Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues - Michael Levin vs. Richard Mohr :: Argumentative Persuasive Essays

Homosexuality - Michael Levin vs. Richard Mohr         Homosexuality has been on debate for numerous years.  It is mentioned inthe Bible which is thousands of years old.  But recently two philosophers acceptspoken how they get hold about Homosexuality.  Michael Levin and Richard Mohrsviews on the subject are in conflict with one another.  Levin argues thathomosexuality is abnormal beca expenditure it is a misuse of body parts that have evolvedfor use in heterosexual intercourse (Levin 354).  Furthermore, because naturalselection has made the exercise of heterosexuality rewarding to human beings,homosexuality has a high probability to unhappiness.  Mohr refutes Levins post about homosexuality myths and stereotypes.  He rejects arguments thathomosexuality is immoral or unnatural.         Levin exemplifies the point that homosexuality is misuse of body partswith the case of Mr. Smith, who like s to play Old MacDonald on his teeth sodevoted is he to this amusement, in fact, that he never uses his teeth forchewing but instead takes nourishment intravenously.  This is a clear eventwhere Mr. Smith is mis apply his teeth.  In addition to misuse, Levine statesthat this man will have a dim future on purely physiological grounds (Levin 355). Since Mr. Smith isnt using his teeth for chewing, his digestive system willsuffer from disuse.  The result will be Mr. Smiths deteriorating health.  Levinincorporates the evolution process into this example.  He states that Mr. Smithdescended from creatures who enjoy the use of such parts.  Creatures who do notenjoy using such parts of their bodies will tend to be selected out.  Inparticular, human males who enjoyed inserting their penises into each othersanuses have left no descendants.  Homosexuality is likely to cause unhappinessbecause it leaves unfulfilled an innate and innately rewarding desire (Levin35 5).         Mohr takes a completely different stance on homosexuality.  correspond toMohr, homosexuality is perfectly unobjectionable.  The unnaturalness charge thatLevin give homosexuality carries a high emotional feeling.  This feeling isusually expressing disgust and evincing queasiness.  An example of such feelingsare around peoples response to women who do not shave body hair.  Many of thepeople who have a strong emotional reaction, without being able to give devoutreasons for them, we think of them not as operating morally, but rather as beingobsessed and maniac (Mohr 367).  So the feelings of disgust that some peoplehave to gays will hardly ground a charge of immorality.         The idea of natural is a key defense in Mohrs debate.  He states thatnatural is that it fulfills some spot in nature.  According to Levin,homosexuality on this view is unnatural because it violates the function of