Hi there...I am in love with a girl... but, i don't want to be a lesbian... can you help me? thanks...?

Answer 1

sounds odd but many do feel that way
love has no boundaries age sex gender disability
but you own morels are saying i can not be in love with them as to your self being a lesbian is the stereo type boyish look and act and what ever else
when really it is two people showing love to one another the rest can be any way you want it

when you are in love nothing else matters and the only way to know if it is true love is to experience it at least once
if it is true love be in love and be your self don't change for any one

so be open minded you can be with your love but no one has to know other then her of course
be yourself as every one else is taking
be happy what ever that is

Answer 2

I'm guessing you're young?
I don't mean that as an insult...
but I had an experience when I was 12/13ish
I had a friend, who was about a year or two older, we regularly had sleepovers, and every time, she would slowly seduce me, and try to cover it up, by playing house.
Now, I had kissed one boy before, and I didn't protest with her, just rather reluctantly always went along with it.
opne day, she was going a little bit further then usual, and we were completely naked, and she stopped and pretty agressuvely, said "Did you ever think, you would be a lesbian"
I said "no", and she answered "well you are now,", and proceeded to shove her topngue down my throat.
That was it, I kept on having that exact same worry, "oh my god, i'm sort of enjoying this, i'm going to be a lesbian..oh no...I don't want to be a lesbian"
Coincidentally, I don't think I saw her evcer again after that day...?!?
I am by no means a lesbian here & today.
It's perfectly normal to explore your sexuality, and perhaps even to confuse loving someone in a strong friendship way with being "in love" with them.
It's common for a female to be attracted to another female, it doesn't have to mean anything, and it's also still completely natural to seriously be curious, and to experiment with your feelings.

Even if you are gay, so what...it's okay...

Answer 3

Being gay or a lesbian isnt a choice. When I first had feelings for a girl, I tried to deny it, and pretend that I didnt, you cant do that forever and be happy. What is the harm in trying it out to see if that is what you really want, or if it just a fantasy?

Answer 4

just treat her as your sister, in that way you cant think of any other naughty stuffs.

why do you feel something for her? are u starting to be a lesbian?

Answer 5

I guess you're a girl, right? In love with another girl... you're either a lesbian or bisexual... unless you're a guy, in which case you're neither.

Not enough details....

Answer 6

You cannot deny what you are......actually you can but lets not go into that. It's best for to just accept what you are and smile like you have nothing to proof.

Answer 7

my only advice is to follow Ur heart becuz life is too short to ignore Ur feelings... love is a gift, passion is a plus.

Answer 8

ill take it that ur a girl then, sorry but theres nothing you can do about your sexuality, you can choose it. just go with your feelings tell you to do

Answer 9

You do not have to react on your feelings. If you don't want something in your life, make that decision and stick to it.

Answer 10

First of all, don't let anyone tell you that it is wrong to be homosexual. God is the god of love, and what logical reasoning is there to discriminate against love? At the end of this answer, I'll leave you a big long list of common arguments for and against homosexuality/bisexuality. If you don't want to be a lesbian, that's o.k. Do you still like guys? I have a best friend I have never done anything with that I used to have the biggest crush on. I just made myself recognize her as a friend. I have a boyfriend who makes me feel wonderful, whom I love. I just had to give it time. I am a bisexual, but I have never done anything with a girl. I just choose not to, for my own reasons--I like guys better. Just give yourself a little space from her, and recognize her solely as a friend. Don't spend as much time with her as you generally would.

This is long, but a worthwhile read.

Does Homosexuality Pose a Threat to Society?

By Dr. Niclas Berggren

"[H]omosexuality is unhealthy, immoral and destructive to individuals, families and societies." - Family Research Council

I. Introduction

It has long been asserted, primarily by various religious and politically conservative groups, that homosexuality is detrimental to the well-being of any society in which it occurs. In this essay, I plan to examine this sort of assertions and, ultimately, demonstrate that they are without rational foundation. In other words, it will be shown that homosexuality does not per se constitute a threat to society.

The structure of the essay is as follows. First, a list of the most some common negative arguments against homosexuality will be considered, namely:

1. "Homosexuality is harmful for society"
2. "Homosexuals do not reproduce and thus threaten the survival of society"
3. "Homosexuals pose a threat to children"
4. "Homosexuality is a depressing and sad lifestyle"
5. "Homosexuals are obsessed with sex with different partners"
6. "Homosexuality causes AIDS and other diseases which are costly and deadly"
7. "Homosexuality undermines religion and hence stability in society"
8. "Homosexuals want special political rights"
9. "Homosexuality threatens the family"

After the critical analysis of these arguments, some concluding remarks are offered.

