IS HOMOSEXUALITY A VALID SEXUAL IDENTITY - Research Paper Example

?Stephanie Britt Ms. Hames English 101 05 April Is Homosexuality A Valid Sexual Identity? Each and every person holds on to certain moral principles about gender and sexuality. Hence, upon formulating moral judgments, a proper understanding and assessment of the issue at hand is vital. This paper will explore one of the main issues that reside in ethics, that is, whether homosexuality is immoral, and if it ought to be considered as a valid sexual identity. The author of this paper will argue that homosexuality should be accepted as a valid sexual identity because none of the arguments presented against homosexuality are valid. This paper will primarily deal with the nature and harm argument as presented by John Corvino. After of which, the author shall then present her analysis regarding the said issue at hand. For, upon proving that the arguments against homosexuality are by far, invalid, the author have as well shown both the importance of moral reasoning, and more importantly, that there exists no reasonable ground to deem homosexuality as something out rightly immoral. The Nature and Harm Argument At this day and age, homosexuality is inevitably growing in all parts of the globe. And along with this is the growing number of differing opinions about the said matter. This section shall address the associated harm and unnaturalness charge that the opponents of homosexuality advocate. For, it is for this reason that homosexuality is deemed as something immoral. In what follows is an analysis of the so-called nature and harm argument presented by John Corvino, in his defense of homosexuality. “Many who object to homosexuality argue that it is unnatural and therefore immoral” (Vaughn 231). Corvino enumerates the premises regarding the unnaturalness charge against the status of homosexuality. These are as follows (Corvino 165-167): 1. What is unusual or abnormal is unnatural 2. What is not practiced by other animals is unnatural 3. What does not proceed from innate desires is unnatural 4. What violates an organ’s principal purpose is unnatural 5. What is disgusting or offensive is unnatural Corvino then questions each in relation to its moral relevance (165 – 168) 1. While homosexuality might be unnatural in the sense of being unusual, that fact is morally irrelevant 2. The idea that animals could provide us with a sexual standard is simply amusing. And even if it were possible, it would not prove that homosexuality is immoral 3. The underlying thought here is that all innate desires are good ones and should therefore be acted upon. However, regardless of something being innate or not, it doesn’t follow that one should or should not act upon them. Likewise, determining the origin of the respective feeling or desire will not determine whether it is moral or immoral to act upon them 4. Since people can and do use their sexual organs to procreate, it does not follow that they should not use them for other purposes. And granted that homosexual intercourse utilizes sexual organs for other purposes aside from procreation, it does not follow that their act of fulfilling that purpose is immoral. 5. When some act is disgusting, it does not mean that it is wrong and thus, immoral. Therefore, the charge against homosexuality as something “unnatural” is, according to Corvino, longer on rhetorical flourish than on philosophical cogency. Upon analyzing the flow of the argument from nature, it seems that the underlying thought of the entire argument rests upon a false assumption, i.e. that any act, which is not in accordance to nature is therefore immoral. And despite the fact that there could be no logical connection between the unnaturalness and immorality of any given act, Corvino’s line of defense does not give any justice to the status of homosexuality as that which does not contribute any immoral consequences. In other words, he merely argues against the contention of homosexuality as something unnatural, but does not provide another argument or alternative that shows philosophical cogency. It is evident that what is at stake here is whether homosexuality is immoral. And no matter how sound and valid one’s argument may be regarding the natural or unnaturalness of homosexuality; it indeed does not prove anything regarding its moral status. Therefore, it is in my contention that the arguments presented herein are logically irrelevant with regards to the main issue at hand. Alongside the argument from nature is the so-called harm argument. The main claim of this argument is that homosexual conduct is harmful to both, the ones who engage in it and as well as to society. Corvino once again shows the opposing side of the argument and then questions this on the grounds of its moral relevance. The argument goes as follows (Corvino 167-171): 1. Homosexuality leads to the breakdown of the family and, ultimately, of human society, and points to the alarming rates of sexual promiscuity, depression, and suicide and the ominous presence of AIDS within the homosexual subculture. 