Are Same Sex Sexual Relationships Morally Permissible?

be Same Sex Sexual Relationships Mor each(prenominal)(a)y Permissible?Homo gender has been for much of recorded hu valet memorial a controversial topic, and has become all the same to a greater extent so with the advent of religion. Most, if non all phantasmal systems vehemently oppose gayness, so far as to condemn opuss to everlasting torture in the fires of hell. However, sound judgement the im chasteity of a deed simply by referring to divine sources is fallacious it runs contrary to established young in identifyectual systems of determining what actions atomic number 18 right and what actions atomic number 18 wrong. In the twentieth century world, reason and strong thought out and expressed arguments al one dictate the moral standing of deeds, and whatever different purpose for that matter. The most appropriate method of arguing for or against an ethical issue in the context of its pertinence to society is to test it against well-established moral/ethical theori es and follow out how it stacks up. Thus, in this paper I shall signal that ped whilesticism doesnt contradict the major ethical theories, namely Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics (deontological perspective) deciphered by a disprover of m whatsoever normal arguments against queerness.Utilitarianism is a fundamentally consequentialist position, claiming that actions should be judged by their consequences, specifically the level of general cheer they bring close to. Hence, in accordance with aimfulism, one should evaluate the level of general happiness an action brings close to versus the amount of pain/suffering it causes. every(prenominal) actions that increase the level of general happiness be morally permissible, and actions that bring about suffering atomic number 18 morally not permissible. To discuss homosexuality on utilitarian grounds, we must therefore first and foremost decide on its consequentialist standing i.e. where it stands on the utilitarian time of i ncreasing happiness and decreasing pain vs. increasing pain and decreasing pleasure. People who feel that that is what pleases them send homosexuality. They do so out of personal choice and later on much self-deliberation. In fact, since heterosexuality is the norm, converting to homosexuality would be akin to macrocosm a masochist, i.e. choosing to indulge in that which causes us petulance in gain to having to face heavy opposition from relatives and society, and those types of homosexuals ar beyond the scope of my paper. Hence, if you choose to accept that no undivided who prefers a heterosexual flavorstyle would adopt a homosexual one, so you agree that those who chose a homosexual lifestyle do so because it is what pleases them. Thus, homosexuality brings about pleasure to homosexuals, and so co waiveral as these homosexuals do not attempt to impose their homosexuality on heterosexuals (by harassing or raping them), then the heterosexual population has no right to clai m that homosexuality causes them displeasure. For them to claim so, the completely means by which homosexuality would have caused them displeasure is by disgust them i.e. it is distasteful to their senses (since obviously it is not displeasuring them directly, it can totally do so then indirectly by being distasteful). such(prenominal) an argument would be fallacious and of the form P1) All disgusting actions ar fast. P2) Homosexuality is disgusting. C) Homosexuality is shameful.While this argument is valid, it is unsound since the first premise is false. Not all disgusting actions argon immoral. For example, collecting the trash is disgusting, does that make it immoral? Homosexuality does not cause any pain or displeasure. Stigmatizing homosexuality on the grounds that it is disgusting is faulty as we argued above. (Common arguments such as homosexual rapists harm children and other victims, homosexuality brings about STDs and so on are irrelevant since they agree to heter osexual acts in the same way they apply to homosexual actions.) Thus, homosexuality does not, and for that matter cannot, harm homosexuals. All it can do is bring pleasure to the tribe who willfully practice it (because it is what brings them pleasure). On utilitarian grounds, homosexuality increases pleasure (although for a specific part of the population) and does not cause any displeasure or pain. It satisfies the criteria for a moral act as outlined by the Utilitarian ethical system.Kantian ethics is a moral philosophy that is not a consequentialist one. It judges acts not by what their consequences are, hardly by how they occupy under original imperatives, and maintain the rational and free constitution of humans. The precept of universizablity commits us to acting only on those maxims that do not tip to a self-contradictory maxim, and in like manner, when widely distributedized do not undermine the height of the action (class slides.) To test homosexuality against the categoric imperative we find by formulating our maxim. Note that a common misconception is to formulate the maxim arrange homosexuality or almost form of that. This is incorrect as this