II. Arguments Against Homosexuality

In this section, I will present nine arguments against homosexuality and, in each case, analyze them carefully in order for us to see whether or not they are valid.

Argument #1: "Homosexuality is harmful for society"

It is not altogether clear what this claim means; in fact, I consider it meaningless. First, we have to ask ourselves what is meant by "homosexuality". If it refers to a sexual orientation, which denotes a non-chosen condition, it is trivially clear that homosexuality, in itself, cannot be harmful in any direct sense. The reason for this is that a condition cannot perform acts: it just defines a passive state. It thus appears as if the statement above is incoherent.

However, it might be argued that what is meant is that the condition of homosexuality influences acts, both acts performed and acts not performed, in a manner which is harmful. On this reading, the statement above is not incoherent; rather, to invalidate it, it is necessary to evaluate each suggested way in which homosexuality allegedly influences behavior in a harmful fashion. To this we will return shortly, in the analysis of other arguments.

If "homosexuality", on the other hand, is not meant to refer to a sexual orientation - that is, if the existence of such a thing as sexual orientation is denied - then the statement is simply a shorthand way of writing "homosexual acts are harmful for society". In essence, this amounts to the same thing as the coherent view espoused in the preceding paragraph: in no way is the condition of homosexuality said to be harmful (in the one case because it is realized that only acts - performed or not performed - that are influenced by this condition can be harmful and in the other case because it is thought that this condition does not exist).

Second, we must define what we mean by "harmful". On both an objective and a subjective ethics (these are two mutually exclusive meta-ethical views, one of which must be held with regard to normative statements), whether one considers a certain phenomenon harmful or not depends on what one's moral guidelines assert. A believer in an objective ethics may refer to a sacred rule book which states that certain acts are always harmful, whilst a believer in a subjective ethics may refer to his sentiments or some consequentialist arguments. My counter-arguments generally belong to the second genre: as a believer in a subjectivist ethics, I wish to motivate my normative views by referring to effects of certain types of behavior. If a person who advances Argument #1 thinks that this approach is agreeable, it is possible to meet in rational discourse. If, however, such a person believes that a set of acts is intrinsically harmful, no matter what anyone has to say about its consequences, then it is not possible to discuss this issue rationally. It is my hope that this category of persons is insignificant in number.

Third, we come to the term "society" in Argument #1. This is normally taken to mean some aggregate of individuals (along with their formal and informal institutions) who live together in some politically defined area. Hence, when one says that a set of acts is harmful for society, one implies, in some way, that these acts are harmful for a large number of individuals who live together in some political arrangement. This understanding then reduces the argument to the micro level, although this is seldom made explicit. So, in order to explain how a some acts are harmful to society, one must (i) explain how they are harmful to individuals and (ii) that the number of individual thus harmed is quite large or that the harm in question is of a particularly serious nature.

So what about Argument #1? Is homosexuality harmful for society? My claim, based on the reasoning above, is that this is a meaningless question. For it to obtain meaning, it must be rephrased as "Are the acts which are influenced by homosexuality harmful for a large number of individuals?". And then, to answer this question, it must first be specified what acts that are being discussed, how they relate to homosexuality, what our normative view of what we consider harmful is, and how the effects of these acts spread to encompass a large number of individuals or, alternatively, how the effects of these acts are sufficiently serious to render them harmful for society. Below, such detailed arguments will be conscientiously considered.

Argument #2: "Homosexuals do not reproduce and thus threaten the survival of society"

On our tour of the more precise arguments for why homosexuality could be said to pose a threat to society, we begin with this classic argument. This argument is rather unique in that it bases its view of what is harmful by defining it passively: homosexuality does not lead to the good act of having children and, for that reason, is harmful.

To this, one might offer the following replies. First of all, if the one who advances this argument believes it to be true, one wonders why he holds this belief when one of the major problems for the survival of many people, and perhaps human life as such, is the serious overpopulation of the earth. With this in mind, it should rather be welcomed that not all reproduce as intensely as most heterosexuals do. If one holds that the problem of overpopulation is only a problem in certain third-world countries, then at least one should modify one's argument to say that homosexuality is harmful only in the Western world, or something like that.

