Harris 1 George B. Harris III Lecturer: Andrew Winders PHIL 1020-OL1 Intro to Ethics & Society 8 December 2009
Is Homosexuality Wrong? 1. Introduction: 1.1 Thesis: In this paper, I will arguing that homosexuality is part of the human condition and cannot be deemed morally wrong on the basis that 1) it’s concept goes beyond any argument listed in the text for class PHIL 1020-OL1 and 2) excluding a person’s personal objection to the type of sexual intercourse people may engage in, the concept of love and happiness is universal.
1.2 Plan for the paper: I will be using a deontological based argument to show that the acts committed in the pursuit of a homosexual relationship are the same as that of a heterosexual relationship. I will address the article written by written by Michael Levin to show how is application of the misuse of body parts theory was inappropriate for this argument. I will also adjust his argument to show a more feasible us for this theory. Finally I will talk about my belief that by accepting homosexuality as a normal part of our societies, we can gain a more holistic view of love and relationships.
Harris 2 1.3 Background: Historically, many cultures have engaged in what have been called homosexual acts and relationships for centuries. For example, anthropologists Stephen Murray and Will Roscoe found instances of women in Lesotho who engaged in long-term erotic relationships, also known as “motsoalle”. E. E. Evans-Pritchard also found evidence of male Azande warriors in the Congo who, as part of their normal lives, had young male lovers who performed duties generally associated with a heterosexual mate. In fact, the first recorded “homosexual couple” in history lived around 2400 BCE in Egypt. Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum are depicted in an ancient illustration holding a nose-kissing position, which was the most intimate pose in Egyptian art. In the Americas, prior to the occupation of the Europeans, Native American nations embraced individuals which they referred to as “Two Spirits”. These people were commonly shaman and revered for having powers above those of other shaman; but socially lived out their lives with partners of the same sex. The same can be said for pre-occupation Latin America; the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechaus, Mochoes, Zapotecs and Tupinamba were all noted for having practiced sodomy openly. These parts of our ancient cultures which survived for generations where not seen as immoral, obscene, unusual or a sin. They were celebrated parts of who and what we were (are)… humans; sexual creatures. These aspects of ourselves where destroyed when many of our cultures to assimilated by the often power hungry, and in this case, hypocritical cultures. 2. Argument: The first part of my argument addresses how a person is typically classified as a homosexual in today’s society. This is done by examining the sexual active undertaken by two people of the same sex; regardless of if that might be actual intercourse or something a bit less invasive. I do not presume to speak for others, only myself and those who feel the way I do; homosexuality is more than a sexual act. It is a fundamental fact of who I am. It shapes my
Harris 3 ideas and the way in which I view the world. To simply rely on a sexual act to define this category of people does harm to those who have come before us and those who will come after us. It is a well documented fact that a large percentage of pre-pubescent and pubescent children often experiment with children of the same sex. This is very common practice, but again, does not mean that these children are, in fact, gay or even bisexual. To assume that these acts determine your sexuality ultimately means that any boy or girl who ever kisses someone of the same sex, or a child who experiments with someone of the same sex is homosexual and, therefore homosexuality is transient state of human existence. Now, if one were to base the definition of homosexuality on the acts sole, then I might be able to digest that notion. However, that theory wouldn’t account for the people who have and/or continue to be completely celibate, but consider themselves homosexual. Michael Levin wrote an article title What Homosexuality Is Wrong which was published in What’s Wrong – Second Edition. This article calls homosexuality immoral on the basis that those who participate in homosexual acts are misusing their bodies. He begins his argument by talking about some background on his conclusion; referring to the “S is for F in O” equation. He cites examples of people misusing things like teeth to help him make his case. He also makes the statement that homosexuals will be less happy because of their misuse of their genitals. To better explain this equation; if a person needs access to a room, they would be required to use a key, which would fit into a lock; this key would then open the door. In this example the key would equal “S”, the lock would equal “F” and the door would equal “O”. So that they key is for the lock in the door; with humans this equation isn’t as cut an dry and Mr. Levin would have you believe, especially when it comes to the sexual organs. Humans, unlike many types of chordates have the ability to enjoy and seek out sex for reasons other than reproduction. With others in this
Harris 4 category sexual interaction frequently is awkward and in some cases painful; that is not the case with humans. Our sexual anatomy provides a great deal of pleasure, which Mr. Levin does not address in his article. Granted, using the “S” is for “F” in “O” equation, if you define the “F” as reproduction, then technically this would be a misuse of our sexual organs because there is not chance of reproducing in strictly homosexual sex. However, if the “F” is defined as either expressions of love, enjoyment or recreation, then there is no misuse of our organs. The same can be said for redefining what “O” represents in this equation. If we limit this discussion to humans sexuality only, the “O” would then have a very limited (in the mainstream of thinking) number of possibilities; heterosexuals, bisexual or homosexuals. Please keep in mind that these labels do not take into account other categories like transgender because their sexual behavior could be only fall into one of these two categories. By defining “O” in this manner, you are forced to reevaluate the possible usages of said organs. For example using this equation; The Penis(S) is for providing sexual pleasure to men and the possibility of reproduction or sexual pleasure to women in bisexuals. I chose to give this example first because it has the most variables, providing something to both men and women. If you substitute “O” with homosexual or heterosexual, you will find that your options for “F” become more limiting. Basing this argument on a deontological perspective, it is very easy to show that homosexuality cannot be considered immoral and/or improper based on the fact that, based on an analysis of Maslow’s hierarchy of human need, homosexuality has the potential to fulfill four of the five steps in his pyramid. Within this hierarchy, the four levels of need which homosexuality has the potential to fulfilling are critical to the achievement of the self-actualization step. This is not to say that homosexuality, considering one’s self homosexual or engaging in homosexual acts alone provides for the fulfillment of these needs, but rather the search for companionship and love,
