I doubt that anyone suggests that homosexuals are incapable of celibacy, it's rather that just like a heterosexual person, they don't consciously decide to be attracted to what they're attracted to. Just like I really really love dog walking. Best thing ever. If I have to refrain from dog walking, then that's torture. I'm going to want a good reason for why I ought to refrain from the best thing ever. Emotive insubstantial analogy to murderers and pedophiles notwithstanding.

One of the major arguments for the acceptance of homosexuality is the fact that a person cannot choose to be homosexuals. It follows a basic moral principle of ought implies can. — NukeyFox

Actually, I think the claim that homosexuality isn't a choice is a response to the claim that homosexuality is wrong because it isn't natural (i.e. isn't biologically determined). So it's more a case of refuting an argument against homosexuality than a case of an argument in favour of it.

Just because it 'feels right' and it's not hurting anyone doesn't make the cut.
Someone could presume that it's sinful and that it 'feels wrong' and that it will hurt the person/society/God/children. — NukeyFox

I think "it's not hurting anyone" does make the cut. Think of the reasons why we condemn child molestation and murder. Because, primarily, people come to (unjust) harm. So if we are to use the argument against child molestation and murder as an argument against homosexuality then the argument can be refuted by showing that (unjust) harm isn't done.

But I agree that "it feels right (or wrong)" isn't relevant at all. Unless you're an emotivist, but then morality isn't a matter of prescription anyway.

Is there a way we can justify homosexuals?

I'd question the claim that it needs justifying. I think the burden is on the person who claims that it's wrong. I think moral neutrality is always the default position, and compelling reasons are needed to claim that something is either a vice or a virtue, or that one either ought or ought not do something.

One of the major arguments for the acceptance of homosexuality is the fact that a person cannot choose to be homosexuals. — NukeyFox

I think that tends to be a counterargument to the idea that homosexuality is a choice and people can decide to stop being gay if they really want to. I'd think you'd have a hard time finding people who would say that homosexuality is okay because it's not a choice.

Regardless, whether sexual preference is something that a person can change easily enough for it to be called "choice" seems to be something for neuroscience to determine. From what I've heard and read it seems that the current scientific understanding is that there are physical differences in the brain which correlate with sexual orientation.

But just as Michael said, I don't see what there is to justify, choice or not. If there's something wrong with X, then you can ask for what justifies X despite that thing that's wrong about it. But if there's nothing wrong with it in the first place, then there's nothing to justify.

It's a bad argument. Suppose I like to juggle, and the local government forbids juggling. I say, "I have a right to juggle, especially in the privacy of my home." And the answer comes back, "Juggling is not innate to humans. There is no juggling gene. Therefore we may legitimately forbid juggling."

That's the reason the "innateness" argument is a terrible argument to oppose laws forbidding homosexuality. A far better principle is "consenting adults." I have the right to juggle in my own home since I'm not bothering anyone else and I'm an adult capable of making that choice.

But if there's nothing wrong with it in the first place, then there's nothing to justify. — zookeeper

This.

It's a bad argument. — fishfry

And this.

Actions can be controlled more than desires. A homosexual can act like he has been converted to a heterosexual through conversion therapy. But I doubt whether these cases are genuine. I wouldn't be surprised if these people were still homosexuals living a lie, trying their best to suppress their desires and refrain from acting on them. Trying hard to deceive themselves. We don't have a switch that we can flick to turn our desires on or off, and it's not a simple matter of choice like, say, my choice to stand up or sit down.

Sexual orientation is not binary, or all one thing or all another. Kinsey's scale (which does not at all represent percentages of straights, gays, or bisexuals) is worth a look:

Some people engage primarily in heterosexual activity, but sometimes engage in homosexual activity. Similarly, some people engage in mostly homosexual activity, but sometimes engage in heterosexual activity. A much larger percentage of the population is exclusively heterosexual than is exclusively homosexual (maybe 66% exclusively heterosexual, 3 or 4% exclusively homosexual). Around a third of the population sometimes engage in sexual activity in which they do not usually engage. "Sometimes" might be once, twice, for a few months; or a couple of years.

I wouldn't say "people are born gay". But I also wouldn't say "people choose to be gay". Nobody really chooses everything when we get right down to it (another story though).

Genetic and epigenetic biological influences can give rise to hormonal predispositions toward masculinity and femininity, and cultural developmental experience and norms can shunt people toward whichever societal norm will tend to feel right for them (along with every aspect of "identity"). When someone's biology and experience leads to their particular (in this case sexual) identity that really doesn't fit any of the existing social molds/niches, then the result you get is labeled "deviant" simply because it is statistically anomalous.