Second, one wonders why all people must have children, even if there is no problem of overpopulation. Homosexuals have existed as a small minority in all cultures throughout history (see the essay "Revolutions, Universals, and Sexual Categories" by historian John Boswell), and obviously, most societies have been quite able to sustain themselves over long periods of time anyway (assuming that homosexuals have not reproduced). People who do not bear children may fulfill other important duties in society, such as support other families, work more for the benefit of others, etc. We do not generally look down on spinsters who do not want children or sterile couples because of their inability to have children. This reveals that Argument #2 seems to be used, not because the ones proposing it really think it good, but because of other reasons: this argument is just added on, because it sounds useful in the overall effort to defame homosexuals.

Third, the fact is that many homosexuals do have children. Historically, due to social disapprobation, many homosexuals have married persons of the opposite sex and have had children with them - and this is certainly not an unknown phenomenon in our modern days (I personally know of quite a few such situations). In addition, many homosexuals who are not in heterosexual-type relationships inseminate and hence have children. Ironically, the very same persons who claim that homosexuals pose a threat to society because they do not reproduce also combat any attempt to legalize or facilitate insemination - which leaves homosexuals in a Catch 22 situation.

Fourth, what about the common claim that homosexuality is harmful because if all were homosexuals, the human species would die out? First, this is not true, since homosexuals can and do reproduce, e.g., via insemination. Second, this claim considers a hypothetical situation which has never been, and never will be, realized. The fraction of homosexuals, as far as we can tell, has always been rather small in any society, and for that reason the claim is not really interesting when discussing reality: a homosexual minority coexists well with a heterosexual majority.

To conclude, Argument #2 does not hold, both because it may be good not to have children (or at least not bad) and because many homosexuals do have children and do want to have children.

Argument #3: "Homosexuals pose a threat to children"

"I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies. Such people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate destruction of the family and our nation. I am unalterably opposed to such things, and will do everything I can to restrict the freedom of these people to spread their contagious infection to the youth of our nation." - Pat Robertson, May 24, 1994 letter

This argument is based on several misunderstandings: that homosexuals are more prone to molest children and that it is possible to recruit children into homosexuality and that homosexuals carry out such acts of recruitment.

On the issue of molestation, this is what Dr. Gregory M. Herek at the Psychology Department of the University of California at Davis has to say: "The empirical research on adult sexual orientation and molestation of children does not show that gay men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to suggest that molestations of children by adult homosexual men never occur. They do. But molesting children has nothing to do with whether a man is heterosexual or homosexual." For more on what Dr. Herek has to say, including an exposition of the false claims of right-wing favorite Paul Cameron (ousted from the APA), click here.

On the issue of recruitment, this idea entails two theories: (i) that homosexuality can be induced by conscious acts, and (ii) that homosexuals wish to and do recruit. As for the first theory, this is clearly at odds with almost all expertise. Let me offer two arguments as to why it is false. First, almost all the research in psychology and biology indicate that homosexuality is a part of a person's inner personality, just like heterosexuality, which is not the result of conscious acts (see The American Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the site The Gay Gene, which documents the biological findings of a genetical component to homosexuality). And if this is so, it is not possible to recruit. Second, an overwhelming majority of homosexuals surveyed by The Advocate (over 90 %) a few years ago stated that they did not choose to become homosexuals. I know, for one, that I did not choose to be gay, nor did anyone act consciously to make me gay, and all my gay friends have the same experience.

As for the second theory, that homosexuals wish to and do recruit, this is without any basis. First of all, as has just been argued, homosexuals would have to know how to make someone gay, if they were to engage in attempts to recruit. Yet I do not think anyone can safely say that they know how to determine the sexual orientation of someone. Parents, that spend much more time with their kids than anyone else, do not possess such knowledge, presumably, since straight parents often have gay kids. Traits like sexual orientation are very complexly determined, and homosexuals in general do not think that it is possible to change a person's sexual orientation, period, and if so, that no one really knows how to do it. (On the so-called ex-gay movement, see several articles on my homo page under the heading "Is It Possible to Change from Gay to Straight?")

Furthermore, why would homosexuals be interested in recruiting youngsters when, clearly, each new generation brings with it gays and lesbians quite spontaneously? And why is it assumed that gays and lesbians want everyone else to share their sexual orientation?

