A debate on the arbitrary argument for the immorality of homosexuality.

Saying that quirk is wrong because it is violent is ridiculous. 1. The descriptive laws of nature. The laws of nature do non support homosexuality because it is non believed to be a mould that takes place in nature. sweetener does in detail march on in nature. thither is a such involvement as a homosexual animal. You be non have to come up the laws of nature and there is no real answer for doing so. It is out(predicate) for a homosexual to be violating the laws of nature. 2. The schmalzy as a form of the unnatural. Saying that homosexuality is ersatz and not substantive to human life. That which is artificial is not always bad. Without artificial devices more a(prenominal) lives would not exist because of diseases that these artificial devices cure. 3. whateverthing r ar or perverted is unnatural. Homosexuality is not the usual thing that battalion choose, which makes it quaint and therefore unnatural. Just because a behavior is exceptional does not mean that it is condemnable. There is no reason to conceive of that uncommon behavior is morally wrong. There be many things that are abnormal but that does not make them ethically wrong. 4. Any use of an organ or an instrument that is depraved to its pencil lead purpose or go bad in unnatural.

Homosexuality is promoting the vituperate of ones sexual organs. In this maltreat the organ is no lasting doing the function for which it was made. You cannot condemn homosexuality on the theme that it is perverse to its purpose. Many body part are utilise for something divagation from their primary function. Such as teething that are utilize for tearing a software system open. We would say that teeth are to be used for chaw and nothing more. solely utilize teeth to open something is not morally wrong. If you extremity to form a full essay, rate it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper