Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues - Michael Levin vs. Richard Mohr

Homosexuality - Michael Levin vs. Richard Mohr

Homosexuality has been on debate for numerous years. It is mentioned in

the Bible which is thousands of years old. But recently two philosophers have

spoken how they feel about Homosexuality. Michael Levin and Richard Mohr's

views on the subject are in conflict with one another. Levin argues that

homosexuality is abnormal because it is a misuse of body parts that have evolved

for use in heterosexual intercourse (Levin 354). Furthermore, because natural

selection has made the exercise of heterosexuality rewarding to human beings,

homosexuality has a high probability to unhappiness. Mohr refutes Levin's

stance about homosexuality myths and stereotypes. He rejects arguments that

homosexuality is immoral or unnatural.

Levin exemplifies the point that homosexuality is misuse of body parts

with the case of Mr. Smith, who likes to play "Old MacDonald" on his teeth so

devoted is he to this amusement, in fact, that he never uses his teeth for

chewing but instead takes nourishment intravenously. This is a clear example

where Mr. Smith is misusing his teeth. In addition to misuse, Levine states

that this man will have a dim future on purely physiological grounds (Levin 355).

Since Mr. Smith isn't using his teeth for chewing, his digestive system will

suffer from disuse. The result will be Mr. Smiths deteriorating health. Levin

incorporates the evolution process into this example. He states that Mr. Smith

descended from creatures who enjoy the use of such parts. Creatures who do not

enjoy using such parts of their bodies will tend to be selected out. In

particular, human males who enjoyed inserting their penises into each other's

anuses have left no descendants. Homosexuality is likely to cause unhappiness

because it leaves unfulfilled an innate and innately rewarding desire (Levin

355).

Mohr takes a completely different stance on homosexuality. According to

Mohr, homosexuality is perfectly unobjectionable. The unnaturalness charge that

Levin give homosexuality carries a high emotional feeling. This feeling is

usually expressing disgust and evincing queasiness. An example of such feelings

are some people's response to women who do not shave body hair. Many of the

people who have a strong emotional reaction, without being able to give good

reasons for them, we think of them not as operating morally, but rather as being

obsessed and maniac (Mohr 367). So the feelings of disgust that some people

have to gays will hardly ground a charge of immorality.

The idea of "natural" is a key defense in Mohr's debate. He states that

natural is that it fulfills some function in nature. According to Levin,

homosexuality on this view is unnatural because it violates the function of