It's a mistake to think that the "moral argument justifying homosexuality" begins with the burden of proof falling to the pro-gay crowd. It actually needs to begin with a condemnation of homosexuality, which can then be rebutted and rebuked (quite easily I might add), otherwise we would need to sit around making moral justifications for every random thing: "moral argument justifying trees", "moral argument justifying albinos", "moral argument justifying soccer", et cetra...

I had the opinion that Alfred Kinsey has been discredited as a social scientist.

Gay rights and gay identity is a minefield nowadays - to say anything other than to express unqualified admiration and support, is to be categorised as a racist or a bigot. It's a binary choice. This is a consequence of a successful communications and media strategy, which was laid out in a 1987 article called The Overhauling of Straight America (later published as a book).

However, I find there is a problem when we start comparing it with other innate but unaccepted characteristics, such as pedophilia or psychopathy. — NukeyFox

You should have a problem, because homosexuality isn't the same kind of thing as pedophilia, and psychopath shares nothing with either homosexuality or pedophilia.

We don't know how, exactly, people develop what are called "paraphilias". Quite a few people have fetish objects which were, are, and always will be necessary for their sexual arousal -- perhaps black, lacy underwear, or perhaps wearing the opposite sex's clothing for their own sexual arousal. Three controversial paraphilias are pedophilia (sexual interest in pre-pubescent children; hebephilia (sexual interest in pubescent children--11 to 14); and ephebophilia (sexual interest in late adolescents--15-19.) People are generally not very successful in changing a paraphilia, though they can avoid the object of desire (young children, exposing themselves in public, prostitutes, etc.).

Psychopathy is a brain disorder which prevents emotion from acting on thinking in the normal way. A psychopath may perfectly understand that stealing is wrong, but they don't feel guilt about stealing (or killing people). It isn't that they don't want to feel guilt -- they can't feel guilt. Psychopathy presents as a range of pathology, from slightly psychopathic to extremely psychopathic.

People are generally not very successful in changing a paraphilia, though they can avoid the object of desire (young children, exposing themselves in public, prostitutes, etc.). — Bitter Crank

In that sense, I think that they are analogous to homosexuality. If this avoidance is what is meant by control, then sure, that can be done. But when it comes to homosexuality, why bother? What's the harm? This is obviously where the analogy fails. I wouldn't ask those questions about paedophilia.

However, I find there is a problem when we start comparing it with other innate but unaccepted characteristics, such as pedophilia or psychopathy.

If we can say, that they have certain urges but can control it, then why not homosexuals? — NukeyFox

I don't think we do say that.

What we say about paedophiles and homicidal maniacs (not psychopaths, because psychopathy is about the absence of a constraint, not the presence of an urge) is that, because expression of those urges causes harm, people who are inflicted with those urges will be incarcerated if they are unable to suppress it. This is purely a matter of harm minimisation.

Expression of homosexual urges towards consenting adults does not of itself cause harm, any more than does the expression of heterosexual urges towards consenting adults. So we do not require those urges to be suppressed.

There is no inconsistency. Unless one's morality is based on some notion of taboo, it all revolves around the question of harm.

I had the opinion that Alfred Kinsey has been discredited as a social scientist. — Wayfarer

Kinsey's research is still relevant, to some people's pleasure, other people's disgust. Who was it that discredited him? (The Kinsey Institute is still doing research at the University of Indiana, btw.)

Kinsey's studies were observational. He and his team conducted interviews and he observed sexual behavior. There was little formal research on sexual behavior at the time he began his work in the 1930s.

Gay rights and gay identity is a minefield nowadays - say anything other than to express unqualified admiration and support, is to be categorised as a racist or a bigot. It's a binary choice. This is a consequence of a successful communications and media strategy, whichwas laid out in a 1987 article called The Overhauling of Straight America (later published as a book). — Wayfarer

Sexuality and gender in general has become something of a minefield.

"The Overhauling of Straight America" was an interesting piece...

As a strategy, it might be effective, I don't know. It sort of sounds like Trump's and the right wing's approach to overhauling democracy, and that seems to be working.

One of the features of the article that bothered me was that it seems very anachronistic. Gay liberation began in the 1950s-and 1960s; Stonewall was in 1969. A lot of gay rights work had been accomplished between Stonewall and Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. Gay marriage was elevated to a critical issue by the "gay-political-elite" in the 1990s, so maybe Kirk and Madsen succeeded. I was struck by the small presence of AIDS in the piece. It got mentioned as a major hazard for the cause of universal acceptance. But for the average gay man of 1987, it was more like an existential threat.

