Detail How Leiser Questions the Moral Condemnation of Homosexual Behavior

Throughout history homosexuality had been seen as a sin and a punishable action. In the bible, in

“One meaning of “unnatural” refers to that which deviates from the norm, that is, from what most people do.” (96) Corvino politely clarifies why homosexuality is natural, even though homosexuality reviewed as unnatural in the sense that it is unusual he disputes it by saying that the fact is morally irrelevant. His reason for making that statement is because you cannot say something is unnatural because it is unusual then you would say that being able to

In order for Corvino to make his position that gay sex is not morally “unnatural”, he must first respond to several arguments. Many natural law theorists believe that sexual organs should only be used for three distinct purposes; reproduction, making a home for children through marriage, and emotional bonds. However, Corvino responds to this by arguing many of the human organs can be used for different functions, therefore we cannot make an argument defending

It was not until the twelfth century that homosexuality started to be condemned. This condemnation proved to live through then until now. Due to the fact that America incorporated these early views into its early laws, even the most bland of today's sex acts were seen as unlawful (“Homosexuality and Mental Health”). Since then, these laws have changed, however, there is still a primarily negative connotation on homosexuals when coming from a church or legal standpoint concerning the masses of America.

He contradicted the argument that homosexual behaviour is related to genetic, hormonal or biological disorder. To abolish these views, the author mentions that ‘no school of medicine, medical journal or professional organization has ever recognized such claims (p. 2) - at least at the time he wrote the article in 1994.

The topic of homosexuality in religion has many sides. There are those who believe that it is a sin in God’s eyes and according to the Bible, and there are those who believe the God and the Bible are not specific to homosexuals. It is a tough debate based on whether you are a religious person, how you were raised, and where your morals and ethics stand. You cannot truly believe one way without taking into account the other side and have valid proof to back it up.

Not just a century ago, there was an act that was considered heresy; homosexuality, a different side of sexuality found in all recesses of history. Humans are not the only ones with evidence of homosexuality in their species, it has long been debated whether it was formed from being genetically born that way or nurtured. The long found history has been only puzzling as the two sides of the spectrum in views, and only being publicly accepted in the 1940s. In Natasha Tracy’s article “Why Are People Gay? Gay By Choice or Is Being Gay Genetic?” where she goes on to discuss the legitimacy of its authenticity in being a homosexual. From the views of being born or in fact the way humans are brought up determines their sexuality, criticizing in the end the matter of sexuality is a matter to the individual and should not be criticized in any way.

Webster’s online dictionary defines abnormal as deviating from the normal or average. By that definition alone homosexuality is abnormal, but there are other things that are

Religious standpoints provide colossal amounts of fuel to the debate. With Christians chanting “God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve,” we can note that the REAL fear is the fear of what they don’t understand. How is it that it is so unnatural? Unbeknownst to them, homosexuality does occur in nature, does that mean that animals have sinned too, and are damned to suffer an eternity in Hell? Or is it that animals can be excluded from this debate, simply because they aren’t human beings? Religious backgrounds contribute enormous hatred toward gay communities, and usually create bias. “The world's sacred texts are silent on the question of gay marriage, as it was not really an issue when they were written. However, those same texts do have strong opinions on homosexuality itself.”(Waldman)

This supports the reason on how homosexuality may be biologically determine. Ambrose,

Religious fundamentalism can be a powerful force, and in most cases homosexuality is taught to be morally wrong. There is a equally strong need for a more inclusive and accepting society where people are equally valued no matter the individuals sexual nature, race, social status, or religious beliefs.

Homosexuality is a heavily debated topic nowadays. They are a lot of mix sentiments when it comes to this topic. Some people believe that homosexuality is based on

The world has come very far with all the dramatic changes we have faced over the years. Wouldn’t you agree? As much change as the world has been through there are still numerous social problems that still exist in society today. Amongst those numerous social problems, sexual orientation and inequality stand out to me. Research from biology, psychology, and sociology is where our understanding of sexual orientation comes from. There are two hypothetical theories researchers have discovered examining the biological basis toward sexual orientation. One concept is the neurohormonal theory, biologist contend that homosexuality is caused by abnormal sex hormone levels in utero. The alternative theory is based on behavioral genetics, determining the source and magnitude of genetic impact on sexual orientation. This theory suggested the concept that gay men were genetically female. Later this theory was proven to be false. Homosexuality was considered as a pathology or mental illness. Not every psychologists agreed with that perspective. A researcher by the name of Havelock Ellis stated that homosexuality was congenital and for that reason it could not be considered as a disease. Sigmund Freud another theorist had the concept that everyone is born bisexual and that either homosexuality or heterosexuality is developed through social and personal experience. Ellis and Freud both concurred that homosexuality was not a mental illness. Despite these researchers’ opinions in 1973,

A major reason for the fear and objection towards homosexuality is organized religion. Whether we notice it or not, we as humans follow many everyday concepts from the Bible. Examples would be, to not steal, murder, or commit adultery in marriage. The Bible also states that homosexuality is unethical and should be avoided as other sins. These are all great to follow, if you conform to the rules of the Bible. Religious back up should not be used in order to deem something wrong or unethical. It is essential to understand, to deem homosexuality ethical or not, rational decision-making must occur. One must analyze the pros and cons; if the pros outweigh the cons, homosexuality is ethical, and visa versa. One who explicitly follows an organized religion must follow the rules of a higher power (God). Getting rid of this obstacle will leave room for autonomous decisions on homosexuality, and eventually its place in good ethics.

Homosexuality is not a 20th century situation but has been in history from the age of ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, and even China. The attitude toward homosexuality always has been a variable, depending on the social, cultural and morality, or even the political development (Barnecka et al., 2005). Back in Greek history the concept of relations between two men was seen as the highest form of love, whereas the Judaic view always was against and frowned upon these relations considering it immoral and illegal. However, when the Roman rule was destroyed and the Christians took over Europe, homosexuality was seen as perverse (Woodward, 1997).