Moral Philosophy: The Flaws with Religous Morality and Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

I wanted to write about the negative impact of cultural and religious morality on minorities, with a specific focus on how this relates to the contemporary issue of Christianity and gay civil rights – and how philosophy can be used to argue the legitimacy of homosexuality. This has been a very important issue today, and support for it has now even become part of the Democratic Party’s official political stance – and it will no doubt be a key issue in the 2012 elections. The issue of gay marriage, and more generally of the morality of homosexuality, has been a controversial issue largely since the mass expansion of European Christianity. If we go back to pre-Christian civilizations, we find that not only was homosexuality tolerated – the Egyptians had same sex inclined gods (Seth and Horus,) Native Americans had “Two-spirits,” south east Asia had katoys and hijras – in some societies it was promoted as virtuous – such as the love between Patroclus and Achilles that Alexander the Great tried to replicate with his lover Hephaestion. After the spread of Christianity, or more specifically once European Christianity grew, homosexuality became something considered vile and offensive. We can see this in history, such as British India attempting to make “hijras” illegal, and also today, where the homophobic effect of evangelical Christians in African countries has led to extremes such as Uganda’s “kill the gays” bill – something that would never have even been considered before the expansion of Christianity into Africa. I want to look at the concept of both homosexuality in general and also the notion of “gay marriage” through the lens of some different moral philosophies. The purpose of this is not only to detect the position that some of history’s great philosophers might have had, but also to suggest that through this example it becomes increasingly evident that morality determined by religious doctrine is both dangerous and harmful – especially to minorities.

I want to first look at how both homosexuality in and of itself and also more specifically gay marriage would fit into Herodotus’s moral philosophy. Herodotus, arguably the first of Greek philosophers, suggested that “custom is king[1].” By his standard, the morality of something would be determined by the prevailing cultural ideology. This example, looking at the potential morality of homosexuality, depicts a vast flaw in his conclusion that we determine what is moral by what is customary. If we consider homosexuality as something that was culturally accepted by the Greeks, we can surmise that Herodotus would accept that to engage in a homosexual relationship would be moral – if not possibly exceedingly virtuous given the (admittedly sexist) Greek position on the greatness of relationships between men. The notion of gay marriage however, would not have been considered common, and therefor would have been considered immoral. If we fast forward to the pre-Christian Roman Empire though, we would find that both homosexuality and the idea of same sex marriage would be considered moral as even their emperors married men (Nero married two!) If we consider Herodotus’s perspective today, the morality of homosexuality and gay marriage would be regional, with metropolitan areas where it is accepted and rural areas where it isn’t being greatly varied. By his standard, the morality of anything is constantly in flux, which seems contradictory to me. How can we adopt cultural norms as a moral compass if they are constantly changing over region and time? Based on that, it seems illogical to consider cultural norms as a potential reason why homosexuality and gay marriage are immoral.

Next I want to consider the position that Thomas Aquinas would take, using his theory of natural law to surmise the morality of homosexuality and gay marriage. Aquinas argues that moral law is a “dictate of practical reason[2]” and is something that is natural to us. His argument with regard to homosexuality would suggest that since the natural function of sexuality is to reproduce, that to engage in any sort of activity that does not lead to reproduction would be a misuse of the natural purpose of the body. But this logic is nearly nonsensical when applied to a great variety of scenarios. Our hair is meant to grow, therefor to cut it is immoral. Likewise, cutting your nails, or putting on rollerblades, or walking on your hands, or doing any other activity which is different than what the body was designed to do. But his objection to non-procreative sexual activity goes even further, because if we follow it to its logical conclusion we come upon the fact that if we are supposed to follow our natural purpose than every male should procreate with as many females as possible in order to propagate the species, without regard for reason at all. The fact that Aquinas nor any other Christian philosopher would suggest this admits to the gross flaw of any sort of religious morality – if taken to it’s inevitable conclusion, it is illogical and defies morality. You can’t argue that to engage in same sex sexual activity is immoral is unnatural since it doesn’t support procreation without actively suggesting that to limit oneself from procreating with as many mates as possible isn’t equally immoral. Therefor to look at the true nature of natural law, we need only observe the natural world – for example, animals. Many varieties of animals engage in same sex activity, and some even engage in homosexual monogamy, among a wide variety of sexual practices. This indicates that sexuality has a much deeper purpose than just procreation, like companionship and even simply pleasure. Based on every other living creature in the world, sex isn’t only for procreation, and based on this, any form of consensual activity between adults that is beneficial to them is innately moral. If we deny this, than we deny the natural aspect of natural law. This same idea applies to gay marriage. Two male penguins in a New York zoo who were monogamous with each other were donated an egg which they incubated and hatched, showing that gay parenting and families can occur in the natural world. If we are going to deny people the right to marry based on inability to procreate, than we would also have to deny older people, infertile people and anyone who didn’t plan on having children. Again, if we take Aquinas’s warped Christian perspective of natural law to its inherent conclusion, it’s so irrational that no person would find it reasonable.