paper does not seek to argue that all people should be homosexuals, but rather that people that are homosexual are verticalified in acting homosexually. Let us suppose our maxim is Practice whichever sexual acts that bring you pleasure. Upon consideration, we see that this maxim brings about pleasure to whoever abides by it. Next we generalize this principle to a universal law and see its consequences. Assume a world where people practice whichever sexual acts please them, of course, without imposing their sexual desires on others. much(prenominal) a world would be very standardised to the world in which we live in, which is remarkably pleasant to live in as opposed to one that is a very morally tight society. Moreover, we note that such a maxim, when generalized does not rent to a contradi ctory world. Furthermore, as we shall see next, homosexuality holds under scrutiny by the principle of humanity. The principle of humanity defines a rightful or moral deed as one that does not use any other person as a undefiled means, but as an end in themselves. As discussed above, homosexual people choose homosexual acts because it brings them pleasure. Thus, when homosexual people indulge in homosexual activities as consenting adults, they both choose to do so. Since they both chose to indulge in this, and so long as theyre both content with this, then neither is using the other as a mere means, but as an end in themselves. To argue otherwise would be similar to arguing against other heterosexual acts. Other cases where the people do not consent to indulging in the sex are similar to cases of heterosexual people who do not consent to the sex they are having.Finally, we shall consider some common arguments against homosexuality and offer possible response to them in the context of the Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories. To begin with we shall consider the unnaturalness argument and its derivative instruments. A commonplace argument against homosexuality is that it is a misuse of the bodys variety meat. Such an argument violates the categorical imperative. To show this, let us attempt to generalize it into a universal law. We begin by formulating a maxim That action which violates the principal use of an organ is immoral. After generalizing this into a universal law, we run into a contradiction, as this yields a world we cannot live in. Consider for example applying this rule to any other body organ. The mouth is primarily for alimentation, and thus any other action apart from eating is immoral, and hence kissing, speaking, breathing from your mouth and so on would all become immoral. Thus the argument that homosexuality is immoral because it violates the principal use of an organ is not applicable since it violates the categorical imperative. Further more, if the misuse of the reproductive organs is immoral because it doesnt lead to procreation, where does that place religious figures that take vows of celibacy? The nonuse of an organ is just as immoral as the misuse of one, since the immorality is based on its failure to result in reproduction. Moreover, another(prenominal) derivative of the unnaturalness of homosexuality argument is that homosexuality is unnatural in that it is not found in nature, i.e. animals do not practice homosexuality. First and foremost, the premise on which this argument rests is invalid, as studies have shown that there are certain animals that practice homosexuality. Moreover, basing our moral standards on the practices of animals is an incredibly fragile argument as one can easy observe that many of human practices are not practiced by animals, such as light touch our teeth, showering and so on. In addition, many proponents of homosexuality argue that labeling homosexuality as not immoral would le ad to the extinction of the human race. This argument is a gross exaggeration. An argument of the formP1) Homosexuals cannot reproduce.P2) If homosexuality were deemed not immoral then many people would become homosexual.C) The human race will eventually become extinct.Such an argument is invalid, and unsound as the second premise is faulty. If homosexuality were not to be frowned upon it does not follow that many people would become homosexuals. No heterosexual person would willfully choose to become a homosexual simply because it is not immoral to do so. This is because one chooses to indulge in homosexuality because it is a sexual preference. Moreover, while not a fundamental argument against the extinction of the human race argument, it would be thoughtful to consider whether a decrease in the rate of human reproduction would not actually be beneficial to the human society given the problems of overpopulation that we suffer from now.In conclusion, homosexuality cannot be deemed immoral as it holds under scrutiny by the major ethical systems Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. It increases the happiness of the homosexual conjunction without causing any pain or displeasure to the heterosexual community. This of course is contingent upon the homosexual people not imposing their sexuality on others i.e. rape or harassment. It should be duly noted