(from previous)

Putting that aside, as a moral response to inequality these arguments are poor- if we only concentrated on the greatest injustices (however defined…), we would allow other injustices to flourish. And if we just “accept”ed injustice, it will not change.

If those that make these arguments are really that committed as moral nihilists, responding in this manner is a complex form of trolling, and if they really don’t think that injustice has been done, this is the “I’m right, no really, I am” response I mentioned above.

On point b), it is not at all clear how inequality as a consequence of choice is not worthy of consideration. Perhaps if this is the point being made, the proponents of this argument can tell us how they feel about other inequality caused by choices, such as being stoned to death for choosing to be Christian in some countries, or being hung for choosing to harbor Jewish families in Nazi Germany?

While it may remain true that not making those choices removes the risk of harmful consequences, how does this make the application of those harmful consequences right?

For those who really do feel that we should just accept the consequences of our choices, and not fight for fair consequences, let me ask- if our law changes overnight and heterosexual relationships suffer legal inequalities, and homosexual relationships don’t, would you be entitled to “whinge” if you choose to continue or start a heterosexual relationship?

I realize that not a lot of time has passed yet since my earlier posts, and there are many people who have posted who clearly agree with Jim Woulfe (tough crowd, as it were), but the onus really is on those who justify or tolerate an inequality to give us some rational defense of their positions.

Or if there is anyone else reading who thinks Woulfe’s relationship is not the equal of other marriage style relationships, and believes this justifies inequality, now is the time to present a logical argument supporting that view.

Snout,

Perhaps one could apply morality to the gay issue: Kohlberg comes to mind. Acceptance would be "post-conventional" and rejection, the "law and order" stagem, perhaps. Some sexologists, say that inviduals are not definitively homosexual or heterosexual. Rather, we all are on a behavioural continuum. Most people would score low on the homosexual scale for genetic and nurturing reasons.

Others,

Just the same, a penchant for contact sport and locker rooms might indicate a lean "towards" homosexuality, without overt homosexual behaviour. Stripping naked and jumping into a hot tub with others of one's on sex is not exactly heterosexual behaviour, is it?

Nothing new.
The same old dribble of how can I make a quid out of my partner.
If two gays live together so what.
It is possible to insure a partners life to get a quid.
Oh no you cannot claim all the benefits that the hard working honest
couple get.
I do say that the present legal marriage system is in a mess.
"To love honor and obey until death"' has become "to love until you get bored."
The modern interpretation of marriage has become so corrupted that almost anything can be classed as a marriage.I live with a chicken in the back garden can I have this classed as a marriage as I feed and house my chicken,so can I get a married couple pension.Her name is Wendy,so I suppose I am not a gay so where is my pension and carers benefit Mr Howard?

Thanks, Oliver: I hadn’t thought about the issue from that point of view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development. (I’m a great and recent fan of wikipedia – helps me make up for a narrow and incomplete education!)

Thanks also to wibble for your erudite unpacking of some of the philosophical issues.

Generally at this point the debate tends to devolve into circular arguments about what is “natural/unnatural” or “normal/abnormal”. Related are concerns about the “appropriate” uses of different organs, and of sexuality itself. Most such arguments tend to be applied inconsistently: for example the condemnation of anal sex on the basis that it is a misuse of a primarily alimentary organ is rarely extended to a condemnation of oral sex or kissing which ought to follow logically. Similarly the narrowing of ‘ideal’ sexual behavior to a sole purpose of achieving pregnancy might satisfy those whose central life goal might be to seek a specific type of spiritual or behavioural purity (or to have lots of kids), but for most of us sexuality is about a lot more than that.

Alternatively you could take the view, as I do, that human sexuality is pretty diverse, and intimately tied up with our most profound fears and desires, as well as our biology. The most sensible moral approach is to ask the questions: who benefits and how, and who is harmed and why?

For some people, becoming aware of consensual sexual practices in our fellow humans that are not to our taste can be a disturbing and disorienting experience.

Gekko and RObert, two of the more insightful and emotionally honest posters, write of the “cringe” factor they experience even in non sexual interactions with other males. My guess is that this is tied up with our social constructions of masculinity (and femininity) in a similar way that “homophobia” is. (Not a great word – too politically loaded and pseudoclinical!)

Diversity, and our puzzling gut reactions to the unfamiliar don’t have to be scary things: for many of us they can be a source of enrichment, wonder and even amusement in our own lives.

What is biologically normative can be ecologically determined. If a species is heavily populated in a given area, over the Malthusian limit, it would prove be beneficial to the gene pool for the conduit species to not zealously populate. Herein, behavioural diversity is a plus.

Loved the article.
Interesting debate, particularly from those who find homosexual acts "disgusting" and therefore assume they are not normal. Young people find the idea of their parents having sex "disgusting", should they therefore be able to call it abnormal? Once any of us get beyond a certain age, the mental picture others might have of us having sex would probably look if not "disgusting" then at least pretty comical, does that make it not normal? And, of course, sex with a post menopausal woman can never be about procreation, so perhaps it really isn't "normal". Stop it at once all you baby boomers!
John Ruskin, a famous writer and thinker from ultra-repressed Victorian England was so disgusted by his wife's pubic hair when he saw her naked on their wedding night, he accused her of being deformed and not normal and the marriage was annulled for non-consummation. I don't think Ruskin was necessarily gay, just hopelessly overprotected by very inhibited parents. Women who masturbated or even appeared to enjoy sex in that era were also considered "disgusting" and not normal. Indeed, some unfortunate women were given cliteredectomy's to "cure" them of the supposed abnormality. Children had their hands tied to the bed to prevent them touching themselves. Ironically, it is also claimed there were more prostitutes in Victorian England ( including child prostitutes) than at any time since.
What each of us finds disgusting or not normal probably says a great deal more about us and the times we live in than it does about anything else.