In any event, it is a great demonstration of what happened to gay liberation between the time the homophile Mattachine Society (1950) was organized and 1987. What started as a claim for human dignity, then sexual liberation became a program for assimilation into middle class straight society.

As you said, it seems, these days, that advocacy groups of all stripes pretty much require total assent or one is labeled as racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, ableist, ageist, elitist, or something. I blame cultural politics which have been rolling along since the 1980s. Sure, some gay people contributed to this by calling everyone homophobic who wasn't explicitly pro-gay.

What's the harm? This is obviously where the analogy fails. I wouldn't ask those questions about paedophilia. — Sapientia

OK, I get your point. Of course I agree that pedophilia (paedophilia) is harmful. It's just that attraction to pre-pubescent children isn't a sexual orientation, and neither are any of the other paraphilias. It's an attraction to children of one sex or the other. Most of the other paraphilias are pretty much harmless. They might be annoying or embarrassing, but they don't result in much harm.

It would be wise, here, to distinguish between sexual orientation and fetishes.

I was struck by the small presence of AIDS in the piece. It got mentioned as a major hazard for the cause of universal acceptance. — Bitter Crank

They addressed it in more detail in the book that came after the essay, called After the Ball, where they said

'As cynical as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America’s special protection and care. At the same time, it generates mass hysteria of precisely the sort that has brought about public stonings and leper colonies since the Dark Ages and before. … How can we maximize the sympathy and minimize the fear? How, given the horrid hand that AIDS has dealt us, can we best play it?'

The answer given was 'The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.'

Another aspect of that was to switch the opprobrium that had previously been directed towards gays, back onto the accusers. By depicting 'the gay community' as a beleaguered minority and their critics as hateful bigots, the strategy was that over the course of a few years, it would become socially unnacceptable to criticize gays.

It would be wise, here, to distinguish between sexual orientation and fetishes. — Heister Eggcart

I take it that's a request for clarification.

Sexual orientation determines whether one is sexually attracted to men or to women, homosexually or heterosexually. There's more to it, but we can go into all that another time.

Fetishes are objects which some people find necessary adjuncts for sexual arousal. A fetish isn't the object of sex, per se. For instance, a heterosexual male who finds black lacy underwear stimulating, wants to see the underwear on a woman -- not in a box by itself. Similarly, a homosexual male who finds military clothing arousing, wants to see the clothes on a guy, not on the shelf.

There are some people who like sex objects other than people. The black lacy underwear could be a sex object on it's own. So could an old running shoe. (But not a new running shoe. No, no; that would be totally beyond the pale. Lock that person up!).

Sexual orientation determines whether one is sexually attracted to men or to women, homosexually or heterosexually. There's more to it, but we can go into all that another time. — Bitter Crank

If a man is attracted to white women and not black women, or blondes and not brunettes, or women of a certain colour eyes, is this a matter of sexual orientation as well?

As cynical as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America’s special protection and care." from AFTER THE BALL By Kirk and Madsen — Wayfarer

The capacity to think that way strikes me as far more deviant than the most perverse sexual activity I have ever heard of.

One of the reasons for the public's improved view of gay men MIGHT be the loving devotion that men displayed in taking care of each other as partners and as a community. In 1987 there was zero indication that the AIDS epidemic was going to be brief. It would be another 9 years 1996) before the AIDS cocktail was shown to be effective, which changed the picture of certain death (but killed off the sympathy angle for Missures Kirk and Madsen).

The gay community was beleaguered, particularly up to 1995-1996. In the HIV hot spots (New York, LA, Miami, San Francisco, etc.) the seropositivity rate was 40% to 70%, depending on location. The over-all rate of fatality for untreated AIDS (prior to 1996) was between 80% and 90%. (It's lower now, with "highly active AIDS retroviral therapy"). So, large swaths of the gay community were wiped out.

True enough, a lot of people were never very sympathetic toward any problem the gay community might have, but quite a few people came to understand that gay men had not cause the virus, and had the virus been introduced in some other community, then that community would be dealing with 80-90% fatality rates instead of gay men and IV drug users (another never very popular group).

There was a discussion on NPR a few days back about how the far right and Trump's campaign strategized cynically to make it difficult to think reasonably about Trump's candidacy. Very similar to the crap cooked up by the twisted sisters Kirk and Madsen.

