Philosophy Same-Sex Marriage or Relationship - Essay Example

Topic: Philosophy, Same-sex Marriage (or relationship) Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction There are different views regarding homosexuality. Based on the ethical point of view, homosexuality is regarded as immoral. In the Christian point of view, homosexuality is sinful and should not be allowed in the society. According to Bradshaw in his article, “a reply to Corvino”, the ethical and the Christian point of view point to the fact that homosexuality is an act that tarnishes human dignity, especially due to its impact on a person’s relationship with God, and the fact that it goes against the teachings of the bible. According to Bradshaw, homosexuality is one of the abominations in the society, which has made it impossible to grant gays their rights and the rise of people against homosexuality, which is considered to be morally wrong as well as the negative reception that homosexuality has received in religious circles. Bradshaw views it as an acceptable way of life in a religious community (277). This paper is a critique of homosexuality. It defends the philosophical thesis that same sex relationships are not unnatural because biological functions of people’s organs cant be determined and that it does not have any relevance to the question of whether such relationships are immoral, meaning that it is not immoral. The essay focuses on Bradshaw’s paper, “a reply to Corvino”, which focuses on the replies to particular statements that Corvino made in his paper titled “Why shouldn’t Tommy and Jim have sex? A defense of Homosexuality”. Same Sex Relationships People’s opinions regarding same sex relationships make them seem unnatural especially due to the assumption that heterosexual relationships are conventionally accepted by the society. For the religious people, heterosexual relationships are traced back to the origin of man, whereby it is believed that God created man and woman, who reproduced leading to the current population inhabiting various areas of the earth. Bradshaw focuses on the fact that homosexuality is forbidden in the bible. According to him, the bible only recognizes heterosexuality as the only natural relationship. Scientists come in to agreement with the biblical view at some point as after realization of the human anatomy, and the reproductive functions of man and woman. Each of the sexes has unique reproductive functions which can not be replaced by the other, meaning that if only one sex existed in the world, there could be no procreation because man has no uterus and therefore can not give birth while on the other hand there can be no conception of human life without the man. This understanding makes same sex relationships unnatural, which according to Bradshaw; violate the moral sense of the body. He, likens homosexuality to other moral wrongs that lower the dignity of man such as bestiality, pederasty and such practices that people shun from speaking in public (p 280). In regard to what people expect from a relationship, homosexuality usually does not fulfill these expectations since there can never be children from the particular relationship who will be born naturally. On the other hand, the anatomy of the body in regard to the reproductive parts does not match for a homosexual relationship. In other words, man’s genitals match perfectly with those of a woman, but not a fellow man, which makes it look unnatural if the relationship is to one time lead to sexual satisfaction. More over, determination of who is to play the role that a woman plays in the heterosexual relationship is difficult because both parties are alike. In this view, the relationship infringes the body’s moral space in the sense that man can never be woman even if heterosexual couples assume that roles can change. Bradshaw argues that the satisfaction that comes from the natural sexual union of man and woman can never be realized when the act takes place between two men. He views homosexuality as a deceptive relationship which can only be solved when the prevarication is realized (p 280). Bradshaw presents fact in his article “a reply to Corvino”. However, there are certain inconsistencies that raise doubts in regard to the correctness of the arguments relating to heterosexuality. It depends on how a person approaches the issue to be convinced that homosexuality is unnatural or morally wrong. For example, when Bradshaw argues in the biblical point of view, he seems to ignore the fact that there are many other communities in the world who do not follow the teachings of the bible. His arguments can be considered to be convincing and right if there were no such people as pagans, atheists and other groups that do not appreciate the teachings of the bible regarding what is morally wrong or right. He ties all the arguments to religion. Religion is concerned with man’s belief in the existence of a supernatural being that has power over life. However, the society determines the manner in which religious practices are to be undertaken, and also sets the norms in regard to religion. This is the reason why there are different faiths in religion. Even Christianity has various denominations that have different practices, but all claim to be faithful to one Supreme Being. Since all of them assert their sanctity and that their practices are morally right, it can be inferred that what is morally right or wrong depends on the conviction of a particular group of people. This means a group of homosexuals can assert that the practice is morally right the same way that different denominations in the Christian faith assert their sacredness. Whether homosexuality is morally right or wrong can not perfectly be judged based on religion. The moral space of the body is a vague statement that lacks conviction as to what exactly makes Bradshaw portray homosexuality as an infringement of this space. The argument that body parts do not match may not be used to justify the claim by Bradshaw that homosexuality infringes the moral space of the body. Human beings have the right to own their bodies and the freedom to do what they think is right with them. Arguing against homosexuality because of what the society views is wrong for a person’s body interferes with individual rights and freedoms. In other words what is considered to be morally right for the body need not be generalized for every human being. The right to own ones body and to do whatever he/she feels is good for it should be respected so long as it does not infringe other people’s rights and freedoms. Homosexuality does not infringe other people’s rights and therefore can not be regarded as morally wrong. More over, the people involved in homosexuality do it willingly. It is therefore wrong to liken it to bestiality as Bradshaw does since the animal is not involved in the act willingly. In regard to whether homosexuality is unnatural, it is important to understand what is considered to be natural and the reasons behind this thought. In the first place, it is not all people who engage in relationships for the purpose of procreation. Basing the argument of the unnatural nature of homosexuality on the inability of couples to procreate is therefore anecdotal. The same case applies to the argument on the anatomy of humans, which is focused on matching of the sexual organs. The popular believe of the reason for engaging in sex need not be used to argue against homosexuality. The reason for engaging in the relationship may not be for the pleasure and satisfaction that man and woman derive from a heterosexual relationship. This makes the arguments that homosexuality is unnatural invalid. In conclusion, Bradshaw portrays homosexuality as a moral wrong and an unnatural relationship. He mainly argues on the basis of religion and the society’s perception of the unnatural and immoral nature of homosexuality. However, these arguments are disputable because individual rights and freedoms are interfered with when people discredit homosexuality. More over, not all people follow the popular religion that is against homosexuality. Reference Bradshaw D. A Reply to Corvino pp 270-281 Read More