Michael Levins Beliefs On Homosexuals Philosophy Essay
Have you ever seen gay or lesbian people in public; in other words homosexuals? If you have, what is your opinion on the issue? Do you feel it is something normal or abnormal? Michael Levin strongly believes that homosexuality is an act that is absurd and abnormal. He states that homosexuality is abnormal and therefore it is unfavorable. He defends his opinion with several different arguments. In his first argument, he states that same sex intimacy is a misuse of sexual organs. Then he goes on to say that homosexuality causes unhappiness. In conclusion, he states that the act of homosexuality should never be taken into consideration to become legalized since it is something against human nature. I strongly agree with Levin on his point of view about homosexuality. In this essay, I will be discussing Levin’s arguments for the view that homosexuality is abnormal.
What Levin means by the word “abnormal” is something that is biologically unnatural or in other words, against human nature. He doesn’t mean that homosexuality is immoral or sinful; but for purely mechanical reason; it is a misuse of bodily parts. In his first argument, he states that “misusing the body’s sexual organs could frustrate the intention of some purposeful agent”. What Levin means by this is that if one is not heterosexual, he/she would be damaging their sexual organs which causes frustration and therefore, decreases happiness. He also points out that homosexuals are much unhappier than heterosexuals. His main argument on the misuse of body parts is on grounds of natural selection, which he believes is also connected to the unhappiness of homosexuals. Levin argues that a man and a woman’s private parts are made for each other. To prove his point true, he gives an example about a person named Mr. Jones wearing his teeth as a necklace around his neck instead of using his teeth for the use of chewing. In other words, his teeth are being used for ornamentation. Another example was about a man named Mr. Smith; he used his teeth for playing music; something I personally find troublesome to imagine! He concludes from these two examples that individuals who don’t use their teeth for the reason of chewing will be selected out of the natural selection. In this example, he is comparing people who don’t use their teeth for chewing to homosexuals; what he is trying to make clear is that homosexuals may be eliminated in the future from natural selection due to their misuse of their sexual organs. In other words, nature has created a specific job or function for every single body part. Therefore, the accurate use of body parts leads to happiness and the opposite is also true. In my opinion, this is obviously common sense. Levin states the example that the male sex organ is used to ejaculate semen into the female sex organ; by doing this, more offspring are produced and therefore the family tree expands. So when a homosexual uses his sexual organ in a way to insert his penis into another males’ anus, no desires will be fulfilled, and no offspring will be produced; this causes unhappiness. The same is true for heterosexuals; but they won’t be as unhappy as homosexuals. After this statement he says, “There are after all genuinely jolly fat men”. What he means by this phrase is that there really are fat people in this world that are extremely happy and have no problem with being obese. He is comparing this example to homosexuals and heterosexuals. For example, a lazy person might be happy at some point in his life to a certain standard, but he is likely to be less happy than someone otherwise like him who exercises. Levin believes that calling homosexuality involuntary does not place it outside the scope of evolution. Victims of homosexuality are not blameworthy, but it is absurd to pretend that nothing is wrong with them! Homosexual activists believe that genetic causes exempt homosexuals from blame. What he means by this is that maybe homosexual people are born with traits that make them so. But this fact doesn’t make this normal; there is still something wrong with them and in this case it is something absurd and against human nature. He believes that people should try to solve this problem or illness and should unquestionably defy this so called anomaly. This is why Levin strongly believes that homosexuality is abnormal. After Levin proved all his statements, he concluded that since the misuse of body parts is abnormal and will lead to unhappiness, then homosexuality can also be considered abnormal and that it leads to unhappiness as well. Therefore, we as a society should oppose homosexuality.
Levin feels that if performing an action that is very likely to lead to unhappiness, then the state should not legitimize that action by granting a right to perform that act. The state should have no business encouraging actions that lead to unhappiness by creating rights or protections related to those them. Therefore, the state should not legitimize homosexual actions by granting a right to perform homosexual acts. Levin recognizes that even if there is a correlation between homosexuality and unhappiness, it does not follow that homosexuals should be denied rights under the law. However, Levin does worry that laws granting homosexuals the right to engage in sodomy (or to marry) would actually encourage homosexuality and thus those laws would increase unhappiness. He says that a state that suddenly grants a right to homosexuals might as well legitimize homosexual actions and thus encourage them. It’s like saying let’s make taking drugs legal. It causes unhappiness, suicides health problems, death and so on. Why would a government make something so bizarre legal? This is how Levin feels about the matter of homosexuality. One crucial test on Levin’s account is his prediction that homosexuals will continue to be unhappy even if people altogether abandon their “prejudice” against homosexuality.
My opinion on this issue is very similar to Levin’s attitude. I personally believe that homosexuality is against human nature and should not be an act that is accepted in today’s society. It is true that God made man for woman. The sexual organs of a male should only be inserted to the sexual organs of a female. If homosexuality was something normal, then God would have allowed offspring to be born from two male or two female partners. But as you can see, this is not true. Therefore, it is wrong and deviant. I disagree with the fact that homosexual people were born with homosexual genes which make them so. There is no such thing. They are just people that are confused or have mental problems. No one is born with genes that make them gay or lesbian and I strongly believe this. There may be people born with sexual deficiencies but this does not mean that homosexuality is an alternative solution for them. Levin is right to state that it causes unhappiness because that is true; but that should not be the reason why homosexuality should be viewed as abnormal. Recently, the American Psychiatric Association announced “Surely the time has come for psychiatry to give up the archaic practice of classifying the millions of men and women who accept or prefer homosexual object choices as being by virtue of that face alone, mentally ill. The fact that their alternative life-style happens to be out of favor with current cultural conventions must not be a basis in itself for a diagnosis”. In my opinion, this is the beginning of a disaster in today’s society. When this association announces something like this, it’s like they are saying that this is something that is normal and accepted in today’s society and that the government should support this and give homosexuals rights just like the rest of the population. Some people may be wondering as to why I am making such a big deal about this matter. The reason I am so concerned is because this issue will have a negative effect on our children and our future society. By people accepting this would be a way of admitting that there is not a problem with being homosexual. Even though people may think that homosexuality is harmless, it actually is in fact extremely detrimental.
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal: