Homosexuality has been on debate for numerous years. It is mentioned in the Bible which
is thousands of years old. But recently two philosophers have spoken how they feel about
Homosexuality. Michael Levin and Richard Mohr's views on the subject are in conflict
with one another. Levin argues that homosexuality is abnormal because it is a misuse of
body parts that have evolved for use in heterosexual intercourse (Levin 354).
Furthermore, because natural selection has made the exercise of heterosexuality rewarding
to human beings, homosexuality has a high probability to unhappiness. Mohr refutes
Levin's stance about homosexuality myths and stereotypes. He rejects arguments that
homosexuality is immoral or unnatural.
Levin exemplifies the point that homosexuality is misuse of body parts with the case of
Mr. Smith, who likes to play "Old MacDonald" on his teeth so devoted is he to this
amusement, in fact, that he never uses his teeth for chewing but instead takes
nourishment intravenously. This is a clear example where Mr. Smith is misusing his
teeth. In addition to misuse, Levine states that this man will have a dim future on
purely physiological grounds (Levin 355). Since Mr. Smith isn't using his teeth for
chewing, his digestive system will suffer from disuse. The result will be Mr. Smiths
deteriorating health. Levin incorporates the evolution process into this example. He
states that Mr. Smith descended from creatures who enjoy the use of such parts.
Creatures who do not enjoy using such parts of their bodies will tend to be selected out.
In particular, human males who enjoyed inserting their penises into each other's anuses
have left no descendants. Homosexuality is likely to cause unhappiness because it leaves
unfulfilled an innate and innately rewarding desire (Levin 355).
Mohr takes a completely different stance on homosexuality. According to Mohr,
homosexuality is perfectly unobjectionable. The unnaturalness charge that Levin give
homosexuality carries a high emotional feeling. This feeling is usually expressing
disgust and evincing queasiness. An example of such feelings are some people's response
to women who do not shave body hair. Many of the people who have a strong emotional
reaction, without being able to give good reasons for them, we think of them not as
operating morally, but rather as being obsessed and maniac (Mohr 367). So the feelings
of disgust that some people have to gays will hardly ground a charge of immorality.
The idea of "natural" is a key defense in Mohr's debate. He states that natural is that
it fulfills some function in nature. According to Levin, homosexuality on this view is
unnatural because it violates the function of genitals, which is to produce babies. The
problem with this view is that lots of bodily parts have lots of functions and just
because some one activity can be fulfilled by only one organ, this activity does not
condemn other functions of the organ immorality (Mohr 367). The use of genitalia to
produce children does not condemn other uses, such as achieving intimacy.
Mohr states that moral authority is needed to define proper function (Mohr 368). Some
people try to fill in this moral authority by appeal to the design or order of an organ
saying that the genitals are designed for the purpose of procreation. But these people
do not make it explicit who the designer and orderer is. If it is God, then we are
holding others accountable for religious beliefs.
In response to Levin statement that homosexuality causes unhappiness, Mohr states that
Society's attitude toward a childless couple is that of pity. The couple who discovers
it cannot have children is viewed as having to forgo some of the richness of life. Gays
who do not have children are to be pitied rather than condemned. Mohr feels the willful
preventing of people from achieving the richness of life is immoral. The immorality with
the case of the gay and lesbian is the statutes that prevents them from adopting
families.
In reflection of the two articles read, I feel that Mohr has a stronger stance in the
argument of homosexuality. He takes the Levis's view on misuse of body parts, and shows
that many body parts have multiple uses. Levis provides a strong argument about misuse,
and in his example it is completely accurate. When applied to the genitalia, the
argument seems to be diminished by Mohr's view. Mohr introduces moral authority by
bringing out the question of "order and design". He states that if God is the designer
and orderer, than we are back to square one which others are accountable for religious
beliefs. Mohr takes Levis stance on unnatural one step further by saying we should
follow nature. If this were the case, the possibilities would be endless. Who should we
follow? A fish that changes gender over their lifetimes. This would make us be
operative transsexuals. Orangutans live completely solitary lives. This would make us
hermits. With the many models that nature gives us to follow, it is wrong to say that
homosexuality is abnormal.
|