Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
According to ethical theory homosexuality
Debate for same sex marriage legalization
Debate for same sex marriage legalization
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: According to ethical theory homosexuality
In today’s news and media, it seems that the topic of homosexuality and whether it is morally acceptable or unacceptable is brought up on a daily occurrence. Many individuals believe that homosexuality is a problem and ceremonies such as gay marriage should not be allowed. However, what is it that makes homosexuality considered wrong? Critics argue that homosexuality goes against the Bible—the word of God—and is immoral. The issue of homosexuality, however, is argued further when considering the topic of sexual ethics; homosexuality is not the only aspect of sexual ethics but also what is good and what is the purpose of sex and taboo situations such as incest, rape, pre-marriageable sex, monogamy and polygamy. Two philosophers, John Corvino and Alexander Pruss, argue their views on the matter of sexual ethics and give their opinions in relations to above issues, most notably in discussing the purpose of sex. By focusing on Pruss’s nature of love argument, more specifically that the “illusions of sex” are not what makes sex good and how same-sex relations are not morally permissible will construct an arguments against the permissibility of various sexual activities. Sexual ethics, otherwise known as sexual morality, involves issues revolving around one’s sexuality and human sexual behaviors. Alexander Pruss discusses sexual ethics in the form of the importance of love and the forms that it takes. According to Pruss, “there are, at least, three intertwined aspects to all forms of love: appreciation, benevolence, and a striving for union ("From Love to Union as One Body" 17).” When looking at the three forms of love, one can argue that everyone needs all three aspects in order to achieve and feel true love. However, out of the three,... ... middle of paper ... ...lse pleasure seekers while avoiding the true goodness of sex. Unfortunately, homosexuality is considered to be not morally permissible, too since it goes against the Old Testament where God had deemed it as inappropriate since it goes against his plans for reproduction. It is important to remember the intercourse when two beings become one flesh and body that function together is the most important form of love since it not only fulfils one’s emotional and physical needs but it satisfies the yearning that romantic love craves for. Works Cited Pruss, Alexander R. "From Love to Union as One Body." One Body: An Essay in Christian Sexual Ethics (ND Studies in Ethics and Culture). N.p.: U of Notre Dame, 2012`. 17-27. Print. Pruss, Alexander R. "Same-sex Relations: The Argument from the Old Testament." Web log post. Blogspot.com. N.p., 2 Jan. 2008. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
In the debate over homosexuality, Christian ethicists have many authorities to draw from. From the mixture of biblical sources, traditional authorities, empirical and descriptive accounts, and cultural norms, Cahill chooses general biblical themes and modern culture as the primary authorities for her ethic. This departure from traditional Roman Catholic teaching implies some flaw in the connection between the Holy Spirit, the church, and common believers. Cahill’s decision is her method of fixing this disconnect and reuniting Christ’s message with all believers.
Thus, the partygoers in Symposium have gathered during a festival celebrating the fertility and productivity of heterosexual relationship to attempt to justify their homosexual relationships by eulogizing Eros. Since heterosexual relationships were justified by the production of children, a justification of homosexual relationships woul...
In John Corvino’s essay, “Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex?” he advocates his argument that gay sex is not “unnatural” in any moral way. However, this argument is easy to critique when considering opposition from natural law theorists, democracy, and other perspective ideas.
In the article “An Anthropological Look at Human Sexuality” the authors, Patrick Gray and Linda Wolfe speak about how societies look at human sexuality. The core concept of anthology is the idea of culture, the systems of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors people acquire as a member of society. The authors give an in depth analysis on how human sexuality is looked at in all different situations.
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
Aristophanes thinks that a human’s love is clearly “a lack” – a lack of one’s other half- and having no meant to satisfy themselves they begin to die. Zeus, having failed to foresee this difficulty repairs the damage by inventing sexual reproduction (191 b-c). Any “embracements” of men with men or of women with women would of course be sterile – though the participants would at least “have some satiety of their union and a relief,” (191 c) and therefore would be able to carry on the work of the world. Sex, therefore, is at this stage a drive, and the object is defined only as human. Sexual preferences are to emerge only as the human gains experience, enabling them to discover what their “original form” had been.
