is tied to wellbeing. In other words, in order for an action to be considered in the context of morality it first must be a conscious act and second it must affect wellbeing. Take a look at the very high quality chart below (yes I made this and stop laughing):

Pure art. Seriously stop laughing

Okay so let’s take the examples on the chart to see why they fall where they fall. As you can see, only the the green box is reserved for actions that can be judged on moral grounds. These actions are conscious and have an effect on wellbeing. These effects can be either positive or negative. Let’s take the case of murder – imagine that you for some reason go berserk and attack a poor old lady walking back home from the supermarket. You pull out a knife and stab her to death. This was a conscious act. Your agency here was deliberate and done so of your own accord. Also, your action had a negative effect, in this case death of the old lady. This could have also been a broken leg or any sort of harm inflicted to one or more people. Obviously, the positive acts like donations, charity work or carrying the old lady’s bags are in the moral sphere as well.

The box in the top right corner is something slightly different. Imagine that you sleepwalk and accidentally knock a glass off the table and then the next morning your father walks into the room and cuts his foot on the glass. Obviously, there is an effect on wellbeing, some harm was caused. However, you did not do this consciously and there is no moral judgment on you. It would be the same if you judged a volcano (an inanimate object) for spilling lava. Volcanos are not moral or immoral, they just are.

The bottom left is a straightforward case. Imagine just lifting your hand up in the air. This act has no morality surrounding it. Yes, it was done consciously but it has no affect on anyone’s wellbeing so it cannot be judged in terms of its morality.

Finally, we come to the main piece of this article. Let’s apply this framework to homosexuality. Does homosexuality affect wellbeing? This isn’t a debate about gay parenting or the inclusion of homosexuality in sexual education or the legalization of gay marriage. We could spend days and weeks arguing about these subjects but they are all separate from the topic at hand. The case morality of homosexuality is one of the easiest to solve. Does homosexuality as an orientation or homosexual sex as an act affect anyone’s wellbeing? No it does not. Is there conscious agency here? Again no. You could engage in the stupid debate of homosexuality being a choice but that is a silly debate because we know that it isn’t a choice. If it were a choice as you say, can you choose to be gay for the rest of your life and please do not procreate while you are at it because we do not need any more idiots like you. You could make a more nuanced point that homosexuality is not determined by genetics (which is also wrong) but rather that it is determined by your environment and upbringing. Think about that for a second – that is exactly the case with your music taste for example. It is mostly determined by your environment and upbringing but it still isn’t a choice so you cannot be held morally accountable for the music you like. Unless we are talking about Cardi B of course, then you are a trashcan of a human being. Jokes.

Immanuel Kant famously made the ought implies can moral framework. If you want to judge someone on moral grounds for a certain act or in other words if they ought to behave a certain way, they must necessarily be able to do so. For example, you can’t tell a white person to be black or vice versa. It simply isn’t possible, they can’t change their skin color. In the same vein, you cannot tell a homosexual person that they ought to be straight.

Okay, now that I have shown that homosexuality DOES NOT fall within the moral sphere I want to address the title of this article. Homosexuality is not moral but it isn’t immoral either. It has absolutely nothing to do with being right or wrong. It is an orientation or a sexual act that does not harm anyone. As soon as someone tries to make a link between homosexuality and morality, they have already lost the debate. So if you encounter someone making the claim that homosexuality is immoral, feel free to send them this article. Do not try to convince them that it is moral because it isn’t that either. Just try to shift their perspective. Show them that they are framing the discussion incorrectly.

If someone asks you about the morality of homosexuality, respond to them as if they asked about the morality of skin color. “Is it moral to be white/black/Asian?” This question is palpably stupid. It is so clearly nonsensical. Skin color has nothing to do with morality and the same is the case with homosexuality or any sexuality for that matter.