Replies

“…homosexuality is no more relevant to a normal man/woman relationship than any other paraphilic disorders, a point … often posed by homosexual apologists, like you, to present a morally relative equality where there is none. Get it?”

I “get” what you wrote in the post. It has no relevance to my original question. You are answering a question that I didn’t ask. Your response would make sense if I asked, “Is there a difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship?” However, I am not asking if there is a morally relative equality. Furthermore, one does not need to be assumed, to consider my question.

I asked if homosexuals being attracted to one another is, “any more disruptive than male and female office rats being attracted to one another?” You responded by pointing out the lack of a morally relative equality. There need not be a morally relative equality to compare the effects of two things. For example, I could reasonably ask about disruption in an Army recruiting office in a high crime area of an inner city, by asking, “is the presence of female recruiters more disruptive than the fear of violent crime from the junkies in the area?” What is the morally relative equality there?

Also, I do not think that the moral inequality is the only factor to consider, when accounting for a difference in the level of disruption in the work place. In this case, for example, disruption caused by moral objection to the actions of co-workers is a factor, but so is the disruption caused by competition for affection among co-workers. In this case, the two disruptions could have a give-and-take relationship.

The disruptions caused by a heterosexual office affair are rarely due to moral objections, but rather due to young soldiers’ competitiveness and raging hormones. If I am working in an office with a hot chick and two other men, then my first instinct is that I am in competition with the men for the hot chick’s affection. When I realize that the two men are homosexuals, then my position appears to improve. Might I, or the hot chick, have moral objections and also have enough interest in other people’s personal lives that we would be uncomfortable knowing that our two male co-workers are having a homosexual relationship? Sure, though I think my elation over my improved chances with the hot chick will offset this.

The one disruption in the face of an immoral relationship would not be present if the men were heterosexual, but then another disruption arises when all three men are seeking the affection of one hot chick. So when the disruption caused by the homosexual relationship is not there, the disruption from the heterosexual relationship is, and vice versa. Are the two equally disruptive?

For the reasons explained above, I don’t think declaring the homosexual relationship to be more immoral is a sufficient explanation to support the claim that it is more disruptive. The conclusion that a homosexual relationship is more disruptive may be correct, but that it is more disruptive on the grounds that it is more immoral seems to be a poor explanation.