Author: Nathan Nobis
Categories: Philosophy of Sex and Gender, Ethics, Social and Political Philosophy
Wordcount: 998
In many countries, people who are homosexual face prejudice, discrimination, and harassment. In some countries, homosexuality is a crime, sometimes even punishable by death.[1]
Presumably, these responses are often motivated by the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Indeed, a 2026 survey suggests that about 39% of Americans believe that homosexuality is wrong. In some countries, nearly everyone believes that.[2]
If homosexuality is wrong, there should be a good reason—a good argument, or arguments—to believe that. Likewise, if homosexuality is not wrong, there should be a good reason to believe that.
This essay reviews some of the most influential arguments on the ethics of homosexuality.[3]
1. Sexuality
People who claim that homosexuality is wrong—or that it is not wrong—might mean a number of different things. This is because sexuality in general refers to many things: sexual orientation—the type(s) of people each person tends to be attracted to[4]—sexual and romantic behaviors, and more.[5]
Some arguments about homosexuality focus on behaviors, others focus on orientation, and others concern both.[6] It is always important to identify the exact conclusion being argued for or against.[7]
2. Homosexuality Is Not Wrong?
People who believe that homosexuality is not wrong often appeal to moral principles such as these:
- non-harmful actions and ways of living are not wrong;
- actions and ways of life that consenting people freely engage in are generally not wrong;
- people have the right to seek love, happiness, and connection however they reasonably believe they would best find it, unless there’s a good reason to think those ways are wrong.[8]
They further argue or observe that homosexuality is not, or need not be, harmful in any way; that homosexual relationships involve consenting people; that homosexual romantic relationships are the source of love, connection, meaning, and fulfillment for many people; and that there is no good reason to think that homosexuality is wrong. That final judgment depends on finding the arguments against homosexuality to be unsuccessful.[9]
3. Homosexuality Is Wrong?
We can’t review them all, but many arguments are given against homosexuality. For each argument, we can evaluate the steps in the reasoning and the premises.[10]
3.1. Many arguments depend on premises that are essential to the reasoning but are often left unstated. Counterexamples suggest they are false, such as:[11]
- all non-reproductive sexual behaviors are wrong; however, heterosexuals engage in non-reproductive sexual behaviors and that’s not wrong;[12]
- all unnatural behaviors are wrong; however, “unnatural” can mean many different things, and many “unnatural” activities—wearing eyeglasses, receiving health care, using computers—are not wrong;[13]
- all behaviors that animals do not engage in are wrong; but, many things that animals don’t do—e.g., reading and writing—are not wrong;
- all ways of living that, if universally adopted, would lead to serious problems are wrong; however, if everyone became, say, a priest or nun (or took any one profession), society could not continue; but that doesn’t mean it is wrong for individuals to become priests or nuns (or have that job);
- all behaviors that some people find offensive, disgusting or disapprove of are wrong; but, behaviors like that need not be wrong;
- all behaviors that the Bible forbids are wrong; however, the Bible appears to forbid some actions that many people reasonably believe are not wrong, including escaping slavery, women teaching or exercising authority over men, and divorce and remarriage.[14] That the Bible condemns a behavior does not by itself show that the behavior is wrong;[15] furthermore, the Bible might not condemn homosexuality anyway;[16] and:
- all uses of body parts for anything other than their intended functions is wrong, and sexual organs’ primary function is reproduction: however, body parts often have many functions, and, even if one function can be identified as a primary function, using them for other purposes is often fine: e.g., walking on your hands is not wrong, and communicating by blinking wouldn’t be wrong. Moreover, heterosexual people also use sexual organs for pleasure and connection, not merely reproduction; and some heterosexual couples don’t reproduce, yet that is usually not considered wrong.
3.2. Some arguments appeal to false empirical claims and stereotypes, or reason badly from such claims, such as:
- homosexuality is inherently physically harmful or risky; but homosexuality need not be physically harmful or risky, any more than heterosexuality can be; also, that an action involves risk or causes some harm does not by itself mean that it is morally wrong: e.g., playing football, eating junk food, donating a kidney;
- homosexual people are more likely to experience certain mental health or relationship problems: however, even if some such claims are true—which are disputed—that wouldn’t show that homosexuality is wrong. Many heterosexuals experience similar problems, yet that is not taken to show that heterosexuality is wrong. Furthermore, the personal challenges homosexual people sometimes experience might be due to the stigma and discrimination they sometimes endure from society, not from homosexuality itself;[17]
- homosexual people cannot reproduce: but, homosexual people are physically capable of reproduction—albeit, of course, not with someone of the same sex—and they can be good parents;
- homosexual people are more likely to be pedophiles: however, even if that were true, it would not show that homosexuality is wrong. Some heterosexual people are pedophiles, yet that is not taken as an objection to heterosexuality in general. More generally, even if some members of a group have bad traits or engage in wrong behaviors, that does not show that being a member of that group is wrong.