It is often said that homosexuals wish to portray homosexuality in an attractive manner in the media and in the schools in order to attract young, impressionable children. This accusation is incorrect, for the reason that almost all homosexuals do not think it possible to influence the sexual orientation of a youngster by means of movies, articles, or factual classroom information. Even if that were the case, the heterosexual lifestyle is clearly so predominant in society (which heterosexuals most often do not even reflect upon), that the impressions taken by youngster must be much stronger from that side than from the side of homosexuality. As President Weinberg of The American Psychiatric Association stated in 1977: "A parent's fear that their child will be recruited at school or elsewhere is without scientific foundation".

Rather, the information about homosexuality in media and schools is desired by gays and lesbians solely to help kids who feel attracted to kids of their own sex to accept those unchangeable feelings. The sole purpose is to make these kids feel better about who they are, because most of us who grew up with homosexual feelings felt quite lonely and scared of society's reaction. Good information can help these kids to grow up to be healthy and self-confident. This must be considered especially important, since gay and lesbian teens are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers and account for up to 30% of all completed suicides among teens - in 1989, suicide was the leading cause of death among gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989). It should be obvious that honest information, positive role models, support from well informed teachers, counselors and friends could be immensely helpful to a teenager who is struggling to come to terms with his or her sexual orientation.

And, in addition to this, the argument presupposes that there are solid reasons to think homosexuality harmful in the first place. As we shall see in this essay, there are no such reasons, and hence, even if homosexuals did recruit (which they do not), this could hardly be considered a bad thing, aside, possibly, from the negative attitudes that one has to endure as a homosexuals, not the least from condemning Christians and conservatives.

But what if it were the case that there was a larger proportion of homosexuals than heterosexuals who molested children, for instance (which is not the case)? Of what use is that information? Consider if it was found that the proportion of heterosexuals who molested children was higher than that of homosexuals, what conclusion would be drawn from that information? Should we therefore make life as hard as possible for all heterosexuals (perhaps on the belief that they would become homosexuals, and hence less prone to molest kids, through that type of treatment)? Clearly, such ideas seem bizarre and at odds with basic notions of justice: both because all would be punished for the activities of a minority (the molesters) and because the actions are probably counterproductive (repressed molesters are probably more prone to molest). And we must not forget that underlying this idea is the erroneous theory than one can consciously change the sexual orientation of people.

To conclude, then, the claim that homosexuals pose a threat to children is defaming and without basis. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, generally love and care for children and wish them only to lead good, rewarding, and honest lives.

Argument #4: "Homosexuality is a depressing and sad lifestyle"

As we can see, one argument easily leads to another: the high incidence of suicide among gay teenagers could also be used as an argument against homosexuality, along with other problems, such as discrimination or violence. But let us first ponder upon why gay teens feel depressed to a large degree.

I know, as I have been a gay teen (you can read my personal story for a fuller explication), and it is not because of something inherent in homosexuality. The reason is instead to be found in the religious and social attitudes of the surrounding society. Everyone is brought up on the presumption of heterosexuality; one hears questions all the time to that effect while growing up along with movies and examples from real life around you which illustrate that boy meets girl. When one feels that this is not the case, one feels confused and sad, because there is discordance between the signals you receive from society and your inner feelings. This conflict can be made more severe in a religious context, where also a god may be said to be against what one feels inside. This is hard to handle for a young person. Ironically, those who think that they do gay and lesbian teens a favor by withholding information in schools and by preaching harshly against homosexuality, they are the ones who are largely responsible for causing them their problems.

As for discrimination and violence, these things unfortunately occur, but it would be as incorrect to deem homosexuality a sorry condition because of that as it would be to deem being black a sorry condition as a result of the discrimination and violence that happen to blacks. In addition, although it is not a tactic that I mention here without some reservation, it is possible to lead a life as a homosexual without others knowing about it. In that manner, discrimination and violence can be avoided. But, of course, this problem should not be overstated. I have never been discriminated against or been subjected to violence, although I am quite open with my orientation; and this holds for all my gay friends as well.

To conclude, most people are sad sometimes, for some reason or another, and there is no reason to think that homosexuals are sadder, on the whole, than others. One exception might be during the teenage years, when it is hard to come to terms with oneself sometimes. That is why encouraging information is so vital and should not be suppressed.

