More handpicked essays just for you.
The history of homosexuality and its negative impact on society
Homosexuality throughout history
The history of homosexuality and its negative impact on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Natural law theorists claim that actions are deemed right just because they are looked at as natural and something that is unnatural is immoral. However, there are different understandings of what is natural and what is not, which can make support for this theory hard. Examples such as homosexuality, give a strong argument against the natural law theory. We will look at the work of John Corvino as he explains the arguments for the immorality of homosexuality, but also the reasons why these arguments are not strong evidence. With these examples in mind, the fact that something is unnatural is not a good enough reason to claim something immoral.
A natural law theorist says that actions are right because they are natural and wrong because they
…show more content…
People’s different values and morals play a role in defining what they believe. Many people find homosexuality to be not natural, and it goes against many people’s views. However, there is also a lot of people who argue in favor of homosexuality and find nothing about it unnatural. For those people who do think it is not natural they normally use the argument that this kind of sex can not reproduce, therefore it is not right because the point of sex is to reproduce. Many times the Bible will also be used to refer to verses that condemn acts of homosexual sex. People who favor the morality of homosexuality find many things wrong with these arguments. To say that the only purpose of sex is to reproduce would be wrong because there are many examples of heterosexual couples who have sex without the intention of conception. Medical problems, protected sex, and just sex for fun are all reasons why …show more content…
He examines the core arguments against homosexual sex such as: it is abnormal, the idea that homosexuals choose to be that way, it goes against the purpose of our sexual reproductive organs, it is disgusting and how it goes against biblical teachings. He first looks at the meaning of homosexual sex being “unnatural”. It is hard for him to claim that one definition of natural is right compared to another person’s. He does argue against the idea of natural law theorists by saying that many things that are important in our society are not natural, and there are many natural things that people detest. He says, “If the unnaturalness charge is to be more than empty rhetorical flourish, those who levy it must specify what they mean”(Shafer-Landau 239). Disease and death are natural things that people do not like. Cancer is natural but no one believes that it is just or good. Then there are unnatural things people enjoy in life such as medications and a democratic government. These examples refer back to Corvino’s quote, challenging the true intentions of those who argue things based on naturalness. Another challenge to the naturalness of homosexuality is the idea that a homosexual person chooses to live that lifestyle, they were not born that way. It is hard to believe this is true however due to the fact that most heterosexuals cannot
He proposed a theory that people are different from one another, yet they strive to be the same. People have the desire to “fit in” or be “normal. This subconscious yearning to be like others causes people to betray their natural nature and to be untrue to their selves. What one considers the norm, pertaining to sex, another might not. Since the topic is rarely discussed, the idea of “normal” in society is ultimately a guess. We should not disregard our natural behaviors as humans to please others or to be accepted into a society or a culture. We have the freedom to make our own sexual decisions and possess our own values. This being said, it should be accepted and “normal” to express ourselves how we would like to without a second thought of what is important to
Most can agree that in, most circumstances, these actions are evil, so it can be concluded that there are certain things that a person simply ought not to do. This is the foundation of C.S. Lewis’ Moral Law argument for the existence of God. Lewis argues that every person has a sense of right and wrong moral behavior, and this sense presses upon us. This is what he calls the Law of Human nature, or Moral Law. However, unlike other laws like gravity, this law can be disobeyed. In fact, despite the fact that all people are aware of this law, they constantly disobey
All sins are forgivable and we are all sinners, but sin has to be recognized for what it is if divine mercy is to be had. So much of the talk about homosexuality is an understandable human effort to change the subject. Any reference to the wrongness of homosexuality is likely to invite the charge of homophobia, turning the accusation on the supposed accuser. But of course the moral law is not the property of anyone, and invoking it need not be an accusation. The problem is not how others react to homosexuality but the plight of the homosexual. And reaching out to the homosexual in his plight is the subject of this paper.
His theory as to why homosexuality is abnormal (because of humans misusing their body parts) may propose a weak argument at first; however he supports this aspect of his argument by giving an example unrelated to human sexuality. His example involves the use of our teeth, although we may not realize it, those who do not have teeth usually don’t enjoy consuming all of their food through a straw.... ... middle of paper ... ...
All citations from Cahill, Lisa. “Homosexuality: A Case Study in Moral Argument.” Homosexuality in the Church. Ed. By Jeffrey Siker. Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, 1994. 61-75.
