Is Homosexuality Morally Permissible - Assignment Example

Outline Is Homosexuality Morally Permissible? Shary Zhou Prof. Colaner Ucore 2900 5.5 The dis on the morality behind homosexuality has been trending the global affairs in the past couple of years. A question that every concerned individual has sought answers is, whether or not, homosexuality is morally permissible. John Corvino, professor of philosophy at Wayne State University in Indiana, is among the proponents who have come up explicitly in defense of homosexuality. In his masterpiece titled “Why Shouldnt Tommy and Jim Have Sex? A defense of Homosexuality,” Corvino argues, basing on five definitions of unnatural, that labeling homosexuality as unnatural act is nonsensical and, therefore, could not form the moral ground for dispelling such a form of sexual orientation. In conclusion, this author asserts that homosexual sex is not morally evil but is morally good. Corvino submission has, however, not gone unparalleled by opponents who feel that homosexuality is immoral. Obasola, Kehinde E., a professor in the Department of Religious Studies Olabisi Onabanjo University addresses this debate in his article titled “Ethical Perspective Of Homosexuality Among The African People.” His main argument against this practice is the abnormality that accompanies the act. For instance, human sexual bodies are developed for reproduction. Therefore, homosexuality is an acquired trait rather than innate. It is a distortion to the biological and psychological components of the body. This among several other reasons makes it to be morally unacceptable. In my forthcoming essay on this debate, I hold the opinion that opposes Corvino’s argument in favor of homosexuality. His arguing on the basis definition of unnatural does not hold water in so far as morality is concerned. Homosexuality is unnatural, and defies the sanctity of marriage, a natural institution designed for reproduction. It is therefore immoral. Corvino asserts that attributing homosexuality as unnatural stems from five basic interpretations of what is unnatural. In the very beginning, he objects the very idea of what is natural and its acceptance or likeableness in society. For instance, many lifestyle choices (housing, government, medicine, and even clothing) that are cherished by people at large are unnatural. On the other hand, some “natural” things are completely detested by society, such as, death, disease, and suffering. Subtly regarding “unnaturalness” as “rhetorical flourish,” Corvino challenges the very foundation of opposition (309). Corvino elaborates five different possible meanings of unnaturalness by borrowing it from Burton Leiser and disregard its relevance with morality of homosexuality. Corvino starts with the common perception of unnaturalness as deviation from the norm. It is believed that what is unusual and abnormal for most people is not natural. Because most people engage in heterosexual activity, it is considered natural. But there is no way to imply that those who do the opposite are unnatural. If this justification is assumed to be true, what about “relatively few people (who) read Sanskrit, pilot ships, play the mandolin, breed goats, or write with both hands,” Corvino (310) states. Can we attribute them “unnatural,” and their activity as immoral? Unusualness does not equate unnaturalness. Moreover, it is evident that statistical frequency of a certain action holds no ground to define its morality. Therefore, Corvino concludes that homosexuality can be considered unusual due to minority of people practicing it; however, it has no connection with its morality. In other possible definition of unnatural, it is assumed that animals are not homosexual, therefore, it is wrong. Corvino asserts that this argument is doubly flawed. Firstly, because it is built on a false premise that animals are not homosexual. Secondly, a particular practice cannot be attributed as immoral just because animals don’t practice it. After all, animals don’t brush their teeth, cook their food, attend college, and participate in religious ceremonies. Finally, he finds it amusing to look towards animals for human standards, especially sexual ones. Third assumption is that homosexuality does not proceed from innate desire, therefore, it is unnatural. Some suggest that homosexuals are “born that way,” therefore, it’s natural and good. Others attribute it to be a lifestyle choice, therefore, unnatural. Corvino asserts that both sides are wrong since they assume a connection between origin and morality of homosexuality. First one assumes that all the innate desires are good, therefore, they should be followed. Here, Corvino puts forth a question that whether the innate desire of some people who are more inclined towards violence should be treated similarly. Thus, homosexuality cannot be attributed as wrong or right on the basis of its innateness. Furthermore, if someone does not have any innate tendency to write with left hand, but he writes with left hand anyway, it does not make writing with left hand an immoral practice. Therefore, attributing homosexuality as a lifestyle does not imply that it’s an immoral lifestyle choice. It is evident that humans don’t seem to choose their feelings in obvious