MORAL PROBLEMS - Wilsons, Sullivan homosexuality argument

Malefemale couple and have the right equipment to

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
male/female couple and have the right equipment to procreate, therefore upholding and respecting traditions of the past. Wilson also points out that homosexuality is more frowned upon than masturbation, sodomy, etc. and therefore it is something that should be frowned upon by society more than other sexual acts because it is specifically singled out as an abomination. I believe that Wilson’s rebuttal is wrong because he uses a strictly biblical perspective. Not all people believe in the same religion and therefore won’t abide by or agree with that argument if presented with it. I also disagree with the fact that people in the bible say that homosexuality is to be condemned. The natural law theory states that God created us all with a divinely ordained purpose and he made us the way we are for a reason. If this is true, then homosexuality should be accepted because God created everything, INCLUDING homosexuality. If God didn’t want homosexuality to exist then he would not have created it in the first place. The natural law theory actually supports the fact that homosexuality is morally permissible. God would not create something just to have it be an abomination in the eyes of society. I also disagree with Wilson’s rebuttal that marriage between sterile heterosexual couples is okay but marriage between homosexual couples is not. Marriage is about love, not gender/sex. A committed couple in love, regardless of their gender or ability to have children, should be able to marry.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online