The Ethical Value of Homosexuality

Tolerance is indeed a positive contribution to society in general. However, tolerating something that is inherently incorrect(for use of a term to connote something more general than 'wrong') is simply put irrational. A reasonable compromise between the two would simply be displaying neutral tolerance rather than one of a more proactive constitution. The societal harm caused by the tolerance of homosexuality is nothing necessarily explicit; as in pride parades are not seeking to crucify(in the literal sense) heterosexuals. This much is clear, and as a follow up, that is, to generalize my point, homosexuality and the acceptance thereof is not deliberately doing damage. This seems to be an distinction worth making seeing as how the majority of heterosexualists claim that advocates of homosexual equity have some sort of 'agenda'. I do not personally espouse this notion in any way shape or form as that belief would be the logical equivalent to saying that an infant is 'manipulating' its parent by crying in order to gain access to food. Really the child is hungry and it is the uncomfortable nature of being hungry that drives the child to cry, not some ulterior motivation. So, to move forward with my point, I think that the tolerance for homosexuality is harmful in the way that it appeals primarily to empathy, intuition, and pathos in general to gain its solidity as a movement. This is dangerous because without a basis of rationality to underlie all of these sentimental strategies, there is no objective dictation to warrant whether or not the movement is actually called for or not. It is only healthy form to utilize aforesaid strategies if they in fact do have a basis in objective reasoning. This seems to devalue the need for rationality in its entirety as an aspect of a social movement. I don't think it is necessary to get into the implications and effects the devaluing of rationality would have on society as it self evidently identical to the downfall of society. I feel I have made a case against the tolerating of something that is only really being preached through pathos, however I am fully aware that I have not yet made a case for the precise illogical nature of homosexuality. And it is such that I will proceed with doing in the latter part of this round. In other words, I am not intending on leaving it out. Society really does go well when people get along. The thing about this though, is that getting along isn't the only thing that permits society to go well. Getting along is an inherently emotional activity, and placing emotional activity ahead of rational activity is something that will ultimately result in the annihilation of the former and the latter. Historically(that is, historico-evolutionarily) human faculties for things such as emotions(a term used to encompass ANY sort of experiential component of human reality, be it feeling, desire, sentiment, psychological conception of an object or set of objects and so on and so on) have always deviated towards the path of pursuit of auto-indulgence gratification(look at the capacity for sexual gratification, for instance, those that are selected with such an ability to experience this naturally descend to become the whole of our population, and in turn, the whole of our population ends up straying from the primary function(reproduction/procreative activities) in terms of utilization(using sex for gratification(i. e. as a social and intimate activity))). So to make sense of this, if we give our emotions control, they will ultimately end us(through things like murder, war and genocide), that is to say, unless there is some sort of rational intervention(which by definition would be having our rationality in the 'driver's seat' so to speak). That point having been made, what is more important that people getting along, is people getting along in a rational manner. As far as self esteem goes. Why is it that the person's homosexuality must be accepted? As in, why must acceptance call for them being justifiably homosexual? Now, it is clear that the only route of acceptance would be to see them as an individual that assigns their sexual desire to inappropriate objects(not out of volition, of course, this is all unconsciously done), but seeing as how the media has constructed this impenetrable wall (even when every scientific study ever done on the topic has only ever said 'predisposition' when mentioning biological causality)(and of course, some 'scientists' will choose the rather dishonest method of equivocating this truth(although they cannot say anything against it) and thusly, they can be considered as the media too) of myth that homosexuality is innate an necessarily immutable, I don't think I'll get anywhere to recommend the latter route for acceptance. There really hasn't been enough money or interest put into the proper study of what would, in theory, do well to refashion homosexual attractions simply because it is at the moment and has been for the last 40 or so years one of the single most politically incorrect undertakings to pursue. To your point though, either of these acceptances are theoretically sufficient to have it so the individual is not crucified(in the literal sense) by others but rather compassionately accepted. In simpler terms, accepting them one way over the other bares no asymmetry in acceptance. There need not be an authoritarian policy in order to not permit homosexuality to be seen as rational. It seems like people think we either have to accept and embrace something or inversely condemn and castigate it. This is the case only to those who are narrow minded. You seem to put the word tolerance to use in a rather ambiguous manner. Tolerating it as in approaching it simply with the lack of ferventness in opposition is most always a good thing, but tolerating as in accepting it in a positive way is only ever a good thing when it accords to the corresponding rationality of the object. If the object is in dispossession if this vital rationality it should not be approached with in a positive manner. (I think the main thing here is people tend to naturally associate positive to what is not negative, when this association encompasses both neutrality as well as positivity). Response to the point about reproduction: . http://thetruth-theanswer.blogspot.com... To conclude I would like to very briefly summarize the logic which I believe naturally dictates the extrinsic nature of homosexuality. Evolution has descended to a point through the sole means of heterosexuality. Using things that have naturally been granted to us through aforesaid heterosexuality for the purposes of things that logically contradict heterosexuality is what I see as a definitional misuse.