Reproductive Controls and Sexual Destiny
Reproductive Controls and sexual destiny seeks to determine whether ways to manipulate and erase sexual identity of homosexual nature is moral, criminal, and should be government control. She argues, “Selecting against gay children implies the worthlessness of homosexuality and is therefore insulting to gay people as a degradation of their dignity.” She also believes that in order for the idea to be considered immoral it must bring harm to the child in consideration. It does not. It represents human choice, which is to be preserved and encouraged. She does believe that this decision could be viewed as immoral in that it is in a way selfish. She does believe that to further the argument for a government ban there must be an establishment of a cause of homosexuality that is more concrete than hormonally based. The success of the argument against homosexuality in general can survive if the underlying religious assumption is accepted. If the concept of human nature is accepted it represents human choice rather than destiny of individual to be heterosexual as the Roman Catholic Church argues that god has purposed humans to be and will be held accountable for by god. In order for a reader to “buy” this article the world have to be a utopia in which people are accepted for who they are what they believe in; what their religion is and who their friends are. Which brings me to the topic the author is actually “selling”. The title he uses, Reproductive controls and sexual destiny creates pre reader imagery, if you will. He makes the reader think of his two worse nightmares someone controlling his future involving his/her abilities to bring life into this world. Now after he has gotten the reader in this mode of defense for anything that tries to control his/her reproduction he uses words in his first and second paragraphs such as eradicate and constraining respectively. He has now laid he groundwork for his underlying and implicit argument…the philosophy of heterosexualism is smothering the gay community from enjoying there own destinies to not only be gay but to condone it as a perfectly valid choice for their offspring or any body else’s. He thinks that anyone should have the opportunity to choose to become gay; people should not choose heterosexuality over homosexuality. In the purpose of his essay the author sates
The film looks at both the understanding of the church, that is portrayed within the film, and the suggestion that there can only be one sexuality, heterosexuality, and that all others are sins in the eye of God. Christians understood sex and sexuality to be between a man and a woman and for the purpose of procreation. The film challenges this by giving other examples of things the Bible sees as sins because of the prevention of procreation, such as ejaculating outside of the body and contraceptives. Both of these are also strongly condoned by today’s society to prevent unplanned pregnancy and STI’s. This is directly related to Irvine’s article “Victims, Villains.. And Neighbours” about Comprehensive sex Ed. vs. abstinence sex Ed, and the debate between teaching kids about safe sex and how to use things such as condoms or birth control, or not teaching theme these things at all because this would be telling them that sex is okay as long as it’s safe, when abstinence sex Ed’s goal is to avoid sex all together until marriage because the reason we were created to have sex is to procreate and having sex outside of marriage is wrong and using any kind of contraception that could prevent procreation is...
One popular objection is: if it is immoral to deprive someone of a future, or a “future-like-ours”, then it is immoral to deprive a sperm or egg of a “future-like-ours”. Because it is immoral to deprive someone of a future, one must conclude that it is immoral to deprive a sperm or egg of a “future-like-ours”. This objection is in reference to different modes of contraception, such as condoms and birth control. Nevertheless, the biggest problem with Marquis’ argument that allowed for this objection was its indecisiveness and improbability to draw a definitive line. Marquis criticized the pro-lifers and pro-choicers for being unable to have a definitive definition and made the same mistake in his own argument. One could object to his argument by merely questioning where the decision would end; are we to believe that one is depriving a sperm or an egg a future when we use contraception? Another important note is the idea that a “future-like-ours” is even an even more ambiguous term than a “person” or “human being”. It is impossible for the average individual to know which of his sperm or her eggs carries a genetic abnormality that may cause their child to not have a
Darwin's theory of sexual selection is an intriguing one because it offers an explanation of human striving and cultural value systems. The theory is that humans who are more sexually desirable will have more offspring and thus their traits will be passed on to future generations to a greater extent than those of less sexually desirable humans. As opposed to Darwin's other theory, natural selection, those who are the best adapted to their environment will be more likely to pass on their genes, or, "survival of the fittest", you might call sexual selection "survival of the sexiest." The theory is intended to in part explain why, when humans diverged from other primates, the human brain tripled in size in just two million years. At first glance, this theory also seems to explain much of the motivation behind human culture and achievement. Upon closer inspection, there are some fairly conspicuous problems with it, especially when it is extended to describe not only human evolution in the distant past but it the present, but it may still be the most plausible explanation available to explain why humans mental capacities have expanded so far beyond those of our primate relatives.
