Morality of Homosexuality According to Rachels
The ethics and morality of homosexuality and homosexual acts have been debated and questioned by many groups of people using several moral approaches to argue their point. It seems that the group of people who are most against homosexuality are religious groups, specifically Christians. Homosexuality however is not morally wrong and many arguments will be presented to refute the claims by those who do believe that homosexuality is unethical and morally wrong.
The approaches that is used the most to argue that homosexuality and the acts that are involved are morally wrong which is used most by Christians is the Theory of Natural Law. Now there are three main points to this theory and the first point is that it is believed that “everything in nature has a purpose” (Rachels & Rachels, 2012). Aristotle, who is very well known and respected stated that if everyone believes that nature makes objects for a specific purpose, and that this believe is correct, then, nature makes things for the sake of man.
Christians believe that God created things in nature for a specific plan and so if that specific plan can not be carried out, then it should not be done and therefore is morally wrong. To connect this part of the Theory of Natural Law to thoughts about homosexuality, one of the main arguments against homosexual acts is that it is “unnatural. ” Christians believe the act of homosexual sex is immoral because it does not end in the production of life, which according to them are the main purposes of sex, to create life.
This argument is easily refuted however. When using the evolutionary sense of the term “unnatural,” which is how most Christians use it in their arguments, they mean that homosexuality is morally wrong because it involves the unnatural use of body parts. It is believed by some, that because God had created genitals and the act of sex for procreation, and homosexual sex can not end in procreation, that those individuals engaging in those acts are using their body parts for something it they were not intended for. Therefore, what they are doing is wrong.
However, there are many couples that are sterile, who will never have the opportunity to procreate, and yet as long as the sex is heterosexual, Christians do not condemn them. The Roman Catholic church who does not agree with the use of birth control, still allows couples to have sex if they are infertile or during pregnancy (Mappes, Zembaty & DeGrazia, 2012). Therefore the Catholic church can claim that if the body parts are not being used for the purpose of procreation then it is unnatural and immoral otherwise they would be contradicting their own practices.
Besides, as pointed out in the book by Mappes, Zembaty & DeGrazia (2012), we have multiple purposes for our organs and body parts. Just because we use our mouths to not only breath, consume nutrients and communicate, but also to chew gum and lick stamps, does not mean that those acts are immoral. Even though our moths were not originally intended to chew gum or lick stamps, does not mean that those acts are unethical. Besides, it is also recognized by Christians that a second purpose of heterosexual sex is to bond and connect with your partner and to express love.
Homosexuals use their genitals during sexual acts for those same reasons as well. So, it stands to show that Homosexuality and Homosexual sex are not immoral and unethical due to the “unnatural” use of their sex organs. A second part to the Theory of Natural Law is the belief that all things unnatural are bad and that what is and what ought to be should be the same or else it is morally wrong. The example that Rachels & Rachels (2012) gives is that Beneficence is morally right. That we should always act in the best interest of others because we care.
If we do not care and therefore are not working in the best interest of others, then were are not being beneficent and that is morally wrong. Those who do not care and do not practice beneficence are often regarded as wrong. For example, these such individuals may be diagnoses with a mental illness called antisocial personality disorder because those who do not care, couldn’t possibly be well. It is believed that these individuals ways of thinking are wrong and therefore should be fixed. So, because society believes that people ought to be beneficent and therefore if they are not, then their actions are morally wrong.
Rachels & Rachels (2012) then points out that sex produces babies, that is fact. But does it then follow that sex ought to produces babies? Not necessarily. Those who have genetic mutations that could produce offspring with those same genetic mutations or diseases could be said ought not to have babies because it would perpetuate pain and suffering. Should it follow then those individuals ought not to have sex at all? It is not considered morally wrong for those with genetic illness to have sex, but it maybe thought to be morally wrong for them to produce a child.
So, what is and what ought to be are different. In regards to Homosexuality, some believe that those individuals ought not to have sex because it is not an innate desire and therefore is unnatural. And as stated before that in which is unnatural ought not to occur according to the Theory of Natural Law. It is argued that References Rachels, J. , & Rachels, S. (2012). The elements of moral philosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Mappes, T. A. , Zembaty, J. S. , & DeGrazia, D. (2012). Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
