Non Hetrosexual vs Heterosexual Rights

1610 Words Feb 17th, 2018 6 Pages
Heterosexual Rights We would like to think that all people are created equal, but in today’s society non-heterosexuals are struggling to get and/or keep basic rights. John Finnis, John Corvino, and Martha Nussbaum are all philosophers who discuss the topic of non-heterosexuality. I’ll begin by covering viewpoints of each individual philosopher, followed by arguments in favor of my position and arguments against my position. Finally, after addressing the above, I will argue that John Corvino and Martha Nussbaum are correct in arguing that non-heterosexuals deserve to have the same basic rights and freedoms of heterosexuals. Philosopher John Finnis does not believe non-heterosexuals deserve equal rights. In his article, Finnis discusses what he believes to be the correct sexual relationship. “The orgasmic union of the reproductive organs of husband and wife really unites them biologically; that orgasmic union therefore can actualize and allow them to experience their real common good” (Finnis 2009, 290). In presenting this excerpt, Finnis is claiming that the only way to enjoy sex is heterosexually. Having sex heterosexually can also lead to reproduction which is also a positive to sexual intercourse. Later, Finnis addresses non-heterosexuals, “But the common good of friends who are not and cannot be married (man and man, man and boy, woman and woman) has nothing to do with their having children by each other, their reproductive organs cannot make them…
Open Document