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 have speak how they feel about Homosexuality.  Michael Levin and Richard Mohrsviews on the subject are in involvement with one another.  Levin argues that quirk is abnormal because it is a misuse of body separate that have evolvedfor use in heterosexual intercourse (Levin 354).  Furthermore, because natural infusion has made the exercise of heterosexuality rewarding to human beings, queerness has a high probability to unhappiness.  Mohr refutes Levins placement about homosexuality myths and stereotypes.  He rejects arguments thathomosexuality is immoral or unnatural.         Levin exemplifies the point that homosexuality is misuse of body partwith the case of Mr. Smith, who likes to play Old M acDonald on his odontiasis so given over is he to this amusement, in fact, that he never uses his teeth forchewing only instead takes nourishment intravenously.  This is a clear exercisingwhere Mr. Smith is misusing his teeth.  In addition to misuse, Levine statesthat this man allow have a dim time to come 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 much(prenominal) 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 remaining no descendants.  Homosexuality is likely to cause unhappinessbecause it leaves unfulfilled an innate(p) and inn ately rewarding desire (Levin355).         Mohr takes a completely different stance on homosexuality.  According toMohr, homosexuality is perfectly unobjectionable.  The unnaturalness charge thatLevin give homosexuality carries a high stirred up feeling.  This feeling isusually expressing disgust and evincing queasiness.  An example of such feelingsare some peoples response to women who do not trim down body hair.  Many of thepeople who have a strong emotional reaction, without being able to give goodreasons for them, we think of them not as operating morally, but rather as beingobsessed and harum-scarum (Mohr 367).  So the feelings of disgust that some peoplehave to gays will merely ground a charge of immorality.         The idea of natural is a give away defense in Mohrs debate.  He states thatnatural is that it fulfills some function in nature.  According to Levin,homosexuality on this view is unnatural because it violates the function of