No not really. Homosexuality is a term to describe a type of behavior, activity and action, so what does it mean to be for or against it? Perhaps better terms are acceptance of homosexuality, rejection of it homosexuality, or denouncing homosexuality as immoral or unnatural or things along those lines. So about understanding and also about application of ideas as far as discretion involved when applying ideas like ethics, morality and what is objectively true and subjectively true and preferential.
Nature and evolution is more complicated than a single individuals motivation to have offspring, not to get too much into it here, but single individuals don't have some ultimate goal of having offspring. Many of the behavior, actions and activities biological organisms will be motivated to undertake will overlap and be prompted by procreation but thats very different conceptually than being a single driving objective. That would have to be established as a valid process to give weight to any validity opposing homosexuality.
Thats just one example. Alternatively there are lots of subjective reasons to be against homosexuality. An individual doesn't like it. An individual does not wish to partake in it, an individuals of the former reasons also believes their reasons and justifications in the opposition of such activity, actions and actions are objective and universal, an authority of some sort imposes restrictions/prohibits that type of behavior, action or activity and individuals/groups allegiance, loyalty or investment is stronger with that authority. Then again that applies as much to any sort of concept that deals with behavior, activity and action and how people are applied to those processes, so not mutually exclusive to the concept/idea of homosexuality.
If being for homosexuality is the idea that individuals should exclusively practice it for it is objectively superior then it suffers from the same or similar problems. If being for homosexuality is the acceptance of homosexuality then as far as understanding and knowledge - validity as far as its naturalness or ethical nature, then its pretty robust. Its kind of a non issue and basically the same as the much more accepted and dominant idea of heterosexuality just that many individuals and groups in history have had difficulty understanding and knowing the differences between what is objective and what is subjective and applying the term natural and ideas about morality and ethics. Even just the last hundred years of science have demonstrated how simplistic, misinformed, flawed and outdated so many centuries of prior human ideas and theories about human behavior, nature have been and the future won't be so different as far as many of the ideas and attitudes present today either.
Log in to comment