She presents the idea that primitive forms of birth control are no longer ethical in today’s society as their methods would violate various mores that have been set by present day society by saying that that “primitive man have achieved the same results by infanticide, exposure of infants, abandonment of children, and abortion.” She uses examples of seemingly barbaric primitive methods to exemplify that in present times there is a need for a more civilized and humane method of family planning. By using this extreme example, Sanger effectively appeals to ethos to hopefully persuade the audience by showing how the old methods would themselves be contradictory to the set of morals the opposers are trying so hard to hold on to. She also appeals to ethos in the very end of the speech by identifying three separate and conflicting social classes that are based on intelligence and wealth. She describes the first class as being “intelligent and wealthy members of the upper classes who have obtained knowledge of birth control and exercise it in regulating the size of their families.” She then compares the highest class to the mid-level group by saying they they too are “equally intelligent and responsible” but can not gain knowledge and there fore can not plan their families. By comparing the first two alone it appeals to ethics as two groups with equal knowledge and wealth should both have knowledge and control over the size of their families. She ties in the last group by saying that the lowest group is “irresponsible and reckless” and states that this group reproducing in large numbers is bad for society as it will spread disease and the increase in size of this “feeble-minded” group. This in itself is not fair to the other members of society as it makes it more dangerous for the others. She uses the unfairness of this negligence
Throughout history people who manifested an attraction for others of the same sex usually have gone through a lot of maltreatments, discrimination, and have often been regarded as “sexual deviants.” Relationships between people of the same sex have been present since the beginning of history. Their lives have not always been easy, because they have been persecuted and sometimes even forced to go through a psychiatric evaluation. At the same time, in order to gain their rights and dignity, they had to take their fight to the legal system because as George Chauncey, a professor of history at Yale University mentioned, “although most people recognize that gay life was difficult before growth of the gay movement in the 1970s, they often have only the vaguest sense of why: that gay people were scorned and ridiculed, made to feel ashamed, afraid, and alone” (290). However, discrimination and maltreatment were not the only reasons homosexuals had to take their struggle to the courts. An American professor of history at Yale University, who has testified in a number of gay rights cases, has exposed the ins and outs of the legal system in the second half of the twentieth century. During this time, a great number of states had created laws, which authorized the indefinite detention of homosexuals in mental institutions, and conditioned their release upon proving that they were cured from homosexuality (Chauncey 294). This past history, together with studies conducted by some prestigious institutions have lead society to understand that the right to homosexual marriage is economically, ethically, and morally correct, because it would benefit the economy and society by increasing the federal budget and creating a legal status for homosexual c...
In the article “It’s a Child, Not a Choice”, published in February of 1992, author Diane Dew writes to persuade readers about the issue of pro life. Dew writes to women, pro choice and pro life activists in an effort to inflict a guilty conscience in the minds of those who select the choice of abortion. Her intent in writing this piece is to try to convince readers of the negative aspects and irrationality of following through with an abortion. To Dew, the issues of pro choice and pro life should no longer be debatable civil rights issues. Dew supports her convictions with coherent reasoning.
Sanger, Margaret. "The Morality of Birth Control." Gifts of Speech. Smith College, 2012. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.
...festyles. Many religious parents think, “Why should I talk to my child? My child is living a life that is against the Bible”. Parents do not understand that the child is still their child. The child is a person that still needs parents. In order to prevent parents from ostracizing their children, governments should establish laws that prevent parents from ostracizing their children based on their sexual orientation or gender identification. Specific scenarios in which parents want to ostracize their children based on their sexual orientation may be presented in a court of law. The United States government needs to reinforcement the prevention of ostracism of LGBT children from their parents. The establishment of new government policies preventing ostracism based on sexual orientation or gender identification will lower the rate of suicides among the LGBTQ community.
