Homosexuality Essay Example for Free

Homosexuality Es declareIn todays society homosexuality is frequently discussed and the morality of being fearless or not is questi superstard. Based on what culture, ethics, knowledge a person has acquired in their lifetime and how their parent, teacher, preacher, or other type of mentor views the issue, people will engineer their own beliefs active homosexuality. Each culture has their own values regarding the appropriateness of certain types f sexuality.In Michael Levins Why Homosexuality is Abnormal, he justifies that homosexuality is abnormal and hence undesirable- not beca practice it is immoral or sinful, or because it weakens society or hampers evolutionary development, but for a purely mechanical reason (290). Michael reassert that homosexuality is abnormal and then goes to p tierce that the unhappiness of homosexuals is highly due to the misuse of bodily parts therefore, they are bound to be un able. Levins thesis claims that the abnormality of the homosexuality does not make them to live a desirable way of life which, I completely disagree with.In disagreement with Levin, the use of bodily parts in a homosexual relationship is not a misuse, but an alteration of functions and the terminology of abnormal does not lead to unhappiness. Levin claims to state that the misuse of bodily parts in a homosexual relationship will lead to an undesirable and unhappy life. I will begin my tilt with why the use of bodily parts in homosexual relationship is not misuse, but an modify function, can lead to a desirable and happy life. For instance, if one day LeBron James gets into a serve accident and becomes a paraplegic.His basketball career is terminated because he is paralyzed from the waist down, which instrument he is not capable of utilize his legs ever again. His ability to walk, run, jog, jump, swim, and etc. are now vanished therefore, causing him to neer play in the National Basketball Association. As time went by, he realized the inability to use his lower body parts in a common function was not going to block up him from playing basketball. LeBron decided he was going to play wheelchair basketball and continue his drive to play basketball because that is what makes him content.Through his altered body usage, LeBron learned how to transport and causing him to win multiple rewards in basketball. After winning multiple rewards, it made LeBron recognize that if one has the desire to be happy and shoot for their goals, than anything is possible. In the end, LeBron was just as successful using his altered body parts and the ability to function just fine like a normal homophile being. In respect to LeBrons scenario, a homosexuals body parts should not be judged just because the bodily parts are altered and used not in the way that Levin expects.Levin argues that the misuse of body parts causes unfullfillment, which than lead to unhappiness. He uses the terminology of evolution as a measurement to absolve the idea that h eterosexuals are normal human beings and homosexuals as abnormal because they are incapable of reproducing offspring. Levin argues human beings have penises and vaginas because our ancestors who put their penises into vaginas (or put their vaginas around penises) tended to reproduce, passing along to have penises and vaginas and to use them in this way (302).This is what genitalia are for is what Levin said and any other uses such as homosexuals are abnormal. So, basically what Levin is move to say is that homosexuals can never be happy because they misuse their bodily parts, which causes them to never fulfill their desires and than leads to unhappiness. In a sense, we are programmed through evolution to enjoy using our organs in evolutionarily adaptive (i. e. normal) ways (302). My theory is that homosexuals can be happy.How is Levin to judge and say that it does not fulfill their desires and makes them unhappy? Why would people do things to make themselves emotionally hurt or unh appy? If homosexuals extend to in homosexual activities, it is because that is what makes them emotionally happy from the inside, not because to partake in activities just for the brilliance of it. If that is what fulfills their personal desires than there should be nothing abnormal or wrong about it. Just because Levin does not have those personal desires does not mean he can criticize on others about it.Levin talks a lot about evolution and how our heterosexual ancestors who had penises and vaginas passing it down for the next ancestors well, if one esteems about it homosexuals have also evolved over time too. Just because back then in society people did not talk about it and in present-day they do, does not mean homosexuals have not been around. The fact is that it has been around just not ever mentioned. For example, talking about sex was never mentioned in the old times, but present-day people talk about it in public.Overtime, society has gained more(prenominal) knowledge, hence making people acknowledge more about homosexuality. Since, homosexuality has been here throughout history and continues to evolve then, Levins statement about evolution implies the same for homosexuals making them normal human beings. Levins second argument is about using the terminology abnormal when misusing sexual organs. He never gives a clear definition on what is abnormal, but save for the fact what I have mentioned above. For Levin, an activity is abnormal in the relevant sense whenever it involves using an organ for purposes for which it was not intended (302).Implying that being abnormal is when one does not use the penis to penetrate through the vagina to fertilize eggs and reproduce offsprings. If this is how society should be and if is this how these organs should be used, then why is it that heterosexuals partake in activities such as oral sex and anal sex? Levin argues that penises are for inserting into vaginas, not for inserting into mouths or other orifices v aginas are for receiving penises, not for rubbing up against other vaginas (302). This statement is being hypocritical because these are the same actions heterosexuals partake in also, making them abnormal as well.He misuses the word abnormal. The clear definition of abnormal means is extraordinary, uncommon, rare, or different. If Levin is calling homosexuals uncommon and rare, then what makes philosophy professors common? Being a philosophy professor is uncommon in a sense that only a small minority of people do it, but it is not abnormal in Levins sense. And since majority of the heterosexual tribe do partake in different activities using their genitalia for other purposes, this would make them common versus uncommon. Levin last argument is about the policy issues.He is trying to say society should protect their children because if the formula provided rights to the homosexuals, then children will have the odds to become a homosexual. In his argument Levin even states, If homo sexuality is unnatural, legislation which raises the odds that a given child will become homosexual raised the odds that he will be unhappy (295). Legalizing homosexuality means coming to the conclusion that it is acceptable to get married to the same gender and the government would have no objections against this action.If this occurred many religious practices would raise questions and make equivalence to the Bible. If Levin were saying that homosexuals would cause harm to children if allowed by the government, then what would one say when children watch pornography or movies that show kissing the same gender or opposite gender? Present-day children are already watching TV shows that harm their knowledge. What difference would it make if a child found a gay couple holding hands or kissing? Also, how much knowledge can a little child retain, they can only have stripped understanding of what is going on.In society there are other issues such as violence, murders, terrorist attacks that are more harmful to children than homosexuals being together. Levin does not backtrack to evaluate that continuing to degrade homosexuals and define them as abnormal based on their desires will continue to divide up the society causing strain to build up and unhappiness. After all America gives the freedom to believe in ones own practices without any judgments. In disagreement to Levins argument that the abnormality of homosexuality misusing their bodily parts causing unhappiness should also take into account of policy issues in Levins statement.Being grotesque and different than the majority of the norm does not mean they are harmful to the community. In America people have the right to worship in whatever they believe in therefore, fulfilling ones need by misusing bodily parts does not prove they are abnormal or can lead to unhappiness. In conclusion, determining the quality of ones life is based on the fulfilling individuals desires and a homosexual is clearly not artic led to be unhappy with the abstract use of body parts. He or she can still live a happy life in mend their functions because that is what makes morally content and fulfill their personal desires.