IS HOMOSEXUALITY A VALID SEXUAL IDENTITY Research Paper

IS HOMOSEXUALITY A VALID SEXUAL IDENTITY - Research Paper warningThis idea pull up stakes explore peerless of the main government issues that reside in ethics, that is, whether oddity is vile, and if it ought to be considered as a valid sexual identity. The author of this paper will argue that homosexuality should be accepted as a valid sexual identity because none of the courses presented against homosexuality are valid. This paper will primarily deal with the nature and harm aim as presented by John Corvino. After of which, the author shall then present her analysis regarding the said issue at hand. For, upon proving that the arguments against homosexuality are by far, invalid, the author have as well shown both the importance of moral reasoning, and more importantly, that there exists no presumable ground to deem homosexuality as something out rightly immoral. The Nature and Harm Argument At this day and age, homosexuality is inevitably growing in all parts of the globe. And along with this is the growing number of differing opinions about the said matter. This section shall address the associated harm and violentness charge that the opponents of homosexuality advocate. For, it is for this reason that homosexuality is deemed as something immoral. In what follows is an analysis of the so-called nature and harm argument presented by John Corvino, in his defense of homosexuality. Many who object to homosexuality argue that it is unnatural and therefore immoral (Vaughn 231). ... The idea that animals could provide us with a sexual standard is simply amusing. And even if it were possible, it would not prove that homosexuality is immoral 3. The vestigial thought here is that all innate desires are good ones and should therefore be acted upon. However, regardless of something being innate or not, it doesnt follow that one should or should not act upon them. Likewise, determining the origin of the respective feeling or desire will not determine whether i t is moral or immoral to act upon them 4. Since people can and do use their sexual organs to procreate, it does not follow that they should not use them for other purposes. And granted that homosexual sexual relation utilizes sexual organs for other purposes aside from procreation, it does not follow that their act of fulfilling that purpose is immoral. 5. When some act is disgusting, it does not mean that it is wrong and thus, immoral. Therefore, the charge against homosexuality as something unnatural is, according to Corvino, longer on rhetorical flourish than on philosophical cogency. Upon analyzing the flow of the argument from nature, it seems that the underlying thought of the entire argument rests upon a false assumption, i.e. that any act, which is not in accordance to nature is therefore immoral. And despite the fact that there could be no logical companionship between the unnaturalness and immorality of any given act, Corvinos line of defense does not give any justice to the status of homosexuality as that which does not contribute any immoral consequences. In other words, he merely argues against the contention of homosexuality as something unnatural, but does not provide another argument or alternative that shows philosophical cogency. It