The Rhetoric Of Homosexuality

In today’s political, religious, ethical and philosophical fields, homosexuality is still a highly debated and controversial topic. It almost seems like a daily occurrence that we are exposed to the debate of homosexuality in the media with issues related to it being decided on and discussed by the Supreme Court, religious officials and political leaders. Whatever the debate surrounding Homosexuality may be, it can be said that it has, and most likely will, capture the attention of society in some capacity for years to come. Of all the arguments against homosexuality, perhaps the most frequently contended is that Homosexuality or Homosexual sex is unnatural. However, this argument is essentially nothing more than empty rhetoric. In this paper,

Let’s examine homosexuality through the lens of Utilitarianism, The Categorical Imperative, and Virtue Ethics. Utilitarianism states that morality should be guided as a result of a moral action, if the action maximizes good results and minimizes bad results then the action in morally correct. If the action would produce bad results, then it would be wrong to do it. If an action would produce no bad results then the action isn’t wrong (Waller, 86). Being homosexual does not produce any harm to the person or the people around them, therefore according to Utilitarian ethics homosexuality is morally correct. The categorical imperative states “act in accordance with reasons that would apply to all similar situations” (Waller,74). Homosexual behavior appears to fit into the categorical imperative as it can be respectful and harmless. Consenting adults can decide to be in a relationship without being harmful or disrespectful whether the relationship is between a heterosexual or homosexual couple. If we accept that one relationship is acceptable in some situations then we have to accept that others are acceptable in for the same reason in similar situations. Virtue ethics have a slightly different outcome when it comes to homosexuality. Virtue ethics can be defined as finding personal happiness and flourishing to be the main goal of ethics, and people who know how to be happy and have a good character (Waller, 150). Aristotle may agree that some sexual situations are good and others are not. If, under virtue ethics, homosexuality is a fault in one’s character, that is to say it’s a detriment to one’s happiness, then it may be wrong under virtue ethics since the action would ultimately make them unhappy. While this may be the case in virtue ethics, Homosexuality has never been found to be directly relevant to happiness or mental