When we begin to look at homosexuality and gay marriage with regard to more contemporary philosophies that exist outside as much religious influence as earlier philosophies, we see an overwhelming consensus that there is nothing immoral about homosexuality, and in fact to deny people the right to marriage and thereby their happiness is in fact more immoral than the homosexuality that people are so quick to condemn. If we look at the hedonistic utilitarianism of Bentham[3] or the consequentialist utilitarianism of Mill[4] we see two different philosophies based on reason and reality that support the morality of homosexuality. Bentham simplifies morality in humans as based in two distinct principles, pain and pleasure. As such, that which is moral would be the pursuit of pleasure. While this taken to an extreme (at which point do we draw the line between one person’s pleasures excluding someone else’s, e.g. stealing) in any context, it can’t be argued to suggest homosexuality is immoral, and in fact to deny others the ability to get married and have pleasure with the state of their life, we are being immoral. Mill’s perspective of ethics is a little more complex, and he talks about the greater happiness. The inherent fact of the matter is that acting with prejudice towards gay and lesbian people does not serve the greater happiness and in fact hurts many people. Likewise, despite what bigoted conservatives say, no one will be harmed by allowing gay people to get married, but in denying them the same rights as heterosexual people, we are grossly unjust and damaging to gay and lesbian people. If we look on a more individual level, gay people are engaging in homosexuality because it is in the pursuit of what Mill refers to as higher pleasures – companionship, completeness – and as long as it is not unhealthy (such as flagrant unsafe promiscuity, regardless of orientation) we cannot deem it immoral. Gay and lesbian people are pursing these relationships with the desired consequence being partnership and support, and in regard to gay marriage, of having that partnership protected and upheld legally for the sake of the family they are forming. In this way, it is only to deny gay people the same rights as heterosexual people that is immoral, as the consequence is the devastation and inequality of a group of people.

If we look at Kant’s categorical imperative[5], we need to look at the larger actions of both a) acting with prejudice towards people who are gay or lesbian and b) preventing gay and lesbian people from getting married, rather than the specific individual actions of engaging in homosexuality or marrying a person of the same sex. This is necessary because a person’s sexual activity is not a universal matter, additionally, the naïve argument that someone might make in suggesting that “if everyone was homosexual or partnered with a same sex person, the race would cease to exist” using the categorical imperative is incorrect because homosexuality doesn’t automatically exclude either basic procreation or artificial procreation or adoption. Therefor it’s illogical to attempt to evaluate homosexuality with the categorical imperative and instead must contemplate the reaction towards gay and lesbian people with the notion of applying it as a universal maxim. Bigotry does not survive as a universal maxim, and neither does preventing people to marry. In this way, there is no deontological argument against homosexuality or gay marriage, and similarly to utilitarian arguments, if we apply these moral philosophy standards to the acts of prejudice and preventing marriage, we do find evidence to suggest that denying people rights is immoral.

Thus far, we haven’t found sufficient evidence to suggest that homosexuality or gay marriage are immoral, and in fact have found evidence that to act with bigotry and prevent the rights of other is immoral. The cultural norms of Herodotus and supposed “natural law” of Aquinas are paradoxical in that they suggest unrealistic and impossible values when taken to their logical conclusion. In utilitarian, consequentialist and deontological mindsets, we find no objection to homosexuality and on the contrary find evidence that to deny others their rights is immoral.

Where the topic gets complicated is when we look at religious morality, most specifically the biblical ethics which suggest that morality is not separate from religion and that god is moral director of the universe.[6] Though it can be argued otherwise (which is outside the scope of this paper) the general consensus is that “god’s” morality considers homosexuality to be wrong, as stated in the bible and many other works following it (e.g. the Catechism of the Catholic Church) and therefor to promote it by allowing gay marriage is equally immoral. The single greatest flaw of this system of morality is that since “god” has no common presence by which to speak (arguably because he’s nonexistent) we have to trust that wise men know his will and have communicated it correctly. If we buy into this assumption – that morality is defined by god, that he communicated it to a select few, and that by these communications we know that homosexuality is wrong – than there is no reasonable way to disprove this, as its basis is not reasonable. This argument of biblical morality against homosexuality is hardly new, and was used against people of African descent in not too distant American history. In Loving v. Virginia, a US judge used biblical morality regarding the separation of the races to justify keeping interracial marriage illegal. If we go back further through history we find countless times where religious morality was used to silence, put down, oppress or flat out kill people who were different, be they different religions, colors, sexes, orientations or nationalities. This sort of moral philosophy has had an overwhelmingly negative effect on people, and continues to now. We need to evaluate the morality of homosexuality using rational, reasonable methods of thinking – ones which do not reach absurdity when taken to their natural conclusion. And when we do such, we see that homosexuality and gay marriage are moral, that to deny gay and lesbian people equal rights and marriage is immoral, and that systems of morality based on religious are both nonsensical, irrational, and have only led to misery for the minorities of the human race throughout history – women, dark skinned people, persons of other faiths, gay and lesbian people. It’s time for an age of reason, where all people are treated equally and religious bigotry under the guise of morality is exposed.