Argument #5: "Homosexuals are obsessed with sex with different partners"

This argument may be true, but then it is also true of most heterosexuals (especially heterosexual men). If there is a difference, on average, between hetero- and homosexuals in terms of how much sex they actually have, this difference, I argue, stems from different views on sex between the two sexes and not from anything inherent in the respective sexual orientation. But no such reliable knowledge is available, so we may merely speculate about it. In any case, I think that the argument is of no relevance.

First, there seems to be a difference between male and female sexuality, which probably accrues both to biological and social factors. Biologically, it can be argued that the role of the woman for the survival of genes over evolutionary history has been one of nurture, building on her limited capacity for having children. Men, on the other hand, have acted so as to spread sperms quite a lot, since they can father a very large amount of children, which is in their interest. Thus, men are more keen on temporary sexual encounters and are more direct in their sexuality than women, who desire more of romantic love in order to have rewarding sex. For more on this, see Chandler Burr's review of Gabriel Rotello's book Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men (which I highly recommend). The gender roles have been supported by social traditions over time. Now, this has some implications for the argument under consideration, since sex between men then incorporates two or more persons who have a sexuality which probably is more directed towards temporary sexual encounters. It is not that they wish to have more (or less) nonmonogamous sex than heterosexual men, but it is probable that they have some more sex, simply because of their gender. The woman is, so to speak, a "stabilizer" on the male sexuality which is absent in homosexual sex encounters. But the opposite holds for lesbians: there, the total wish to have sex with different partners could be expected to be lower than in heterosexual relationships. So, if the number of gays in relation to lesbians is about the same, that means that the average fraction of persons that are "promiscuous" is about the same for homo- and heterosexuals. It is possible that the average number of partners is higher for homosexuals, as it could be harder for heterosexual men to find willing women.

But however interesting this might be, I claim that it is of questionable relevance. Argument #5 presupposes that "promiscuity" is harmful, but my own position is that there is nothing morally wrong with having multiple sexual partners per se. Rather, if anything, I think most people value sex positively, and homosexuality enables "promiscuous" men to have sex with each other and "faithful" women to cling to each other, which means that preference satisfaction is quite easily secured. If one does not subscribe to the absurdly strict view of sex espoused by conservative Christians, sex with different partners is something to enjoy. I fail to see how my having safe sex with different partners from time to time affects anyone at all but myself and the ones I have sex with. If we all enjoy it, how can it possibly be inferred that our behavior is harmful to society? (I comment on diseases in my response to the next argument. And then, if it turns out that "promiscuity" leads to disease in a large amount of cases, I think there may be a case for voluntary attempts to promote mongamy.)

It has been suggested, in the Swedish Pentecostal daily Dagen (July 25, 1997), that casual sex is damaging to people's mental health, that it is intimately connected with violence, drugs, and prostitution, and that it prevents people from developing a sense of closeness to others. Of course, these are nothing but absurd, unsubstantiated allegations which are proclaimed, not on the basis of facts, but on the basis of a reactionary ethics and an interventionistic political philosophy, which I think should be rejected. In fact, these statements remind one of the warnings that used to be issued, not the least by Christians, on the dangers of masturbation - warnings which today are viewed as seriously erroneous.

However, as always, this argument rests on the mistaken idea that one can choose one's sexual orientation. Since that is not the case, this argument is not really pertinent, since even if gay men are more "promiscuous" than straight men, and even if that is viewed as a bad thing, there is nothing one can do about being gay. The question is, if one is against casual sex, how to best alter such behavior.

This, in turn, hinges on what one perceives to be the reason behind the possible relative "promiscuity" of gay men. In addition to the male biological sex drive, with the characteristics referred to above, there might be an influence from the ostracism which has traditionally accompanied open and stable gay relationships. That is to say, religious and conservative people seem to have a hard time dealing with homosexuals who live just like them, in form and content, and therefore such "traditional" homosexual lifestyles have been socially (and legally) punished. These enemies of homosexuality seem much more content with gays and lesbians remaining "in the closet" - but interestingly, that might foster "promiscuity" among gay men. If there are no traditions of, say, the institution of marriage, there is every reason to think that people will be less inclined to form stable unions and instead satisfy their sex drives with different partners. So, to reduce casual sex between gay men (if one should view that as desirable), my suggestion is to institute same-sex marriage, which would add stability to gay unions.