3.3. Finally, some arguments against homosexuality are “question-begging”: they assume what they are supposed to support:
- claims that homosexuality is wrong because same-sex relationships are wrong, or because only male-female relationships are permissible, merely restate the conclusion rather than support it;
- calling homosexuality a “lifestyle choice” sometimes assumes it’s a wrong choice;
- predicting that accepting homosexuality is a “slippery slope” to accepting wrong actions assumes homosexuality is wrong.[18]
4. Conclusion
The discussion here suggests that the most influential moral arguments against homosexuality are unsuccessful. Given the consequences of these beliefs, understanding why this is so is important.[19]
Notes
[1] See Casey, Reisner, Findling, et al (2019) and the ILGA World Database (2026), among many other sources of information on these issues.
[2] See Pew Research Center (2026): “39% of U.S. adults say homosexuality is morally wrong – far more than take that position in Germany or Sweden (5% each) but far fewer than in Indonesia (93%) or Nigeria (96%).”
[3] While this discussion focuses on arguments about homosexuality, many of the points made here can be extended to common arguments against other forms of non-heterosexuality. While different sexual orientations and identities raise unique issues, people who argue that homosexuality is wrong often make similar arguments against other forms of non-heterosexuality as well.
[4] For further discussion of sexual orientation, see Sexual Orientation, Sex, and Gender by Raja Halwani.
[5] Of course, someone can have a sexual orientation but have never engaged in any sexual behaviors. And people can engage in sexual behaviors that aren’t supported by their sexual orientation.
[6] Lesage and Miner (2026) report that, based on their survey results, “Americans overall make no distinction between the morality of homosexuality and homosexual behavior.” Since behavior is often influenced by desire, and people’s desires often lead to behaviors—even the behaviors of thinking about someone, arranging one’s schedule with the hopes of seeing someone, being especially attentive and kind to someone, and so on—it makes sense that arguments on these issues would consider both sexual orientation and behaviors: the two are often deeply intertwined.
[7] For fuller discussions of many of the arguments reviewed in this essay, and many more, see Corvino’s (2013) book What’s Wrong with Homosexuality?, his widely reprinted (1997) essay, and his (2007) video “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” and his many other writings and videos on these issues. Although same-sex marriage is a distinct issue from the ethics of same-sex relationships, the two are related because many people who oppose same-sex marriage do so on the grounds that homosexuality is morally wrong: see Corvino and Gallagher (2012).
Successfully evaluating arguments requires understanding what makes different types of arguments good and bad: see Arguments: Why Do You Believe What You Believe? by Thomas Metcalf and Critical Thinking: What is it to be a Critical Thinker? by Carolina Flores. Many of the arguments discussed in this essay can be stated in logical form often called a “simple syllogism”: see Classical Syllogisms and Contemporary Syllogisms by Timothy Eshing.
[8] Common principles like these are related to, and derivative of, some of the most historically influential ethical theories or answers to the question, “What makes wrong actions wrong?” with answers that focus on harm, disrespect, and unfairness; on the positive, these theories emphasize producing benefits, such as happiness and increased well-being, respect—often understood in terms of informing other people of one’s intentions and seeking their consent, and fairness, meaning not treating some individuals or groups worse than others, unless there’s a justifying reason that anyone would accept. For introductions to these theories, see Consequentialism and Utilitarianism by Shane Gronholz, Kantian Deontology: Immanuel Kant’s Ethics by Andrew Chapman, and John Rawls’ ‘A Theory of Justice’ by Ben Davies.
[9] There are also some often-heard arguments in defense of homosexuality appear to be unsound: e.g., that sexual orientations are not under anyone’s control and that nobody should be blamed or judged morally for things beyond their control, or that sexual orientations are innate and so cannot be wrong. The problem is that it’s possible that something morally wrong or bad could be innate to a person and not under their control: e.g., a person could have very violent tendencies that are “innate” to them, yet those are wrong.
[10] Due to space constraints, in this essay for each argument, a stated or unstated premise or the reasoning is evaluated, but often not both. But a full discussion would include both, with all premises, for each argument.
[11] A “counterexample” is an example or case that is given to show, or try to show, that a generalization or general premise is false: e.g., a counterexample to “All As are Bs” is an A that is not a B.
[12] It is worth acknowledging that some people believe it is morally wrong for heterosexuals to engage in sexual activity that is not reproductive or intentionally seeks to preclude reproduction. However, this is a minority view. And, most importantly, the reasons offered in support of a view like this can be evaluated just like any other moral argument: we can ask for good reasons to believe this.
