Two adults of the same sex are attracted to one another. They wish to express that attraction physically. to live together with the same legal and social support that they would receive as a heterosexual couple, to adopt children, and to bring them up in a family home. Is what they wish to do morally right?
Until the 1967 sexual offenses act, homosexual acts between consenting male adults were regarded as crime in Britain. they were then made legal for those who had reached the age of 21 ( as opposed to heterosexual acts, which are legal from the age of 16 ) In some Muslim countries, following strict Shari'ah laws, homosexuality is punishable by death. By contrast, in classical Greece, homosexual love was widely practiced and socially acceptable. there is therefore no universally held view about homosexuality and its place in society.
since homosexuality involves what used to be called ' unnatural acts ', it is a particularly suitable to test 'natural law' as an ethical theory.
this is how 'natural law' argument might view that homosexual partnership:
- According to natural law, the purpose of sex is procreation, since homosexual acts cannot lead to conception, they are 'unnatural' and therefore wrong.
- on this basis, heterosexual acts within a stable relationship ( i.e one that enable children to be nurtured ) or celibacy are the only morally acceptable sexual choices.
- because of this there is no moral objection according to natural law principles to the couple living together, or feeling attracted to one another, the only objection is to any physical sexual acts that may take place between them.
- because they can't form a 'natural' family group, a natural law argument would suggest that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children, who naturally thrive only with the benefit of both mother and father role models.
Against the line of Arguement:
One might argue that the presence of sexual organs in a human being imples that he or she is designed for sexual activity and the conception of children - in which case celibacy is as unnatural as homosexuality, since it is a denial of the complete natural function of procreation. if this is established, then it is illogical to accept a celibate partnership between those who are sexually attracted.
some people are naturally attracted by members of the same sex. they experience their feelings as completely natural, and difficulties that arise are the result of the social condition, not nature.
Sexuality can be said to achieve three ends:
the deepening of a relationship
the conception of children
of which 1/3 is precluded by homosexual relationships. But is not the search for pleasure and for deep relationships as natural as the conception of children? if a marriage is known to be infertile, are heterosexual acts between its partners therefore immoral simply because conception is impossible?
Marriage is a social function, and promiscuity can be practised equally by homosexuals and heterosexuals. the fact that homosexual couples cannot marry does not preclude deep and permanent relationships.
If a homosexual couple form a stable relationship, they may be able to offer children a home that is, at the very least, as valuable to their upbringing as one in which there is either a single parent, or a heterosexual couple with a bad relationship. Hence, it would seem illogical to discriminate in this matter.
the above is an extract of a book I am reading.
answer this :
Is what they wish to do morally right?
my answer is yup.