To conclude, while gay men may be as keen on sex with different partners as heterosexual men, lesbians are probably as inclined to be faithful as heterosexual women. But since it might be easier for gay men to find willing sex partners, it is possible that they actually have more sex than their heterosexual counterparts. This effect might be reinforced by the traditionally negative treatment of gays and lesbians in open, stable relationships. But "promiscuity" need not be a negative thing, so long as sexual acts are carried out safely (e.g., by mutual masturbation); and it is not a necessary thing either - which is important for all gay men to realize. If one dislikes casual sex, then one should, and can, stay away from it.

Argument #6: "Homosexuality causes AIDS and other diseases which are costly and deadly"

According to a fact sheet from UNAIDS, the joint AIDS program sponsored by the United Nations and The World Bank, between 5-10 % of the total HIV infections in the world at the end of 1996 had been caused by male homosexual intercourse - which corresponds to most estimates of the proportion of homosexuals in the general population. Almost no cases of lesbian sex has resulted in HIV spreading. And over 70 % of the total number of HIV infections had been caused by heterosexual intercourse. Are we to conclude that "heterosexuality causes AIDS"? Of course not: unsafe sex may cause one to become infected with the HIV virus, and this holds for all persons. (But to be on the safer side, we should perhaps recommend all girls to become lesbians? - This, of course, is an ironic note to those who argue as if it was possible to choose one's sexual orientation on the basis of how many with a certain orientation that contract a certain disease.)

So it does not do to argue that homosexuality threatens society because homosexuals cause AIDS more than heterosexuals; as we just saw, the opposite holds. Actually, it is more fruitful to analyze the types of behavior that are conducive to HIV infection, and such behavior can be displayed by gay and straight alike. That is, e.g., why gay men in the West and straight people in parts of Africa and Thailand experience high rates of HIV infection: because they engage in high-risk behavior. Hence, there is nothing inherent in homosexuality that causes AIDS. How to change risky behavior is an issue which I do not go much into here, but I have strong sympathy for the message of Gabriel Rotello. That is, even though I do not perceive "promiscuity" as bad in itself, when it is common in a context where people seem unable not to take very high infection risks, I think there is a case for attempting (through voluntary means) to encourage gay men towards more of monogamy. In any case, it is somewhat hard to see how AIDS threatens society as a whole. It threatens the AIDS victims, of course, and their close ones, in a very direct way. It could be costly for the government, if the government finances hospital care - but then, that is a political system chosen democratically and cannot be blamed on the small minority of gay men. (Do the enemies of homosexuality attack fat people for eating fat foods and for not exercising, as this causes diseases? Do they attack smokers in the same manner? If not, why?)

As for other diseases, there are some statistics that indicate that gay men are overrepresented in cases of sexually transmitted diseases. Again, it is hard to see how this, in any clear way, threatens society. It is, admittedly, a negative thing for those affected, but it is the result of a choice of behavior which presumably entailed a net utility gain for the person who chose it. In addition, lesbians can be expected to have very few instances of diseases of this sort, which is normally not taken into account by those who attack homosexuality.

And if one is concerned with diseases, is not the proper question to ask: How can their incidence be reduced? Gay men are gay men, and that cannot be changed. But certain patterns of behavior can be changed, such as inducing people to use condoms. Interestingly, those who complain that homosexuals spread diseases are unwilling to supply condoms in schools, colleges, etc. - which reasonably contributes to the continued spreading of these diseases (as free condoms would increase the demand for them, as revealed to us by the basics of economics). More transformative changes of sexual patterns of behavior may also be called for.

To conclude, there is no basis for stating that homosexuality as such causes more diseases than heterosexual behavior. Furthermore, it may not hold that homosexuals are more disease-ridden than heterosexuals - especially not when including lesbians. But even if they were, one wonders what the point is, since homosexuality is not a choice that can be avoided if it was shown that it was linked to various diseases.

Argument #7: "Homosexuality undermines religion and hence stability in society"

This argument is problematic on several counts. First, many of us think it highly beneficial if religion is undermined (see my atheism page), and we furthermore think it incorrect to equate the spread of religion with "stability" (whatever that is; probably, the definition is tautological, such that stability is defined as following some religion). As is clear from several essays on morality on my atheism page, it is quite possible to have a well-functioning society with caring individuals without any religion at all.

Second, even if it is probable that quite a few homosexuals are negative towards (conservative) Christianity, due to the simple fact that (conservative) Christianity is negative towards homosexuality, there are, in fact, many gay and lesbian Christians. The total effect in this area, if there is one at all, must be considered small.