No, it would be a fetish--a paraphilia.

One of the major arguments for the acceptance of homosexuality is the fact that a person cannot choose to be homosexuals. — NukeyFox

Choice is really only an issue due to religious objections, which are undermined by the acceptance that people are born that way and that homosexuality is thus a creation of divine will. For those who consider this state a perversion, the involvement of their deity in proliferating it causes a problem. Hence the denial of the natural state and insistence on the primacy of choice.

For those who are not religious and focus purely on the ethical issue, none of this matters because, as has been pointed out, the question is only whether or not homosexuality causes harm (and here you can focus on actions rather than the state). So, you can render religious objections problematic to the extent that you can demonstrate homosexuality is innate and you can refute ethical objections by showing it causes no harm. In other words, it's important to disentangle the religious from the ethical and the state from the action in order to deal with objections to homosexuality, but once you've done this, it's straightforward enough.

I wonder why it is the case that discussions of homosexuality seem to far more often revolve around homosexual men than around homosexual women. Even the responses on this thread which discuss the AIDS crisis (surely a greater fear for gay men than gay women, I would think) at least tacitly concern males.

The gay community was beleaguered, particularly up to 1995-1996. In the HIV hot spots (New York, LA, Miami, San Francisco, etc.) the seropositivity rate was 40% to 70%, depending on location. The over-all rate of fatality for untreated AIDS (prior to 1996) was between 80% and 90%. (It's lower now, with "highly active AIDS retroviral therapy"). So, large swaths of the gay community were wiped out. — Bitter Crank

I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that the gay community (to the extent that gays even had the comfort of a community; presumably many didn't, especially those living in small towns) weren't beleaguered at that time, or that they were not disproportionately affected by the AIDS crisis.

However, I've heard some commentators refer to this period as a gay "genocide," which strikes me as extremely wrongheaded. A genocide is a concerted effort by a group (usually the dominant majority) to wipe out another group of religious, ethnic, or cultural origin (usually the minority). However, in the AIDS crisis, there was no such concerted effort (there was perhaps indifference in some quarters). The HIV virus is a naturally-occurring phenomenon, and one which disproportionately affected gay men as a result of their sexual behavior. The outbreak was to a certain extent self-inflicted.

revolve around homosexual men more than around homosexual women. — Arkady

This gay man, having lived in a large city where there was sort of a community, learned fairly early on to not speak on behalf of lesbians. Ever. In the 70s Minneapolis had a relatively large group of ferocious lesbian feminist separatists. Their coffee house on Fridays in the basement of Plymouth Congregation Church discouraged mothers from bringing even young male children with them. A 10 year old boy was anathema, let alone a man.

In Minneapolis, lesbians and gay men didn't mix a lot. So, brothers, I don't speak for our lesbian sisters, and thereby I lived long and prospered.

If you want to talk about normalizing, and recruitment then lesbians are demolishing gay men. The numbers for men that have reported homosexual experiences have remained the same, and used to exceed women, but now women beat men by like almost four times. I think that it went from like 4% to 16% or something.

You don't all see that if guys don't smarten up, then it's going to be subterranean milking facilities for the lot of them.

I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that the gay community (to the extent that gays even had the comfort of a community; presumably many didn't, especially those living in small towns) weren't beleaguered at that time, or that they were not disproportionately affected by the AIDS crisis. — Arkady

Oh, well... gays have been lamenting for decades that "the gay community" is more a figure of speech than anything else. A few parts of the gay population form community in large cities, but large parts of the gay population are not part of a gay community. There is less sense of community now than previously.

I've heard some commentators refer to this period as a gay "genocide," which strikes me as extremely wrongheaded. — Arkady

Yes, totally wrongheaded. Some people were convinced that AIDS was invented (maybe at Ft. Detrick in Maryland) for the purpose of getting rid of homosexuals (or blacks). Some people were convinced that HIV didn't cause AIDS (and not just in the first 2 or 3 years of the epidemic, either.) Some people were convinced that the U. S. Government did absolutely nothing on their behalf; that the science establishment dragged its feet; nobody cared; pharmaceutical companies were cashing in. and so on. All lies, except that Big Pharma was cashing in. Big Pharma is always cashing in. It's what they do. That's why they're Big Pharma and not Little Pharma.

The HIV virus is a naturally-occurring phenomenon, and one which disproportionately affected gay men as a result of their sexual behavior. The outbreak was to a certain extent self-inflicted. — Arkady

Had HIV 'landed' someplace else, it would have been a different epidemic, true enough.