[13] For a review of different definitions of “natural” and different arguments resulting from each definition, see the widely reprinted Corvino (1997) and chapter 4 of Corvino (2013). For some general discussion of what “natural” can mean and how that relates to ethics, see Evolution and Ethics by Michael Klenk.
[14] Concerning enslaved people obeying their “masters” see Ephesians 6:5-6; on women teaching or having authority over men, see 1 Timothy 2:12; on divorce and remarriage see Matthew 5:31–32, Matthew 19:3–9, Mark 10:2–12, Luke 16:18, and 1 Corinthians 7:10–11. These are just a few examples of actions that the Bible appears to condemn but that many reasonable people do not believe are morally wrong. Some scholars argue that such passages should be interpreted in light of language, culture, and historical context, rather than understood as literally true or binding today. They likewise argue that biblical passages often understood to condemn homosexuality should be interpreted in these ways, rather than read as straightforward condemnations of homosexuality as it is understood today. See Helminiak (2000)
[15] For a general discussion of appeals to God in ethical arguments, see Ethics and God: the Divine Command Theory and the Euthyphro Dilemma by Nathan Nobis; on arguments from the Bible, see note 2; also see Because God Says So: On Divine Command Theory by Spencer Case.
[16] A number of biblical scholars argue that the Bible does not directly address homosexuality as it is commonly understood today—as a sexual orientation or as loving, committed same-sex relationships. See Helminiak (2000), among many other sources.
[17] For empirical information and social-scientific research concerning the issues of this paragraph, see Meyer (2003) and Omoto & Kurtzman (2006).
[18] For discussion of this type of argument, see Corvino (2005).
[19] On the moral importance of having strong evidence for one’s beliefs, often in the form of good arguments, see Is it Wrong to Believe Without Sufficient Evidence? W.K. Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” by Spencer Case.
References
Casey, Logan; Reisner, Sari; Findling, Mary, et al. (2019). “Discrimination in the United States: Experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer Americans.” Health Services Research. 54: 1454–1466.
Corvino, John. (1997). “Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex? A Defense of Homosexuality.” Originally in John Corvino, ed., Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality (Rowman & Littlefield): 3-16.
Corvino, John. (2005). Homosexuality and the PIB argument. Ethics 115 (3): 501-534.
Corvino, John. (2007). “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” video. Paradise Valley Media. On YouTube since (2013).
Corvino, John, and Maggie Gallagher. (2012). Debating Same-Sex Marriage. Oxford University Press.
Corvino, John. (2013). What’s Wrong with Homosexuality? Oxford University Press.
Helminiak, Daniel. (2000). What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality. Alamo Square Press.
ILGA World Database. (2026). “Criminalisation of Consensual Same-Sex Sexual Acts.”
Lesage, Kirsten and Miner, William (2026). How question wording affects polling on the morality of homosexuality. Pew Research Center Decoded blog.
Meyer, Ilan. (2003). “Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence.” Psychological Bulletin. 129; 5: 674–697.
Omoto, Allen & Kurtzman, Howard (Eds.). (2006). Sexual Orientation and Mental Health: Examining Identity and Development in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual people. American Psychological Association.
Related Essays
Sexual Orientation, Sex, and Gender by Raja Halwani
Arguments: Why Do You Believe What You Believe? by Thomas Metcalf
Critical Thinking: What is it to be a Critical Thinker? by Carolina Flores
Classical Syllogisms by Timothy Eshing
Contemporary Syllogisms by Timothy Eshing
Consequentialism and Utilitarianism by Shane Gronholz
Kantian Deontology: Immanuel Kant’s Ethics by Andrew Chapman
John Rawls’ ‘A Theory of Justice’ by Ben Davies
Evolution and Ethics by Michael Klenk
Ethics and God: the Divine Command Theory and the Euthyphro Dilemma by Nathan Nobis
Because God Says So: On Divine Command Theory by Spencer Case
Is it Wrong to Believe Without Sufficient Evidence? W.K. Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” by Spencer Case
Acknowledgements
The author thanks John Corvino, Scott Hill, Dan Peterson, and Matthew Sanderson for reviewing this essay and providing helpful suggestions for improvement.
About the Author
Nathan Nobis is a Professor of Philosophy at Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA. He is co-author of Thinking Critically About Abortion, author of Animals & Ethics 101, and the author and co-author of many other writings and materials in philosophy and ethics. NathanNobis.com
Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on Facebook, Bluesky, Instagram, Twitter / X, Threads, TikTok, and LinkedIn, and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at 1000WordPhilosophy.com.
Discover more from 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.