Sexual morality: concepts and ethical frameworks

Sexual Morality

Michael Levin contends that homosexuality should not be legitimatised, as it is both unnatural and immoral. Levin's argument against homosexuality may appear rather vague and generalized in the beginning but it does contain substance when studied carefully. The concluding part of his argument provides ample evidence that homosexuality is probably not as safe or harmless an option as we suppose it to be. When studied from deontological standpoint, we find Levin's arguments against legitimatization of homosexuality quite reasonable and practical.

While he has not cited any specific research in this connection, Levin's succeeds in establishing that legalization of homosexuality would lead to negative consequences in the long run. His arguments are based more on general knowledge and logic than empirical findings. He maintains that homosexuality is abnormal because a) it.." is a misuse of bodily parts" and b) it "is likely to cause unhappiness because it leaves unfulfilled an innate and innately rewarding desire." Throughout this reading, Levin sticks with these two views to suggest that homosexuality is abnormal and therefore all practices connected with it are unnatural and must be declared illegal. Levin's views may have come under severe criticism from pro-homosexuality quarters but when seen from an unprejudiced and objective point-of-view, we notice his arguments are based on some solid facts, which cannot be dismissed or denied easily.

The best thing about his argument is that it successfully addresses and answers the most dominant views that have arisen in support of homosexuals. He carefully presents his own views and then skillfully counters other established theories. For example, it is believed that the real cause of unhappiness is not homosexuality itself but the stigma attached to it in our society. Levin argues that this view is not applicable anymore because the society has transformed dramatically in the past one decade where acceptance of homosexuals is concerned. However this transformation has not produced any marked increase in homosexuals' happiness as miseries still dominate their fate. He thus contends that unhappiness is deeply embedded in the very nature of homosexuality and isn't caused solely by society's attitude. He notes, "Having to 'stay in the closet' may be a great strain but it doesn't account for all the miseries that writes on homosexuality say is the homosexual's lot..." Levin goes on to explain the ways in which society has become more accepting of homosexuals and concludes that all this should have raised the level of homosexual happiness but general observations suggest this not so. He writes, 'On the societal reaction theory, there ought to be an enormous rise in homosexual happiness. I know of no systematic study to determine if this is so, but anecdotal evidence suggests it may not be."

If the society's attitude was indeed such a huge cause of homosexual misery then changing views should have decreased unhappiness to a significant extent. However this doesn't seem to be the case. This indicates that there are some other important causes of this unhappiness and if it is not social and cultural views than it ought to do something with the nature of this sexual preference itself.