Robert Creamer. "Protecting Access to Birth Control Does Not Violate Religious Freedom." Current Controversies: Politics and Religion. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Lee’s Summit High School. 31 Oct. 2013
“Those of us who trust sexuality must not allow ourselves to be controlled by those who fear it (Marty Klein).” In America censorship has affected various mediums: print, art, television, and internet, as it pertain to sexuality. However the first amendment “protects” the right to free speak, and press. Congress has tried to pass bills to outlaw pornography, (but have failed) ban books for sexual content, and dictate what can be said on TV and radio. If the government is allowed to censor these ways of communication then we, as citizens of a democracy, will be treated as citizens under a dictatorship. “Censorship may even suppress new and different ideas, keeping them from being made public. It may also set limitations, which stifle the creativity of authors and prevent them from thoroughly expressing their ideas (anonymous)”. The religious groups, parent groups and feminist, are the factor in pressuring governments to implement stricter moral codes. The problem is that these groups view sex as a means of procreation. Yes we are mammals, but we do not have sex just to mate like hors...
“…sex attains meaning in social relations, which implies that we can only make appropriate choices around sexuality by understanding its social, cultueral and political context.” (Quote: 9293 jeffrey weeks)
In order for Corvino to make his position that gay sex is not morally “unnatural”, he must first respond to several arguments. Many natural law theorists believe that sexual organs should only be used for three distinct purposes; reproduction, making a home for children through marriage, and emotional bonds. However, Corvino responds to this by arguing many of the human organs can be used for different functions, therefore we cannot make an argument defending only sexual organs. In his work he refers to this principle of what can be considered natural and unnatural when stating, “If the unnaturalness charge is to be more than empty rhetorical flourish, those who levy it must specify what they mean” (Corvino 84). He uses this statement to support his claim that gay sex is morally natural by proving that society often claims many “unnaturally” processed goods as being natural. If this is the case then we cannot define a human function as “unnatural” with any moral justification.
On February 27, 2014 Daily News published an article on their web page called: Five arguments against gay marriage. In the article, author Seth Forman states his opinion on gay marriage. Forman says in the opening of the article “Putting gay unions on a legal par with heterosexual ones may radically alter our culture.” Forman then continues to provide his readers with five points explaining his position on the topic. His first statement is on religious freedom, this one of the main arguments against gay rights. The bible does not mention homosexuality specifically but it is evident that it is condemned. A passage in the Book of Leviticus identifies homosexuality as an abomination, and a detestable sin. Romans1:26-27 describes homosexual desires to be shameful. The bible also describes marriage and that it is to be between a man and a woman. Genesis 2:24:"Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." Forman quotes opponents in a Newsday editorial saying opponents “will be seen by future generations in much the same light as those who opposed school desegregation.” Forman’s second concern is the rights of children. He st...
Stein, Edward. The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 1999. Print. 20 Oct. 2011
They involve new issues that we never had in the past. In the past we dealt with things such as civil rights for African Americans, today we struggle with rights for gay, lesbian and transgender people. While some people believe that choice of sexual orientation is moral based on their personal choices. Kenny Miller from Wolfe’s Moral Freedom is the perfect example of this. Although he doesn’t believe in his friend’s fascination with sadomasochism he believes that is makes sense for his friend (Wolfe, 2001). The women described in this book (Mary Masters and Julia Fenton) would find that these types of actions are immoral based on their religious beliefs. Although this is not necessarily a gay rights issue, but an issue regarding sexual freedom, it can still relate to issues we face today. Recently, gay marriage was made legal in all fifty states. While much of the United States rejoiced in a major civil rights movement, others feared that it threatened traditional families and standards that were previously upheld. This is a positive step forward in terms of the amount of moral freedom that we have. We need to be able to have freedom in order to have moral freedom. It could be seen that when given more freedom on the issue, some may choose to take this path and continue in homosexual marriages, and those who do not believe in in neither have to participate and do not have to agree with it