Kant's posture on homosexuality

[El Fresa]

I'm far from gay myself but I've always believed in freedom of choice, in anything in the world, especially concerning something so intimate as sexuality.

But after reading Kant, I find my interpretation of his posture rather riveting.

In the universality of morality, do homosexual people have a place in this concept?

If one person chooses to marry someone of the same sex, shouldn't we all be able to do so? And if we did, wouldn't it mean the end of the human race?

Discuss.

[Typist]

Well, there's no danger of us all becoming gay. And given how confused we often are about simple things like homosexuality, perhaps the end of the human race should not be viewed as the ultimate catastrophe. If we go, nature will just try again, and sooner or later come up with something better.

[Faust]

A better question is: Does anyone have a place in Kant's "universality of morality"? Does any act?

If one person chooses to marry someone of the same sex, shouldn't we all be able to do so? And if we did, wouldn't it mean the end of the human race?

I think it's time to catch up on the latest breeding technology.

[von Rivers]

I'm far from gay myself but I've always believed in freedom of choice, in anything in the world, especially concerning something so intimate as sexuality.

But after reading Kant, I find my interpretation of his posture rather riveting.

In the universality of morality, do homosexual people have a place in this concept?

If one person chooses to marry someone of the same sex, shouldn't we all be able to do so? And if we did, wouldn't it mean the end of the human race?

Discuss.

'May' does not imply 'must'. And are you asking a Kantian to consider the consequences of a universalized maxim? Tsk tsk.

[lizbethrose]

I'm far from gay myself but I've always believed in freedom of choice, in anything in the world, especially concerning something so intimate as sexuality.

But after reading Kant, I find my interpretation of his posture rather riveting.

In the universality of morality, do homosexual people have a place in this concept?

If one person chooses to marry someone of the same sex, shouldn't we all be able to do so? And if we did, wouldn't it mean the end of the human race?

Discuss.

In the universality of morality, where does sexuality lie? Nowhere, as far as I know. Morality has to do with sexuality only in a very restricted sense. Is it immoral to take a crib sheet with you into a final exam? Is it immoral for you to do anything illegal, because you 'won't be caught?' Morals and ethics should be universal and not involve sexuality at all. To suggest otherwise is, imm, a rather slanted, possibly immoral and unethical, point of view.

[El Fresa]

It has to do in a big way with morality IMHO, not talking about traditional homosexuality but child abuse, bestiality, incest, etc are all human acts, but definitely immoral and unethical.

And Kant would say homosexuality is immoral because in some way shape or form it "goes against our duty" as sentient beings in this planet, but it is also a categorical imperative to have free will in this day and age. So it would be immoral to go against people who decide to partake in a gay relationship, it could be argued both ways you see.

[Flannel Jesus]

If one person chooses to marry someone of the same sex, shouldn't we all be able to do so? And if we did, wouldn't it mean the end of the human race?

Let's use the same approach towards male heterosexuality: Is it moral for a man to only be willing to marry a woman? If so, shouldn't everyone be able to do so? Man and woman alike, being willing only to marry and have intercourse with a woman and not a man? If nobody was willing to have sex with men, wouldn't that equally mean the end of the human race (barring rape and artificial fertilization)?

So perhaps male heterosexuality is immoral...

Or perhaps Kant is a cunt.

[Only_Humean]

it could be argued both ways you see.

This is the problem with the categorical imperative. Don't like the answer? Just reword the question until it fits.

In any case, people can still procreate regardless of who they are in love with.

[volchok]

wouldn't it mean the end of the human race?

This concern is extremely stupid for obvious reasons but for the sake of argument, let's assume it is valid.
Why should we actively fight for the human race to continue to exist ? It's one thing to worry about future generations. We know that people will have kids for a long time but why this concern with the continuation of the species ?

[Dan~]

There is a difference between consent and non consent.
Consentual things aren't forms of suffering.
The definition of bad causes suffering.

[Flannel Jesus]

We should redefine it then. I don't like suffering.

[obe]

If one person chooses to marry someone of the same sex, shouldn't we all be able to do so? And if we did, wouldn't it mean the end of the human race?

nature or natural or intelligent design or whatever you may want to call it is more clever than people are willing to give credit for. Nature may be moving in this direction to stop the overpopulation which is much more of an urgent nature than asserting a
Let's use the same approach towards male heterosexuality: Is it moral for a man to only be willing to marry a woman? If so, shouldn't everyone be able to do so? Man and woman alike, being willing only to marry and have intercourse with a woman and not a man? If nobody was willing to have sex with men, wouldn't that equally mean the end of the human race (barring rape and artificial fertilization)?

So perhaps male heterosexuality is immoral...

Or perhaps Kant is a cunt.

Intelligent design or the wisdom of the ages(nature) is possibly cleverly avoiding a natural disaster due to overpopulation. And not to worry, there may still be left a few exclusive heterosexuals left to insure the survival of the species.

[lizbethrose]

I'm far from gay myself but I've always believed in freedom of choice, in anything in the world, especially concerning something so intimate as sexuality.

But after reading Kant, I find my interpretation of his posture rather riveting.

In the universality of morality, do homosexual people have a place in this concept?

If one person chooses to marry someone of the same sex, shouldn't we all be able to do so? And if we did, wouldn't it mean the end of the human race?

Discuss.

Everyone should be able to marry whomever s/he is willing to love, honor, and cherish for as long as they both shall live. If a person enters into a declared, long-term relationship without that in mind, then the relationship is, in my mind, not honest. It's, therefore, immoral because dishonesty is immoral. The actual percentage of homosexual men and lesbian women in the world is actually unknown, but perceived to be rather small. Until that changes, (how?) there's no worry about the species of homo sapien sapien. Our species isn't the only one to have homosexual or lesbian attractions.

It has to do in a big way with morality IMHO, not talking about traditional homosexuality but child abuse, bestiality, incest, etc are all human acts, but definitely immoral and unethical.

And Kant would say homosexuality is immoral because in some way shape or form it "goes against our duty" as sentient beings in this planet, but it is also a categorical imperative to have free will in this day and age. So it would be immoral to go against people who decide to partake in a gay relationship, it could be argued both ways you see.

el fresa wrote:

It has to do in a big way with morality IMHO, not talking about traditional homosexuality but child abuse, bestiality, incest, etc are all human acts, but definitely immoral and unethical.

And Kant would say homosexuality is immoral because in some way shape or form it "goes against our duty" as sentient beings in this planet, but it is also a categorical imperative to have free will in this day and age. So it would be immoral to go against people who decide to partake in a gay relationship, it could be argued both ways you see.

I don't see how child abuse, etc., has to do with homosexuality, but those activities are in a far different league than homosexuality and are definitely 'immoral and unethical'--at least immoral, anyway.

Kant has a problem here--or at least how Kant is usually interpreted. How can morality be judged?

Wouldn't it be just as immoral for a gay or lesbian committed (i.e., married) couple to 'cheat' as it would be for a married heterosexual couple to 'cheat?'