As it happened, HIV landed in the middle of a pool of professionally successful, culturally sophisticated, highly promiscuous, gay party-circuit travelers. Quite a few of these people were members of the artistic elite, and were interconnected with people all over the country. They networked. Had it landed in the middle of some gay cowboys in Montana, it wouldn't have amounted to much.

There were clues before HIV landed that some gay guys were going overboard on sexual exuberance. Intestinal parasites, various odd infections resulting from too much penetrating, and so on were booming in the late 1970s. But... nothing incurable, nothing too debilitating. Most people got over hepatitis infections, syphilis, and gonorrhea; and parasiticides cleared out the can of worms some guys were carting around. (That kind of worm problem is much more common in Africa.)

My guess is that the elite gay men's lifestyles in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, Atlanta, Chicago, and so on were everything I imagined them to be, anchored as I was in the boring Sodom on the Upper Mississippi of Minneapolis. On the one hand, I longed for that kind of exhilarating life; on the other hand, that's one of the reasons I'm here and they are not. That and luck.

Just because it 'feels right' and it's not hurting anyone doesn't make the cut.
Someone could presume that it's sinful and that it 'feels wrong' and that it will hurt the person/society/God/children. — NukeyFox

Right, but to live in society requires one to make compromises. I could just as easily say that I am offended and scared by followers of x-religion, and point out how following x-religion is entirely optional and voluntary, and claim that it of utmost importance that those following x-religion cease and desist or gtfo of my homeland.

The fact of the matter is that individuality rests upon deviance, and that a society that promises individuality to its members must place limits on the expression of this deviant behavior. So long as someone is not a legitimate threat to the freedom of expression of yourself and everyone else in society, this person cannot seriously be prosecuted.

Is there a way we can justify homosexuals? — NukeyFox

At any rate, your argument doesn't seem to be consistent. You say it's against homosexuality as innate, but really you're trying to point out an apparent inconsistency between the social reaction to two deviant behaviors, homosexuality and pedophilia/psychopathy.

As far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't technically blame pedophiles or psychopaths for their harmful actions. But we live in society and as such these sorts of technicalities get thrown out as we end up focusing more on our rational self-preservation and the general well-being of the community. Like it or not, society will always be insufficiently moral, to whomever you talk to. It's just the way things are; people exist in close spaces and with limited resources and end up bumping and squishing and sliding and bouncing off each other as we all try our best to achieve our desires and fulfill our biological needs.

I wonder if the OP is correct on this one. Is the simple ''innatness'' of homosexuality truly used to justify it?

If yes then the OP is right - pedophilia too should be given the nod of approval. Either that or homosexuality is bad.

That said I feel drawing a comparison based solely on ''innateness'', therein claiming the lack of free choice on one's sexuality, is not the complete picture.

Homosexuality is innate. Therefore, by the OP's logic, comparing it to pedophilia, we should disapprove of it.
Homosexuality is innate. Therefore, comparing it this time to heterosexuality, it should get the nod of approval.

It seems that arguments based solely on innateness cut both ways. It can be used to justify and also to refute.

So ''innatness'' is not a good paramter of comparison for homosexuality issues. It leads to a contradiction.

I'm in no way homophobic (I'm bi myself) but this issue really bugs me. So what do you think? Is there a way we can justify homosexuals? — NukeyFox

What, exactly, needs justifying?

It strikes me that those who believe homosexual acts are morally wrong are the one's that need to justify their statement. This is because, in general, all acts default to "permitable" in a free society, and we at least purport to live in or desire such a society.

At that point it seems rather clear. There are roughly two reasons given for homosexuality'simmorality. That it is against nature, or that it is against God. The former is dubious, given the plethora of purposes which sexuality is put towards (thinking of the procreation argument, here), and that animals, in fact, engage in homosexuality (since, for whatever reason, people believe they don't and think this justifies the claim that homosexuality is against nature). For the latter, give the context of a free society, one can claim to follow a God who forbids homosexuality, but it's understood to be a personal commitment rather than a broad social commitment. This granting the already dubious belief that humanity is able to put down in writing what the greatest of all possible beings cares about, and that the greatest of all possible beings really cares about the sexual mores of a particular grouping of humans who will, in God's timeline, be a blip on a blip and is soon to pass away.

Right, but then that was the plan all along. The communist male milking facilities are clearly a historical necessity demanded by the dialectic.

Mums the word.