Third, for an orthodox Christian, leading a non-celibate life as a homosexual involves going to hell. This could be considered harmful. However, it is both possible to question the existence of hell and, if one believes in the Christian god, to question whether he would send gay and lesbians to hell simply because of their loving someone of their own sex. Such a cruel god could be capricious enough to send anyone to hell, so perhaps even (conservative) Christians are in peril.

To conclude, this argument wrongly presupposes that religion is need for "stability" and also thinks that gays and lesbians are less religious than others, which is not certain.

Argument #8: "Homosexuals want special political rights"

Different homosexuals want different things in the realm of politics. What almost all agree on is that there should be equality under the law, which means that if a certain favor is granted to one group of people, then it should also be extended to other groups. More specifically, this means that two particular areas are important with regard to homosexuality: marriage laws and government discrimination.

As for marriage laws, it is clear today that heterosexuals can enjoy a number of economic and practical favors that come about through marriage. In the meantime, this is denied to those who wish to form homosexual marriage unions. (Notable exceptions: the Nordic countries and the Netherlands.) This is a clear case of inequality, which could easily be rectified without causing any major problems (in fact, if anything, it would promote an institution which is anti-promiscuous, which should appeal to conservative Christians). Why are some against it? It is clearly not a "special right" for gays and lesbians to be married; rather, heterosexuals today have that special right. The most common argument against this measure is that it threatens the "family", by which is meant the traditional, heterosexual family. But how does it do so? Allowing homosexuals to marry does not in any way make it more difficult for heterosexuals to marry. And since being straight or gay is not the result of a choice, giving equal rights to homosexuals would not cause more people to be gay. The only plausible effect would be for gays and lesbians to be able to enjoy the safety and comfort of a legal union.

As for government discrimination, this means that the government, who supposedly represents all citizens, does not treat gays and lesbians differently solely because of their orientation. In the U.S., this implies that the virtual ban on gays and lesbians in the military be lifted (as it has been in most other Western countries, with no negative effects) and that they, as well as everyone else, are judged on conduct, not on who they love.

As for anti-discrimination laws, there are different views among homosexuals. Although it is probably true that most are in favor of laws outlawing their being discriminated against at work or in housing solely because of their orientation. Are these special rights? Not really, since they would state that sexual orientation is no grounds for discrimination. This means that it would also be unlawful to discriminate against someone who is straight. Anyway, I am opposed to these type of laws on principled grounds, as I am a libertarian, but I do think that as long as they are offered on some grounds, such as religion or ethnicity, sexual orientation should be included as well.

As for adoption of children, this is clearly no special right either, since heterosexuals today can be tried as adoptive parents. Their is no basis for thinking homosexuals less capable of taking care of children (see the current research from The American Psychological Association on this issue). But what about the children? Well, children may be bullied for many reasons, but it would be wrong, I think, to yield to ignorance and hatred: that would give the opponents a triumph they do not deserve. In fact, the studies that have been conducted indicate that children to gays and lesbians cope as well as other kids, overall.

To conclude, gays and lesbians do not want special rights; they just wish to be able to take part of government favors, just like all other taxpayers. This involves marriage rights, adoption rights, an end to government discrimination in the military, and, possibly, anti-discrimination rights.

Argument #9: "Homosexuality threatens the family"

This argument involves similar considerations as the first one, namely, that it is thought that people involved in homosexual acts - either in stable, monogamous relationships or in temporary encounters - somehow undermine a collective entity referred to as "family".

What, first of all, is meant by this term? If one defines the term as "two married adults of the opposite sex with one or more children", then the argument reduces to a few of the arguments above, as is seen when considering what is threatened in this constellation of persons. For instance, are children threatened by homosexuality? We saw above that this is clearly not so - neither in the sense that reproduction is hindered overall nor in the sense that children are more at risk to be treated badly.

Is the institution of marriage threatened by there being gays and lesbians around? Clearly not, since gays and lesbians have existed throughout history alongside heterosexual marriage. And even if same-sex marriage would be allowed, it is hard to see why opposite-sex marriage would not continue to be the option for many straight persons.

Is fidelity threatened, such that if gays and lesbians exist, some (bisexual?) spouse is more prone to have sex outside of the marriage? To this, one might first reply that the principle that Jesus put forth in his Sermon on the Mount was that adultery can also be committed in the mind. Hence, even without an actual possibility for, say, a married man to have sex with a gay man, the married man would still have fantasies about other men and, in that manner, still be unfaithful in the heart. So there being gay men around does nothing to alter this. Besides, most married men, when unfaithful, have sex with women. Should we therefore say that heterosexuality poses a threat to the family? That, rightly, seems bizarre. It is not a particular sexual orientation which causes infidelity, it is unsatisfactory marriages.