that even if some homosexuals raped or harassed other individuals, be him/her a homosexual or a heterosexual, this cannot be an argument against homosexuality per se as heterosexuals also rape and harass other heterosexuals. Moreover, it satisfies the categorical imperative in addition to the principle of humanity by not using anyone as a mere means. Homosexuals should not be discriminated against, as their sexual preference is their own personal choice, and solely their business. habituated our rights to independence of choice that we so proudly advocate and vehemently defend, we should extend this right to inclu de the freedom of sexual preference.Sherwood Andersons Winesburg, Ohio Themes and EffectsSherwood Andersons Winesburg, Ohio Themes and EffectsTitle Discuss the implications of Sherwood Andersons entrance to Winesburg, Ohio The have got of the Grotesque.Sherwood Andersons post-war novel of America in microcosm, Winesburg, Ohio, was first published in 1919. Undoubtedly, the timing of the array of linked stories all set in Andersons fictional Winesburg (like Hardys Wessex) influenced the critical encomium it received. It represents a dislocated people torn and shattered by war a wasteland such as T.S. Eliot had caused in his 1922 poem of that name. Like Joyces Dubliners (1914) the sequence of tales is connected by major themes which Anderson sees as either representative of, or a threat to, modern life. He creates a presence from an absence, a connected representative vision from a fragmented centre. Most of the themes, and their implications, on which Anderson focuses are reveal ed in the preceding story to the collection, The Book of the Grotesque which was the original title of the collection. The fact that Anderson wanted to place such dialect on the grotesque is of primary importance when attempting to locate the authors themes and their implications.For Anderson, like the writer in the first story, salvation from immersion into the grotesque comes not merely from the experience of moments of vision but also from the ability to incorporate them within life in order to re-vitalise it. Strikingly, theme and method interweave to create the consciousness of the visionary or surreal within the recognition of the espoused impossibility of completion. Anderson was determined that the real and the imagined should cover separate forces but also that both should maintain importance. Again, like the writer in his tale, he is forever reminded of the intrusion upon each world by the other and the implications of thisThe distinction that he is fashioning is not betwixt truth and lie, or between fiction and nonfiction, but between separate spheres of reality. Fancy for Anderson suggests imaginative and tender-hearted understanding of the beauty within the most grotesque of human actions.1The writer in the tale superpower survive becoming a grotesque but he also fails to complete his writing and the vast implication of this is that even when the grotesque is avoided, it appears inevitable that the intrusions of reality cause humanitys plans to fail just as they are continuously altered by mixer, historical and political events. In a uncouth so recently ravaged by war and about to undergo radical social upheaval, the implications of this are clear. Anderson chooses to make this implicit connection by citing the example of a man whose plans to have a work alter his bed irrevocably change his lifeThe writer, an old man with a white mustache, had some difficulty in getting into bed. The windows of the house in which he lived were high and he wanted to visualize at the trees when he awoke in the morning. A work came to fix the bed so that it would be on a level with the window. (p. 1).The full importance of this opening statement, with its beautifully simple syntax, does not strike the indorser until much later in the story, perhaps not even until the completion of the reading of the stories as a whole. With the benefit of hindsight, the reader sees that Andersons theme is manifest from the first the old man, physically impeded, desires to see further, to see the trees when he awoke in the morning, nevertheless, what the subliminal reading invokes is that the desire to see beyond what we figure is not always present in our intentions indeed, we may not even be aware of them. The change comes not with the morning but with the recognition of the interiorisation of longings influencing the human directive but being constantly obscured. Thus, though the carpenter does indeed come to fix the bed he does a lot more be sides, in which the old man plays no directive part for a time the two men talked of the lift of the bed and then they talked of other things (p. 1). The other things, are what initiate the directive of the tale, as, Anderson seems to imply, they do with life, serendipity playing more of a role than we realize in our livesSherwood Anderson was and still is a man of his times. His life and his career are a pictorial history of the unique mood of the modern America which produced them and made them possible.2.We are told that the carpenter had been a soldier in the Civil War (p. 1) and this promptly gifts