Morality of Homosexuality According to Rachels

The ethics and deterrent exampleity of homoism and pederastic acts have been debated and questioned by more groups of people using several moral approaches to argue their point. It seems that the group of people who be most against crotchet be ghostlike groups, specific aloney Christians. Homo wake upuality however is non chastely wrong and many ar maunderents give be presented to refute the claims by those who do believe that homo internality is unethical and chastely wrong.The approaches that is employd the most to argue that homosexuality and the acts that ar involved argon virtuously wrong which is used most by Christians is the Theory of intrinsic integrity. Now in that respect ar three briny points to this scheme and the first point is that it is believed that everything in genius has a utilisation (Rachels & Rachels, 2012). Aristotle, who is very wellspring known and respected declared that if everyone believes that temperament makes objects for a s pecific purpose, and that this believe is correct, then, constitution makes things for the sake of man.Christians believe that graven image created things in nature for a specific syllabus and so if that specific plan sack up non be carried out, then it should non be done and thusly is morally wrong. To connect this part of the Theory of rude(a) Law to thoughts about homosexuality, one of the main arguments against homosexual acts is that it is paranormal. Christians believe the act of homosexual sex is wicked because it does non shutting in the production of life, which according to them be the main purposes of sex, to create life.This argument is easily refuted however. When using the evolutionary sense of the death point moved(p), which is how most Christians use it in their arguments, they tight that homosexuality is morally wrong because it involves the unnatural use of physical structure parts. It is believed by some, that because God had created genitals an d the act of sex for procreation, and homosexual sex lav non end in procreation, that those individuals engaging in those acts are using their body parts for something it they were non intended for. Therefore, what they are doing is wrong.However, there are many couples that are sterile, who will never have the opportunity to procreate, and yet as long as the sex is straightaway, Christians do non condemn them. The Roman Catholic church who does not agree with the use of birth control, still allows couples to have sex if they are infertile or during maternity (Mappes, Zembaty & DeGrazia, 2012). Therefore the Catholic church can claim that if the body parts are not cosmos used for the purpose of procreation then it is unnatural and immoral otherwise they would be contradicting their own utilizations.Besides, as pointed out in the book by Mappes, Zembaty & DeGrazia (2012), we have multiple purposes for our organs and body parts. Just because we use our mouths to not unless br eath, consume nutrients and communicate, but also to call on the carpet gum and lick stamps, does not compressed that those acts are immoral. Even though our moths were not originally intended to chew gum or lick stamps, does not call back that those acts are unethical. Besides, it is also recognized by Christians that a minute of arc purpose of heterosexual sex is to bond and connect with your coadjutor and to express love.Homosexuals use their genitals during sexual acts for those similar reasons as well. So, it stands to show that gayness and Homosexual sex are not immoral and unethical due to the unnatural use of their sex organs. A second part to the Theory of Natural Law is the belief that all things unnatural are bad and that what is and what ought to be should be the same or else it is morally wrong. The example that Rachels & Rachels (2012) gives is that unselfishness is morally right. That we should always act in the best affaire of others because we care.If we do not care and therefore are not working in the best interest of others, then were are not being beneficent and that is morally wrong. Those who do not care and do not practice beneficence are often regarded as wrong. For example, these such individuals may be diagnoses with a mental illness called antisocial nature disorder because those who do not care, couldnt possibly be well. It is believed that these individuals ways of thinking are wrong and therefore should be fixed. So, because clubhouse believes that people ought to be beneficent and therefore if they are not, then their actions are morally wrong.Rachels & Rachels (2012) then points out that sex produces babies, that is fact. besides does it then follow that sex ought to produces babies? not necessarily. Those who have transmissible mutations that could produce takings with those same genetic mutations or diseases could be said ought not to have babies because it would continue pain and suffering. Should it follow th en those individuals ought not to have sex at all? It is not considered morally wrong for those with genetic illness to have sex, but it peradventure thought to be morally wrong for them to produce a child.So, what is and what ought to be are different. In regards to Homosexuality, some believe that those individuals ought not to have sex because it is not an intrinsic desire and therefore is unnatural. And as stated before that in which is unnatural ought not to occur according to the Theory of Natural Law. It is argued that References Rachels, J. , & Rachels, S. (2012). The elements of moral philosophy. New York, NY McGraw-Hill. Mappes, T. A. , Zembaty, J. S. , & DeGrazia, D. (2012). Social moral philosophy Morality and Social Policy. New York, NY McGraw-Hill.