C.S. Lewis begins his book, “Mere Christianity”, by introducing the Law of Right and Wrong or the Laws of Nature. This, however, arises a question. What is the Law of Nature? The Law of Nature is the known difference between right and wrong. That is, mans distinction between what is right and what is wrong. “This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that everyone knew it and did not need to be taught it”(18). Lewis relates the law to how we treat others. We treat others the way we want to be treated and if they treat us poorly in return we become agitated and annoyed with them. He states that we become a society of excuses when something goes wrong. He goes on to say that we want to behave in a certain way when in reality we do the opposite of what is right or what is wrong. We are humans and humans have primal instincts. We are all capable of using our instincts to do right or wrong. Lewis uses an example of a drowning man to prove this point. When one sees a man in trouble two desires or instincts kick into play, to save the man or ignore him because the situation at hand could endanger you. However, there in another impulse that says help the man. With this comes a conflict of instincts. Do you run and forget about it or do you jump in and help. Most people will help even if the situation is going to endanger their life. This is just one way of seeing moral law. The right in a situation will mostly always prevail over the wrong. “Men ought to be unselfish, ought to be fair. Not that men are selfish, nor that they like being unselfish, but they ought to be”(30). We are creatures of habit and logic. Lewis believes that the moral law is not taught to us rather known by us instinctively. He also believes that the law is real. The law is our behaviors in life via good or bad. Lewis states, “there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behavior”(30). This opens Lewis to believe that the natural law is both alive and active in mans life today. Lewis goes on to say that the law must be something above mans behavior. He begins to relate this to the creation of the world.
Natural law is a natural sense of what is right and wrong. Natural Law Theory states that laws are rational standards. Thomas Aquinas talked a lot about Natural Law Theory
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.
The second law of nature is derived directly from the first. It insists that man lay down his right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men liberty against himself,” (Leviathan 1, 14). Essentially, in the state of nature, a man has a right to all things. By following this second law of nature, a man gives up certain rights in hopes that other men do the same in pursuit of peace with one another.
Natural law theory is the moral theory that states that all human being action needs to be in accordance with the natural law. For example, I do not harm any human being because it is not my right to take someone’s life only God has this right. Another example, when I drive near a school zone, I make sure to drive at a low speed because I do not want to run over any children. I use the doctrine of double effect sometimes when I have to choose between two issues. The doctrine of double effect states that if an action has two effects, one good and one bad, one should only do it if they only intend the good effect, the good effect outweighs the bad effect and is just as likely to occur and only if there is no way to get...
“All men are created equal, No matter how hard you try, you can never erase those words,” Harvey Milk. A homosexual, as defined by the dictionary, is someone of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. Homosexuality is ethical, and I will provide rational arguments for, and irrational arguments against the topic. A few objections are as follows: It is forbidden in the Bible and frowned upon by God; It is unnatural; Men and women are needed to reproduce; There are no known examples in nature; and the most common argument that concerns homosexuality is whether it is a choice or human biology.
The Theory of Natural Law, defined in three aspects, there being a natural order in the world, everything having a purpose and how things are and how things ought to be. This theory also states that humans can distinguish between what is right or wrong through human reason/moral knowledge. On the other hand, the Divine Command Theory is a view of morality and believes that what’s right or wrong is set by God’s moral commands. God’s commands tell us what is morally obligatory, permitted and wrong.
Just like Alfred Kinsey said “The world is not divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white.” The world is divided into people that want many different things in life, everyone has a different opinion and mind set on what they want. Some people have other beliefs and values than other people, so we cannot judge them for being themselves. I believe that sexuality is the way that you express yourself through sex, or sexual actions. There are many factors that go into sexuality. I mainly learned about how sex worked through my health and child development classes. There were other things that contributed to my knowledge on sex, those were media, talking with friends or people at school, and my family values. How I think about sex is greatly impacted by these factors, some factors impacted me more than others but all of them still have an impact on my beliefs today.
Religion is a major aspect on why society believes that homosexuality is wrong and should not be accepted. Individuals who are against the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) community because of their religion believe that “homosexuality is a horrid transgression of God’s plan” (Bawer 74). They consider them sinners because they are going against God’s original intention; relationships should be between a man and a woman. Nia Augustin is a member of the Christian community and believes that supporting or being homosexual goes against her religion beliefs. In her interview, Augustin stated, “I have been told that the purpose of a man and woman being together is to reproduce, but a homosexual couple cannot do that, so that's not of God.” Homosexuality is sinful and wrong in the eyes of religious individuals because it involves sex that does not produce life. However, it is ironic that individuals that use contraceptives to prevent them from creating another life are not judged as cruelly by society. Even though homosexuals are not able to have children, they are still people and they deserve to be treated likewise.
The natural law was given to man so that he might know virtue. While the natural law is vague, and hard to understand it always points in the right direction. Human law derives its precepts from the natural law. However, human law often misinterprets what the highest good is and creates laws that disagree with the natural law. One case where the natural law conflicts with human law is abortion, which is directly opposed to the natural law of God.