Corvino is right in defending the morality of homosexuality, because homosexuality is morally sound. This essay has a very sound argument. Majority of the essay is spent pointing flaws in the opposition, rendering the opposing arguments null. I enjoy Corvino’s argument because by making all the opposing arguments invalid, readers are led to one conclusion: Homosexual sex is morally sound.
Milstein, Susan A. Taking Sides Clashing Views in Human Sexuality. Ed. William J. Taverner and Ryan W. McKee. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
In Sigmund Freud’s “Sexual Morality and Modern Nervousness”, contained in Sexuality and the Psychology of Love, the writer presents separate roles for men and women as it relates to sexuality, even referring to a “double code of morality” (22) for the genders. In his paper the former often takes the role of the subject while the former becomes the object. In fact, women are described as the “true sexual guardians of the race” glorified, it seems, instead of truly studied. However, in one particular section of the essay, Freud turns his focus onto the female sexuality. In specific he references the various factors that, in his eyes, can influence the female sexual formation. The primary influences being that of the society, primarily the institution of marriage, and that of the family, which would include both a woman’s parents and children. After discussing these elements, Freud then
Homosexuality is a sensitive topic and often avoided in conversation. For centuries the human race has oppressed and persecuted others strictly because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual etc. Although it is disturbing to most of us, these actions still occur in our society today, as many believe that homosexuality is abnormal and disgraceful. One supporter of this belief is Michael Levin, who strongly believes that homosexuality is highly abnormal and thus, undesirable. Although his beliefs and theories supporting this claim are subjective, there is evidence that can support his stance on this topic; we will analyze this claim in further detail and how it relates to his other views mentioned in this essay.
The issues of sexual ethics in relation to morality and perversion have been addressed in depth by each of the gentleman at this table. Sexual activity as described by Solomon and Nagle is comprised of a moral standard and ‘naturalness’ aspect. So, in claiming an act is perverted we must first examine it through a moral framework and understand how this interacts with the ‘naturalness’ of a particular act. Solomon makes the distinction as follows “Perversion is an insidious concept…To describe an activity as perverse is not yet a full blown moral condemnation, for it need not entail that one ought not to indulge in such activities.” Along with the examination of the nature of an act, there must be clear justification as to why sexual acts deserve special separate ethical principles. The question arises: does an act simply due to its sexual nature deserve a separate form of moral inquisition than other acts that occur in nature? In this essay I shall argue that perversion and immorality are not mutually exclusive. By this I mean that a sexual act that is, by my definition, immoral must also be perverted. It is also my contention that if an act is perverted we must also define it as immoral. This second part of the argument is contrary to what many of you have claimed. At the outset of this paper I would also like to state my support of Thomas Nagel’s argument holding that the connection between sex and reproduction has no bearing on sexual perversion. (Nagel 105)
These questions arise from our own desires as Christians to reflect a biblically sound attitude towards sexuality and relationships. That same desire to act according to biblical scriptures is subject to opposition from today’s culture and views about sexual relationships, gender, and roles. A new definition of marriage, sexual orientation, and sexual practices is challenging our relationship with God and our view of human sexuality. Bishop John Spong defines sex and its impact on relationships: “Sex can be called at once the greatest gift to humanity and the greatest enigma of our lives. It is a gift in that is a singular joy for all beings and enigma in its destructive potential for people and their relationships.” (Spong, 1988)
“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.
In order to address this issue, one must first define the concept or meaning of marriage. However, this is a rather subjective approach, because the way we define marriage depends on our own views and interpretations.
On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Should gay marriages be legal? Clearly we as a nation are undecided on this issue. Thirty-six states have passed legislation banning gay marriages, yet a few states have passed laws that allows homosexual couples the right to participate in civil unions. Several other states are also debating whether or not to allow these couples to marry. Unfortunately, the dispute has left the United States' homosexual community in an awkward position. There are some people who think that gay people have no rights and should never be allowed to marry, and others believe that gay people should enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals. I think that the United States should allow same-sex couples to marry just like heterosexual couples.