In many ways, homosexual sex is unnatural. Evolution and biology demand the propagation of the species; this can only happen during sex between a man and a woman. In addition, men and women’s bodies are made to complement each other, and to be sexually explicit, the vagina is made to accommodate the penis. The anus, however, serves a much different purpose. In order to determine if this kind of sex and relationship is immoral, one must determine exactly what constitutes an immoral sexual relationship.
Immorality, in the traditional sense, is when a person’s activities violate general or widely held moral standards. In this way, homosexual sex is immoral. Clearly, homosexuals are not embraced by the general public, and in some states, sodomy is still considered illegal (though it is rarely, if ever, prosecuted). Many people are uncomfortable by the sight of two men or two women showing affection for one another in public, and “gay bashing” has proved to be a problem. However, the objection to homosexuality is often a response to religious doctrine, and dogma cannot be used as a basis for morality. There is too much uncertainty and disagreement between the different religions to be able to use it as a standard measure of morality.
A modern definition of morality involves the question of whether the act is hurting anyone. When two people of the same sex fall in love and engage in sexual activity, there is no more chance for hurting others than there would be in a heterosexual relationship. One might use the example of the spread of AIDS to refute this argument; however, heterosexuals have notoriously spread a variety of sexually transmitted diseases such as herpes, gonorrhea, and syphilis. They have left in their wake many unplanned-for children. There is no greater danger of being or causing hurt in a homosexual relationship than there is in a heterosexual relationship.
Many people throughout the ages have attempted to define the word ‘love’ and to determine what it entails. The highest, best form of love is one in which a person loves unselfishly; the best circumstances for this love is when that love is returned by the other person. An unselfish love is described by John Casey in his book Pagan Virtue. “It would, presumably, mean that the person who loved desired no recognition.” (Casey, 1990, p. 177)
This is the ideal form of love: wanting the best for someone else and expecting nothing in return, so long as it is not to the detriment of the person doing the loving. While a person should expect nothing in return, it is only natural to want to be loved in return. When a person loves and this feeling is not reciprocated, it is only human nature to eventually stop demonstrating that love, or to fall out of love altogether.
This type of love would necessarily involve (though not exclusively) friendship. People who get married often comment on how they married their best friend, and the reason is that friendship is a natural precursor to love. While friendship is a must, a physical relationship is not. It is entirely possible to love someone without having a physical relationship. A couple that breaks up will usually experience a more difficult separation if they were sexually involved; therefore, sex introduces an entire new level of need that is not required for love. Some might insist that we fashion our ideas of love on the way we love our creator. However, religious people often believe that everything in life must refer back to the Bible and a god. Love does not have to be spiritual in any way. If a belief in a higher power was necessary, then Atheists, by definition, could not experience love. Love is a human emotion and condition, and there is nothing other-worldly about it.
In 2005, over 40,000 Americans were killed in traffic accidents (People killed and injured, 2006). It has been proven time and again that seat belts save lives. A person who remains in the vehicle and in the seat is more likely to survive an accident than a person who is thrown free of the vehicle. For that reason, people should wear seat belts. Legally, they should be required to wear them as well. Individuals who are in their own homes are free to do what they want without fear of safety restrictions. This right ends when a person goes into public. If an individual lacks the common sense to protect himself or herself on the road, then protection should be provided for them. After all, the government already provides protection in the form of police officers and fire departments; it is not a stretch to provide additional protection in the form of seat belts. We should not tax the government further by requiring additional medical personnel simply because a person does not want to have a strap in front of them.
Motorcycle drivers should absolutely be required to wear helmets. A motorcycle is a convenient form of transportation, and should be considered as dangerous as a car. For the driver, it is even more dangerous because he or she does not have the added protection of being surrounded by steel, strapped in with a seat belt, and cushioned by air bags. The only thing between the driver and the pavement is often a thin layer of clothing. A person who does not wear a helmet is a liability, both to other drivers and to the government. A motorcycle driver who does not wear a helmet is much more likely to die in an accident; without helmets, insurance rates will increase. Additionally, the number of serious accidents will once again require more medical and emergency personnel. If a motorcycle driver does not wish to wear a helmet for safety reasons, then they should wear it in order to prevent being a public burden.
The legalization of drugs would have a short-term and long-term effect. The short-term effect would be the most difficult part to endure. As it stands, the criminalization of drugs prevents many individuals from seeking it out. Once it is legalized, many people may experiment with drugs. This experimentation will result in less employees showing up for work, more accrued debt, and possibly more reckless behavior. Those who are already drug users will be able to use it freely and without any incentive to get help for an addiction. Individuals who are tried for drug usage are often given deals that allow them to seek treatment rather than serve jail time. Without the criminalization, addicts will have no incentive to quit.
The long-term effects can best be demonstrated by the city of Amsterdam. Drugs are legal, yet they have less than half the number of addicts as we have in the United States. People are naturally attracted to those things they are not allowed to have. Therefore, legalizing drugs will eventually tarnish its appeal. Cigarettes are legal, but not everyone smokes. On the other hand, cigarette smoking has become a bone of contention among those Americans who wish to smoke and those who would rather not be around the stench.
Legalizing cocaine and heroin would ultimately have positive long-term effects. The mystery would go away; children would know that they can try these drugs if they so choose. Governments will be able to regulate these drugs so that the more toxic, lethal versions are kept out of the marketplace. Companies who produce these drugs will be able to compete openly and therefore the prices will be lower for the consumer. This will result in fewer individuals who resort to crime in order to afford drugs. In conclusion, drugs should be legalized, and soon.
Works Cited:
Casey, J. (1990). Pagan Virtue: An Essay in Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
(2006 Dec 13). People Killed and Injured. Retrieved December 16, 2006, from National HIghway and Traffic Safety Administration Web site: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/PPT/2006/810639/pages/34.htm