the report with a textual historicity which deepens its reverberance (the Civil War is also referred to in another of the tales, Godliness Part 1). Many of Andersons readers, after all, were within living remembering of the war that split the American nation and again, its profound recognition of the nature of war, so fresh in the minds of those of the post World War era, to in flict pain beyond the immediate is recognized as authoritativeThe carpenter had once been a prisoner in Andersonville prison and had anomic a brother. The brother had died of starvation, and whenever the carpenter got upon that subject he cried. (p. 1)Again, the simplicity inestimably aids the poignancy of the telling Anderson has no need to dwell upon the melancholy, it is self-evident. Moreover, the idea that the ordinary man, which the carpenter represents, has personal experience of the pain of loss in a past which continues to intrude upon the present he cannot escape. Although Anderson states clearly that the weeping old man with the cigar in his mouth was ludicrous (p. 2), avoiding the faux sentimentality of other contemporary writers, nevertheless, the writers plans are widely changed by him and the carpenter alters the bed his own way (p. 2). The implication is not just that our plans are changed by present and future events but also that the past is never merely a memory but a constantly present inhabitant of life, a reality beyond our reach to compel or deny, and stamped upon much of our contemporary fiction3. Anderson has already laid the foundation of the interchanging but ostensibly firm boundaries of the actual and the imagined which are to cause perpetual interplay within the stories and in some sense all the characters and events are connected with himselfSherwood Anderson is to be grouped among the most subjective of writers. He has created heroes with many different names but each of them is the same man a projection in one direction or another of Anderson himself.4.Anderson begins now to build on these implications by obscuring lifes most basic and fearful boundary, death, by means of the old mans imaginative sensibility. The carpenter has been instrumental in this, since he has brought into the narrative a death that is real, remembered and imagined his memory is the conduit for this mutation of time and of feeling. The irony is that the author is haunted by death, yet It did not alarm him (p.2 ). Death is inverted as a presence which revitalises the old man as a special thing and not easily explained (p.2). Moreover, something inside him was altogether young (p.2) and extraordinarily that something is a woman, young. Anderson writes of this as like a pregnancy but what he gives birth to is an idea of the grotesques of his front life and relationships. Significantly, the writer switches subtly to address the reader more directly here, emphasising the idea thatIt is absurd, you see, to try to tell what was inside the old writer as he lay on his high bed and listened to the tizzy of his heart. The thing to get at is what the writer, or the young thing within the writer, was thinking about. (p. 2)The ambivalent sexuality of the image is one of many which disturbed careful readers of the time, back in 1919 the hand was talked about only in whispers5.. Yet, its implications for authorship are important since an au thor is perpetually giving birth and the idea of being both mother and father of his creations informs not just the sexual imagery of this story but also of others in the sequence, such as Hands where the protagonist is accused of molestation Anderson sensed a secret in human sexuality that defies an easy reduction6. This represents a significant challenge to contemporary social attitudes towards sexuality, as women were accorded status principally allied to that of their male partners and sexual preferences were predisposed indisputably towards the heterosexual. As is typical of Anderson, he refuses to adopt or adhere to the rigidity of a society so recently war-torn and about to undergo a momentous period in its history from which it would not emerged unscathed or unchanged. By anticipating and pre-empting these changes, Anderson places his writing ahead of its time both in style and socio-political context.The old man in the tale now proceeds to invite into his consciousness the images of past passions, a theme he also alludes to in another of the stories, Mother. The reader is told that the old man has known people in a whimsical intimate way different from the way in which you and I know people (p. 3) and subsequently that the writer had a dream that was not a dream (p. 3) this dream is the key to the subliminal implications of the tale as it is the precursor of the writing which does and does not take placeYou see the interest in all this lies in the figures that went before the eyes of the writer. They were all grotesques. All of the men and women the writer had ever known had become grotesques. (p. 3).The introduction of the grotesques, not all horrible, is a pivotal moment in the tale, just as all the grotesques lives will be turned by such a moment in time, and the old man/writers perception