ways. All of us find someone more attractive than the other and certain activities more arousing, irrespective of what we decide; therefore, origin of feelings is still unable to decide its morality. Corvino analyses another possible definition of unnatural that if an organ’s principal purpose is violated, it is unnatural. This argument assumes that homosexual sex involves human genitals, but it does not result in procreation. This argument assumes that every human organ has a certain purpose and it is immoral to use an organ that is deviated from its principal purpose. If a man’s mouth’s principal purpose is to eat, breath, kiss woman, why it is unnatural to kiss a man? If the purpose of genitals is to procreate, we can’t say that expressing love, giving and receiving pleasure through these organs is unnatural. If human organs have only one purpose, opponents of homosexuality have to justify sex in sterile couple, sex during pregnancy, masturbation, and use of contraception. All of these activities involve genitals but do not result in procreation, do the ‘principal purpose of a human organ’ believers attribute these activities as unnatural or immoral. Procreation in a homosexual relationship is as unlikely as it is in a relationship of a man and women without her uterus. Therefore, the inference that homosexual relationship is unnatural seems no argument at all. The last potential meaning of unnatural refers that it is simply offensive or disgusting. Homosexuality is often considered offensive or disgusting. Corvino argues that we feel disgusted or offended by morally neutral activities, such as, people eating snail, performing autopsies, and cleaning toilet. Moreover, people regarded interracial relationships as disgusting for centuries but it is never proved wrong. In sum, Corvino dismisses the charge that homosexuality is unnatural. He finds it to be a ‘rhetorical flourish rather than a philosophical cogency,’ and aesthetics rather than morality as its base. On the other hand, Obasola, Kehinde asserts that homosexual people engage in an abnormal and unnatural activity. The main argument against homosexuality is its inability to conform to the principals of procreation. Marriage is a sacred institution that creates a balance in society. Human sexual bodies are designed for opposite sex relationship and reproduction. One may argue for the case of an infertile woman, I would say that infertile woman or impotent man, for that matter, is not comparable to a man to man relationship since they are still a couple and fulfilling their natural desire. Procreation is the ultimate purpose of sex, therefore, infertility or impotence can be considered as a disease or abnormality that cannot lead to procreation. There is no way we can justify homosexual sex with such failure in procreation since it is not acquired but given. Medical science has seen many breakthroughs in past, there is a possibility of miracle in case of infertile woman or impotent man, but there is no chance of procreation in a homosexual relationship that makes it unnatural. Another argument against homosexuality is that If God has to approve homosexuality, he would have created ‘Adam and Steve’ (81) rather than Adam and Eve. In addition to pleasure and intimacy, man and women relationship has a greater purpose of ‘fulfilling the divine mandate to replenish earth’ (84). It is evident that homosexuality is an acquired trait for humans rather than natural one. Human beings and other evolved living beings are created in pairs for a purpose. It is possible that some of the animals have also acquired homosexual behavior due to some reason, but it does not make the behavior natural. Moreover, it does not imply that human beings should consider them a standard of some sort. It violates biological and psychological needs of human body. If we consider the bigger picture, homosexuality strikes at the very foundation of human creation and threatens the ultimate survival of human race. Kehinde concludes that homosexuality is dehumanizing and “a mockery of the divine image with which humans were originally made” (84). In my opinion, Corvino’s arguments on the basis of rejecting possible meanings of unnatural do not prove that homosexuality is moral. In an effort to dismiss the connection between homosexuality and unnaturalness, he overlooked the fact that everything natural has a particular purpose while the practice of homosexuality is devoid of it. Even if we assume that homosexual feelings are natural, not acquired, Corvino himself rejected the idea that every natural or innate feeling cannot be entertained and legitimized. Furthermore, homosexuality is not functional. Despite being practiced for thousands of years, homosexuality couldn’t be more than pleasure. Nature is a completely evolved system, in addition to amusement and beauty, its every component has a purpose, but homosexuality does not fit into the bigger picture. It is not part of the puzzle and game of the world is complete without it. It is a practice that does not fit in nature’s plan, therefore, it is unnatural. It defies the sanctity of marriage or male-female relationship, a natural institution developed for reproduction, therefore, it is immoral. Word Count=1585 Read More