2. Homosexual activity undermines physical and psychological health 3. Homosexual intercourse is more “risky” in terms of health-related concerns compared to that of heterosexual intercourse 4. Such “risks” that homosexuality entails poses certain threats, which harm heterosexual subculture. 4.1 Homosexuality is a threat to society and to children Corvino responds to the aforementioned charges respectively as follows (168-172) 1. Correlation does not equal cause. Even if homosexual people were more likely to commit suicide due to depression than the rest of the population, it does not follow that their ‘homosexuality’ causes them to do these things 2. Regarding health, the argument that – even if homosexual sex is not immoral, it still puts those who are involved at risk for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases – is mistaken on the grounds that it does not apply to all homosexuals (ex: lesbians) 3. Homosexuality does not entail any harm, but rather, the diseases do, i.e. the virus; and both homosexual and heterosexual subculture may carry the virus. 4. The threat that homosexuality is said to cause harm to children – in terms of the likelihood of children becoming homosexual and thus to the future breakdown of family – due to the increasing visibility of homosexual subculture, begs the question. 5. The threat that homosexuality is said to cause harm to society – in terms of the continuation of society, which requires procreation – has no bearing as to the moral status of homosexuality. And even if it does, it is not the case the “everyone” must procreate. 6. From the fact that ‘procreation is good’, it doesn’t follow that ‘childlessness is bad’. 7. Given that heterosexual union promotes the continuation of human life, it doesn’t follow that homosexuality is immoral because it fails to accomplish the continuation of human life through procreation. Therefore, homosexuality neither harms those who participate in it nor does it harm society. On the contrary, it benefits both parties because it makes them happier and is more able to provide the same kinds of benefits that heterosexual relationships can provide. Following Corvino, the author of this paper agrees that the charge of inflicting harm, directly or indirectly, has no sufficient basis for concluding the immorality of an act. Given the line of reasoning of the harm argument against the status of homosexuality, it seems that all of its said charges rest upon a fallacy – fallacy of incorrect reasoning or “false cause”. For, it is clear as seen from Corvino’s defense that homosexuality per se does not cause harm, but the accusations posed against them are the ones that cause harm to both the ones who engage in it and to society. In other words, homosexual subculture is being accused for something that they do not cause or intend to cause. The charges posed obviously lack ample statistical data and other evidences to claim that homosexual conduct is harmful. Besides, there is no reason to assume that natural, i.e. heterosexual acts are, in general, more safe than unnatural, i.e. homosexual acts. Take for instance unprotected heterosexual intercourse – it is evident that this causes more harm to both, those who engage in it and to society, given that the outcome is unfavorable, compared to mutual homosexual intercourse for that matter. Therefore, the validity of homosexuality as a preferred sexual identity is open to question with regards to its moral implications and status. There exists no necessary connection between the naturalness or unnaturalness of a given sexual act and its moral or immoral quality. Conclusion “The nature and legitimacy of homosexual behavior continue to generate considerable controversy” (Murphy 195). Indeed, the debate regarding the moral status of homosexuality may be a never-ending endeavor. For, attaining a clear and consistent view of the facts is not always a simple matter. Most often than not, we are dealing with facts that are not concrete, thoughts which has yet been translated into observable data. Nevertheless, these complexities will always remain, especially when dealing with issues concerning gender and sexuality. What then remains is whether those who are against homosexuality have with them a good argument to offer against its moral status. And until that has yet been established, the moral status of homosexuality is not something that is out rightly immoral. Therefore, it ought to consider a valid sexual identity. Works Cited Corvino, John. Homosexuality: The Nature and Harm Arguments. In The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings. Ed. Alan Soble. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1997. 163-178. Print. Murphy, Timothy F. “Homosexuality and Nature: Happiness and the Law at Stake.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 4.2 (1987) : 195-204. Print. Soble, Alan. The philosophy of sex: contemporary readings, 3rd ed. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1997. Print. Vaughn, Lewis. Contemporary Moral Arguments: Readings in Ethical Issues. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Read More