Harris 5 regardless of sexual orientation. When you look at the ways in which homosexuals and heterosexuals function in romantic situations, there are very little differences; each seeking out sex (physiological level), security of family (safety level), friendship, family, sexual intimacy (love/belonging level) and respect by others (esteem level). Therefore, to the issue is not how and with whom one conducts their sexual lives, but rather evaluating the question; is it immoral for a person to fulfill their human need; the answer of course being no. 3. Objections: With any argument, there will be objections to the points which I have addressed in the paper. The first obvious objection would be from religious aspect, focusing on the physical relationships that homosexuals engage in. Those with strong religious motivation, they would likely quote the following passages; Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable act.”, Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man practices homosexuality having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.”, and finally 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “…Thos who indulge in sexual sin…or practice homosexuality… - none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God”. Being a person of faith, I do believe that the Bible, or whatever holy book you choose to believe in is inspired by a divine force. However, it is very well documented that the Bible, has been manipulated by man to serve its need during the creation of the King James Version. Second, I would argue that how can something that provides love and care not be from God? The next objection would be to the modified use of the “S” is for “F” in “O” equation. Those who would have a problem with my use of this formula, would probably argue that regardless of personal intent, the biological intent of our sexual organs are for the purposes of reproduction and the survival of our species. While that fact cannot be argued, humans have the capacity to be
Harris 6 more than the sum of their parts. Again, this is exemplified by the human ability, and want, to mate outside of what could be considered a mating cycle or for the sole purpose of enjoyment. I use that statement with a touch of hesitation, because it would seem that I may also be arguing that homosexuality is a choice and not a “hard wired” part of our being; that is not the case. I am a firm believer that homosexuality is something that is, for whatever reason, part of who we are from the day we are born. I do not know of many individuals, including myself, who would not lead a “normal” life if given a choice. In response to any argument about my modified usage, I would respond by saying that, if a person truly believes that nature builds in the reward or “R”, as Mr. Levin indicated in his article, then one would need to rethink what that “R” is when it comes to the penis and vagina. Yes, these organs are built for the purpose of reproduction, but they are also built for the purpose of pleasure; in the case of homosexuals the action simulates those needed for reproduction, but the “R” is in fact, the orgasm. Taking into account that “R” is now the orgasm, when you look at “S is for F in O”, the S is obvious the body part in question, and the “O” is humans. However, the “F” is not procreation, but rather the expression of one’s affection and need for sexual intimacy; as is the case with heterosexuals. If that is the case, then there is no misuse of the body part in the case of homosexuals because that function is carried out whether is with a woman or man. An unnatural use of this body part would be, for example, using a penis to clean your friend’s ear. In that function, there is no chance of the reproduction, or enjoyment; but that is an assumption made by using this example. To my final point, I believe the main objection to my association of my argument to the hierarchy of needs could be seen as those personal needs that would lead to the survival and success of our species. In this statement, the assumption is made that those who are homosexuals do not feel that need to reproduce and/or to carry on their family lines. This obviously not the
Harris 7 case; as there are countless examples of both gay male and lesbian couples who have either adopted children or find alternative ways conceive biological children. To any objection that would arise from the reading of this argument, I would say that my reasoning is sound, given the examples that I have provided. People of course will find fault with this argument, but that does not mean that my premises are false; they are, however, open to personal perception. I would hope that by the time my conclusion is reached, the readers of this essay will be able to agree that regardless of their personal feeling about the sexual relationships that homosexuals engage in, that sex is but a very small part of any relationship; heterosexual or homosexual. If I were to restructure my argument, I would potentially argue that homosexuality is not an issue up for moral discussion because the overarching goal supported by this small part of human interaction, sex, is actually happiness. Homosexuality would then become a act by which this goal is achieved. Since this goal is universal to all humans, it therefore cannot be immoral. 4. Conclusion: In this paper, I sought out to provide an argument which stated that homosexuality is part of the human condition and cannot be deemed morally wrong on the basis that 1) it’s concept goes beyond any argument listed in the text for class PHIL 1020-OL1 and 2) excluding a person’s personal objection to the type of sexual intercourse people may engage in, the concept of love and happiness is universal. My argument was primarily broken into three supporting statements. The first being that the classification of a people based on their sexual orientation is wrong. The fact that a man is sexually attracted to another man, or a woman to a woman, does not predetermine them to be a good or bad person. In short this is would be the same for saying that a person who enjoys oranges rather than apples is immoral. The second part of my argument focused on the argument put forth by Michael Levin regarding the morality of
Harris 8 homosexuality based on the potential misuse of their body. By changing the variables of this equation, I was able to successfully show that given the circumstances surrounding homosexual sex, there is no misuse of our body parts. My supporting argument was by examining Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, as it related to homosexuals. I looked at some of the potential objections which could be raised to my argument which included religious evidence and survival of our species. In conclusion, homosexuality cannot be found to be immoral because it is based on acts engaged in by to people who are trying to fulfill a universal right to seek out happiness and companionship.
Harris 9
Bibliography Boonin, David, and Graham Oddie. What’s Wrong: Applied Ethicist and Their Critics – Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print
Holy Bible – New Living Translation (Second Edition). Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publisher, INC, 2004. Print