of this is, like the reactions of the grotesques, crucial in their lives. In many ways, it is less significant that the book is not published than that it has been seen by the author, who is gripped by one central thought that is very hostile and has always remained with him, facilitating, we are encouraged to believe, the writing of his own bookThe old man had listed hundreds of the truths in his book. I will not try to tell you of all of them. There was the truth of virginity and the truth of passion, the truth of riches and of poverty, of thrift and of profligacy, of carelessness and abandon. Hundreds and hundreds were the truths and they were all beautiful. (p. 4)Hence, the imagined and the real feed one another but remain separate, for truths are not the same as facts and it was the truths that made the people grotesques (p. 5). Moreover, Anderson lays bare, here, the principal informatives of his sequenceThe old man had quite a an elaborate theory concerning the matter. It was his notion that the moment one of the people took one of the truths to himself, called it his truth, and tried to live his life by it, he became a grotesq ue and the truth he embraced became a falsehood. (p. 5)Anderson concludes his tale by making brief reference to the carpenter, one of what are called the very common people (p. 5) yet contradicting this description by making him extraordinary as the nearest thing to what is understandable and lovable of all the grotesques in the writers book. (p. 5)Certainly, Sherwood Andersons Winesburg, Ohio set in the critical decade which followed the world war7 can be seen as a groundbreaking novel, both in structure and content and the failure of Andersons heterosexual relationships has often been cited as the reason for the grotesque nature of several of Winesburgs inhabitants8. The stories confront issues that were to inform American writing and the socio-political post-war infrastructure as well as the realization of Modernist and post-Modernist fiction. A writer ahead of his time, Anderson is clearly shaped by the era in which he lived and was thus representative of the past, present and f uture as is the sequence of stories in his originative novel of the troubled lives of the small-town individuals9.Sources1Adams, timothy Dow, Telling Lies in Modern American Autobiography, (Chapel Hill, NC University of North Carolina Press, 1990), p. 44.2Hatcher, Harlan, Creating the Modern American Novel, (New York Hatcher, Farrar Rinehart, 1935), P. 155.3 Hatcher, Harlan, Creating the Modern American Novel, (New York Hatcher, Farrar Rinehart, 1935), P. 157.4Loggins, Vernon, I render America Literature in the United States since 1900, (New York Biblo and Tannen, 1967), p. 151.5Loggins, Vernon, I Hear America Literature in the United States since 1900, (New York Biblo and Tannen, 1967), p. 157.6 Ellis, James, Sherwood Andersons Fear of Sexuality Horses, Men, and Homosexuality, Studies in Short Fiction, Vol. 30, 1993 (Michigan Gale Group).7 van Doren, Carl, The American Novel, 1789-1939, (New York Macmillan, 1940), p. 334.8 Whalan, Mark, Dreams of Manhood Narrative, Gender, a nd History in Winesburg, Ohio, Studies in American Fiction, Vol 30, 2002 (Boston Northeastern University).9 Thomas, F. Richard, Literary Admirers of Alfred Stieglitz, (Carbondale, IL. Southern Illinois University Press, 1983), p. 65.BibliographyAdams, Timothy Dow, Telling Lies in Modern American Autobiography, (Chapel Hill, NC University of North Carolina Press, 1990).Anderson, Sherwood, Winesburg, Ohio A Group of Tales of Ohio Small-Town Life, (New York Modern Library, 1919).Angoff, Allan, American pen Today Its Independence and Vigor, (New York New York University Press, 1957).Bryer, Jackson R., Sixteen Modern American Authors A Survey of look and Criticism, (Durham, NC Duke University Press, 1974).Elliott, Emery, ed., The Columbia History of the American Novel, (New York Columbia University Press, 1991).Ellis, James, Sherwood Andersons Fear of Sexuality Horses, Men, and Homosexuality, Studies in Short Fiction, Vol. 30, 1993 (Michigan Gale Group).Fiedler, Leslie A., hit the hay and Death in the American Novel, (Stein and Day, 1966).Fisher, Philip, Hard Facts Setting and Form in the American Novel, (New York Oxford University Press, 1987).Hatcher, Harlan, Creating the Modern American Novel, (New York Hatcher, Farrar Rinehart, 1935).Loggins, Vernon, I Hear America Literature in the United States since 1900, (New York Biblo and Tannen, 1967).Noe, Marcia, ed., Exploring the Midwestern Literary Imagination Essays in Honor of David D. Anderson, (Troy, N.Y. Whitston Publishing Company, 1993).Thomas, F. Richard, Literary Admirers of Alfred Stieglitz, (Carbondale, IL. Southern Illinois University Press, 1983).Wagenknecht, Edward, Cavalcade of the American Novel From the Birth of the Nation to the Middle of the 20th Century, (New York Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1952).Whalan, Mark, Dreams of Manhood Narrative, Gender, and History in Winesburg, Ohio, Studies in American Fiction, Vol 30, 2002 (Boston Northeastern University).Van Doren, Carl, The American Novel, 1 789-1939, (New York Macmillan, 1940).