Homosexuality

[Low-Eight]

I've written a new piece on homosexuality, it's a basic piece but I'd like to see what everyone thinks, and if there is anything I need to add, I'll make a followup.:

The fallacy of moral sexuality

Much has been made of homosexuality as being immoral. This is absurd, as long as we are talking about consensual sexuality. For homosexuality to be morally wrong, it would have to have violated the rule of morality, which is:

For a concept to be moral, it must have a positive effect on mankind
For a concept to be amoral, it must have no effect on mankind
For a concept to be immoral, it must have a negative effect on mankind
All of the preceding deal with effects on those other than the person commiting an action. Self harm is acceptable. Harming others is not.

An example of a positive effect on mankind would be providing free aid to those who need it. An example of no effect would be cigarette smoking. An example of a negative effect would be murder.

So while homosexuality, while it may be unfavorable to many people, would be amoral in nature, neither having a positive or negative effect on mankind. As such, homosexuality is completely acceptable, and any attempts to stop homosexuality would be in violation of the rules of volunteerism, as attempting to stop homosexuality would be force, unless you are talking about just talking to the homosexual.

Homosexual Marriage would have the same outcome. Since homosexuals being married would not physically harm anyone, preventing it using force would be in violation of the rules. Marriage may have certain religious and cultural significance, forcing a certain religion or culture upon someone else would be tyrannical. Since all Men and Women are inherently equal, it would be improper to place requirements based on gender, Just as it is improper to place requirements on race. Therefore, Gay Marriage must be allowed through the rules of Volunteerism.

(Originally posted on my blog anaphilo.wordpress.com)

[Rillion]

Shorter version:  Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, therefore it isn't wrong.

[Low-Eight]

Exactly, I don't want to put a one sentence blog post though, that's just not good for pageviews

[anarchir]

Yep, no victim, no crime.

[lspooner]

Yep, no victim, no crime.

I agree.  But just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not immoral.  Some libertarians consider the non-aggression principle as their moral code.  For others, the NAP is only a minimum. 

[Low-Eight]

Yep, no victim, no crime.

I agree.  But just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not immoral.  Some libertarians consider the non-aggression principle as their moral code.  For others, the NAP is only a minimum. 

Forcing your morality upon someone else would break the NAP

[Rillion]

Yep, no victim, no crime.

I agree.  But just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not immoral. 

True, but good luck arguing that something is immoral without a victim, either. 

[lspooner]

Yep, no victim, no crime.

I agree.  But just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not immoral.  Some libertarians consider the non-aggression principle as their moral code.  For others, the NAP is only a minimum. 

Forcing your morality upon someone else would break the NAP

Who said anything about force?  Let me clarify.  For some libertarians, their personal moral code is the NAP.  For others, and I dare say the majority, other actions are also immoral.

[lspooner]

Yep, no victim, no crime.

I agree.  But just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not immoral. 

True, but good luck arguing that something is immoral without a victim, either. 

What about cheating on one's boyfriend/girlfriend?  What about yelling at your children?  What about spreading false rumors about somebody else?

[Rillion]

Yep, no victim, no crime.

I agree.  But just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not immoral. 

True, but good luck arguing that something is immoral without a victim, either. 

What about cheating on one's boyfriend/girlfriend?  What about yelling at your children?  What about spreading false rumors about somebody else?

You don't think there are victims in any of those cases?  I sure do.  There are myriad ways to hurt someone that don't involve physical violence or damage of property. 

[anarchir]

There are victims, but thankfully those are immoral acts easily solved by social ostracism.

[Njal]

Homosexuality is a disease. Be careful or you'll catch the gay!

Good write up.

[lspooner]

Yep, no victim, no crime.

I agree.  But just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not immoral. 

True, but good luck arguing that something is immoral without a victim, either. 

What about cheating on one's boyfriend/girlfriend?  What about yelling at your children?  What about spreading false rumors about somebody else?

You don't think there are victims in any of those cases?  I sure do.  There are myriad ways to hurt someone that don't involve physical violence or damage of property. 

No, I don't.  Not in the context we are talking about.  And this is exactly my point.  None of the scenarios I proposed involved violating the NAP, i.e., nobody's rights were violated.  Hurting someone's feelings is not the same as hurting somebody's person.  However, those actions are definitely immoral in my book. 

[Low-Eight]

Yep, no victim, no crime.

I agree.  But just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not immoral. 

True, but good luck arguing that something is immoral without a victim, either. 

What about cheating on one's boyfriend/girlfriend?  What about yelling at your children?  What about spreading false rumors about somebody else?

Cheating on one's boyfriend/girlfriend is a violation of trust, because you have broken the agreement that you had with them of being mutually exlusive lovers.

Yelling at your children is emotional abuse. Stefan Molyneux has some excellent podcasts on that.

Spreading false rumors about someone else is slander and as such damages their reputation.  In this case you are committing fraud, which is considered force

[Rillion]

No, I don't.  Not in the context we are talking about.  And this is exactly my point.  None of the scenarios I proposed involved violating the NAP, i.e., nobody's rights were violated.  Hurting someone's feelings is not the same as hurting somebody's person.  However, those actions are definitely immoral in my book. 

Exactly, and my  point was that it's certainly possible for something to be immoral without violating the NAP, but not unless it actually hurts somebody.  For example, homosexuality is neither immoral nor criminal because it doesn't hurt people in either  sense you're talking about.