One of the most controversial topics in society today is whether or not LGBT individuals should be included in social institutions such as schools, workplaces, clubs, religious groups, etc. There are many arguments for and against this issue, but one argument that has gained traction is that institutions have an obligation to maintain social harmony. This means that they must ensure that all members feel comfortable and accepted within the group, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. On the surface, this seems like a reasonable expectation; however, when it comes to including LGBT individuals, there are certain moral concerns that arise.
Some people may argue that allowing these individuals into a group could cause tension among those who do not approve of their lifestyle choices.
Some religions believe that homosexuality is sinful, so they would object to having someone who identifies as LGBT participating in activities associated with them. So, what does this mean for the morality of prioritizing social harmony over inclusion? Is it right to exclude these individuals from certain institutions because doing so would create discomfort for others? Or is it wrong to force everyone to conform to one way of thinking about sexuality? These are questions that must be answered before we can make a judgment call on this issue. Let's explore both sides of the debate and see which side makes more sense.
Proponents of prioritizing social harmony would argue that it is important for institutions to create an environment where everyone feels welcome and respected. They would say that by excluding LGBT individuals, institutions would be creating a hostile environment that could lead to discrimination and bullying. They might also point out that homophobia is still prevalent in our society, and forcing LGBT individuals to hide their true selves only reinforces negative stereotypes about them.
They might argue that if we allow LGBT individuals to participate in all aspects of life, then eventually, everyone will become more accepting of different types of sexualities. This view seems to have merit since social norms tend to change over time; however, there are moral implications involved here too.
If we prioritize social harmony over inclusion, then we are essentially saying that it's okay to marginalize certain groups based on their beliefs or lifestyle choices. This goes against the core values of equality and fairness that many people hold dear.
Some may feel that institutions should not be held accountable for what happens outside their walls (e.g., if members choose to exclude someone because of their identity), so they don't believe institutions should take responsibility for promoting acceptance. In other words, while social harmony is important, it shouldn't come at the expense of others' rights and freedoms.
Those who support including LGBT individuals in institutions would argue that it is immoral to exclude anyone based on their sexuality or gender identity. They would point out that everyone deserves respect regardless of how they identify, and no one should have to hide themselves just to fit in with a group. They would say that allowing LGBT individuals into an institution doesn't mean everyone must agree with their choices but rather gives them a voice and platform from which to express themselves without fear of judgment or rejection.
They might argue that excluding these individuals sends a message that society isn't ready to embrace diversity and leaves them vulnerable to discrimination and violence.
Some may believe that by including everyone, institutions will create a more tolerant and accepting atmosphere where everyone can learn from each other's differences. In this view, social harmony comes from understanding and appreciating our differences instead of pretending they don't exist.
Both sides of the debate make valid points about prioritizing social harmony over inclusion; however, I think we need to consider the moral implications involved before making a decision. If we prioritize social harmony, then we run the risk of marginalizing certain groups and violating their rights. But if we include everyone, then we open ourselves up to new perspectives and ways of thinking about sexuality and gender.
It is up to each institution to decide what is best for its members, but they should do so with careful consideration of all factors involved.
Is it morally permissible for institutions to prioritize “social harmony†over the inclusion of LGBT individuals?
In many countries, including the United States, some institutions have been accused of discriminating against members of the LGBT community by not providing them with equal opportunities in employment, housing, education, healthcare, and other services. These actions are often justified on the grounds that such measures would upset social norms and cause conflicts within communities.