Many people choose to cohabit because they may feel naïve and may not understand what they are feeling or the temptation is too strong to fight. Also, many couples mistake this choice for freedom, thinking they are freer if they cohabit. That is where the virtue of chastity is needed because chastity is the virtue that helps have self-control over pleasures and wants. A chaste person is not driven by urges or passions but can control themselves for the gift of their true selves to their real spouse. God made sex as a way to express our love physically with our spouse after marriage and for procreation, but sex is abused when people use it for nothing more than for physical pleasure.
If a homosexual couple is capable to be loving, nurturing, and dedicated just as a heterosexual couple, then they should equally have the same rights to adopt. Many people say that a child needs a mother and father figure to be raised right and to provide both viewpoints of gender. Some other people believe that gender does not matter when parenting. Society needs to set aside its differences and do what is best for the thousands of kids that are without a loving family. Denying these kids a home just because two individuals of the same sex love each other is injustice.
People opposed to homosexual parenting argue that homosexual couples are not capable of having long enduring strong relationships required for the successful upbringing of children. They claim it is in the child's best interest to be raised by one female and one male. Such a family would provide the best environment for healthy intellectual and emotional growth. Obviously the debate over homosexual parenting brings for concepts of individual rights and the definition of family. What the argument boils down to is the definition of a family.
However, despite this argument, sex selection may be seen as unethical even if selection of some other non-disease genes is ethical, and therefore Savulescu’s ideas may require modification. The ethics of an action can be assessed by two reasonable criteria: the value the action reflects and its consequences for society. Sex selection is unethical because sex should be irrelevant to the predicted well-being of the child in a society that embraces the ethical principal of gender equality, and instead sex selection is a tool to make a choice about someone else’s life for only selfish reasons and convenience, a dehumanizing act that diminishes the virtue of acceptance and has no concern for the fate of society o... ... middle of paper ... ...r a more equal society rather than reinforces discrimination. Savulescu’s Procreative Beneficence, to be an ethical standard, needs to be redefined so that a parent should only have the right to select genes that would improve the well-being of a child which can rationally be argued to matter regardless of the society in which one lives. Gender selection to avoid gender linked disorders would remain ethical under this definition.
In a review of William R. Rice, Experimental Tests of the Adaptive Significance of Sexual Recombination, recombination may be a success for many sexual classes, but asexual reproducers may not have had the best success. Although many need it in order to pass on genes, it is not essential for all reproducers (Rice, 2002). Recombination is only advantageous to those that can use it to pass on genes, but is not the most universal used form of adaptation.
My own view of sexual morality no matter how traditional has solid grounds stand on thanks to the works of Rodger Scruton. It uniquely allows for social acceptable units to restrain the risks associated with sexual activities. Although no plan based on the sexual morality of humans is perfect. We should strive for a plan that is socially responsible and limits the risks not only to children but gives grounds for acceptance within culture as a whole.
Legalizing same sex marriage is only going to send the wrong message to children. This will cause different confusing outcomes on children. Same sex marriage parents or couples believe that love is all that a child need. In reality, that is not always true. A child needs a mother & a father.
It seems reasonable to assume that homosexual individuals should be able to adopt children in order to put the many children stuck in foster care into loving homes. However, there is an argument against letting homosexual individuals and couples adopt. It is said that same-sex couples should not adopt because there must be two roles for parents in a family: “...the mother [who is] better equipped to pass on nurturing skills and the father [who is] more qualified to teach leadership” (Wilson). There is no need for a parent who is only nurturing/a leader; one parent can possess both of these skills, which happens frequently. If a homosexual couple cannot adopt, should a single-mother not be allowed to raise a child due to lack of a father-figure in the household?
Another question that might be in the back of a parents mind is about its child's sexual orientation. I know this may seem far fetched to some people but if I had a child right now in todays world, that question would not be in the back of my mind but in the front. I know that any parent and including me will love their child no matter what it's sexual orientation, but I know that most if not all parents would prefer that their kids be straight. This is not so they won't be embarrass or ashamed by their child, but only for the protection of their child. As we all know this world is not a safe place for people that are different.
Imagine a world where everyone looked like you and was related to you as a sibling, cousin, or any form of relation, wouldn’t that be freaky? Although cloning is not an important issue presently, it could potentially replace sexual reproduction as our method of producing children. Cloning is a dangerous possibility because it could lead to an over-emphasis on the importance of the genotype, no guaranteed live births, and present risks to both the cloned child and surrogate mother. It also violates the biological parent-child relationship and can cause the destruction of the normal structure of a family. The cloning of the deceased is another problem with cloning because it displays the inability of the parents to accept the child’s death and does not ensure a successful procedure.