Lastly, could this argument mean that the forming of alternative family arrangements in itself threatens the family? Well, this view only seems coherent on the view that sexual orientation involves a choice and if one thinks of "family" as meaning the future predominant existence of the arrangement "two married adults of the opposite sex with one or more children". But since sexual orientation is not the result of a choice, there is no reason to think that the predominance of straight marriage in any significant way will be undermined by gays and lesbians. Even if it sexual orientation was the result of a choice, this would probably not threaten straight marriage, at least not in the short run, since - given the negative attitudes that still exist in connection with homosexuality - most people, if given a choice, would opt for this arrangement. Generally, given an appreciation of non-paternalism, it seems odd to question the free choices of individuals: if more people in the future decide that they will be more happy in same-sex relationships, what could anyone have to say against their revealed preferences?

To conclude, the assertion that homosexuality poses a threat to the family is empty. In fact, gays and lesbians today form their own families, some with children, some without, and they strive for love, care, and stability just as much as any heterosexual couple. It is, evidently, time to widen the definition of "family" and to embrace nontraditional arrangements in this realm of affairs - without fear that traditional arrangements will lose out.

III. Conclusions

This exposé has clarified that there are several common arguments that have been proposed to demonstrate that homosexual acts, in various ways, pose a threat to the a large number of individuals. Likewise, it has been clarified that all these arguments are built on loose ground indeed; in fact, most of them are either meaningless or false.

So if there are no sound arguments to the effect that homosexuals contribute negatively to their fellow human beings, are there arguments to the contrary? I think that most gays and lesbians - and I know quite a few - regard themselves as just as compassionate, caring, loving, generous, intelligent, ambitious, honest, etc. as their heterosexual friends. We are not really different than others in terms of values or behavior which hurt others. And is it not quite clear from history that homosexuals have contributed greatly to society? Need I mention more than Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Tchaikovsky, Benjamin Britten, W. H. Auden, Leonard Bernstein, the most recent vice-chairman of Ford Motor Co., Versace, Elton John, k.d. lang, Martina Navratilova, Henry James, Walt Whitman, Tennessee Williams, H. C. Andersen, Oscar Wilde, Arthur Rimbaud, Julius Caesar, Aaron Copeland, E. M. Forster, Rock Hudson, Lytton Strachey, W. Somerset Maugham, Sir Ian McKellen, Sir Peter Pears, Alan Turing, Gertrude Stein, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Niclas Berggren (just kidding )…

At this point, I think it proper to briefly touch upon the idea of the liberal democratic state vs. the idea of theocracy, advanced by some Christians. The basic idea of the former is that everyone in society are allowed to do whatever they wish so long as they do not inflict harm upon others. Clearly, as discussed above, it is crucial how one defines "harm" here. It is clear that some Christians have a much stricter definition than most, but I think I have showed, quite in detail, above that there is no real basis for viewing homosexuality as being harmful for anyone else. Hence, as long as we remain democrats in the Western tradition, it seems utterly hard to retain the oppressive view towards homosexuality which some give voice to. If individuals wish to associate in churches which dislike homosexuality, I think they should be so allowed, but they should not be allowed to legislate on the basis of such views, viewed as irrational and demeaning by many other citizens. In fact, due to the irrational foundation of such views, it may be divined that a general and quite cruel homophobia underlies them. And if so, the reason is ever the greater to resist and argue for tolerance and full inclusion in society of all, including gays and lesbians. Some of us may dislike Christianity, and it is our legal privilege to do so; some others may dislike homosexuality, and it is their legal privilege to do so. But it is wrong to use the law as a tool for advancing views on the private morality of others. That is the tenet of liberal democracy, and that is worth fighting for.

To conclude, I have shown that the arguments against homosexuality do not stand up to critical scrutiny: homosexuality is as good or bad as heterosexuality. I have also demonstrated that being gay is not something one chooses, and hence, any political actions based on the erroneous view that sexual orientation is a choice are bound, not as their supporters think to reduce the number of homosexuals, but rather only to cause unnecessary discomfort and misery to those of us who happen to have been born as gays or lesbians. Such treatment is unworthy of a modern society.