We will discuss Michael Levin’s premises and conclusion as to why he believes homosexuality is wrong and that discriminations against homosexuals should not be undone. Also I will offer a counter argument as to why I believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and thus discriminations in place against homosexuals should be undone.
Michael Levin argues that homosexuality is wrong thus society should not change itself in ways that are likely to increase the incidence of homosexuality, and that in many cases changing existing laws discriminating against homosexuals would be likely to do this. Levin proclaims that homosexuality is “abnormal and hence undesirable, not because it is immoral or sinful, or because it weakens society or hampers evolutionary development, but for a purely mechanical reason.
It is a misuse of bodily parts and by which can probably lead to unhappiness”. Levin points out that a penis best fits a vagina and that one of its functions is to introduce semen into the vagina. Likewise Levin perceives that because he believes homosexuality involves the misuse of bodily parts, he describes homosexuality as being biologically abnormal. Levin also states that biologically abnormal things are likely to lead to unhappiness.
Levin defends his premise by pointing out the idea that sex was designed for propagation. Thus because nature has consequently made this use of the penis rewarding, it is clear that any proto-human males who found unrewarding the insertion of penis into vagina have left no descendants. Therefore this is why homosexuality is abnormal and is likely to cause unhappiness because it leaves unfulfilled an innate and rewarding desire.
Furthermore Levin’s premises and conclusion are that homosexuality is a misuse of bodily parts, the misuse of bodily parts is abnormal which leads to unhappiness, thus because homosexuality is likely to lead to unhappiness and we should not increase unhappiness, we should not do things that increase the incidence of homosexuality such as removing discriminations against them. Nonetheless while Levin has tried to prove his case, I do not think that he has provided a valid argument.
I totally disagree with both his premises and conclusion. First I disagree with the premise that homosexuality is the misuse of bodily parts. While I do agree that a penis goes well with a vagina, I disagree with the notion that it is abnormal to use a penis in any other sexual act such as a penis to anus or a penis to mouth. While these acts are generally associated with homosexuals, many heterosexual couples participate in and enjoy these sexual acts.
Likewise although Levin tries to brush off these acts as acceptable acts of foreplay for heterosexuals, he must be reminded that that does not excuse it from his notion of being a misuse of bodily parts. Furthermore in regards to Levin’s second premise that “homosexuality is biologically abnormal and because of this leads to unhappiness”, I firmly disagree. I do not believe that there is anything abnormal about homosexuality. Who decides what’s normal and abnormal? Moreover I also believe that Levin’s claim that homosexuality leads to unhappiness is a gross over generalization.
While studies have shown homosexual couples to be less happy than heterosexual couples, Levin must understand that part of this unhappiness is due to the discriminations that he is arguing for. Many homosexuals would be happier if society as a whole was to openly accept them rather than judge them in a negative manner and try to force them to change who they are by discriminating against them because of their sexual preference. Thus with that being stated, the notion that discriminations against homosexuals should not be undone because homosexuality leads to unhappiness is a flawed argument.
Likewise because discriminating against homosexuals leads to unhappiness, and we should not be promoting unhappiness, we should not discriminate against homosexuals. In conclusion, as stated previously I do not believe that Michael Levin’s argument against homosexuality and for discriminating against them is a valid argument. I believe that discriminations against homosexuals, causes unhappiness for homosexuals and thus they should be undone and homosexuals should be free to live happily as they wish without being restricted by their sexual preference.
