Homosexual Rights- Backgroundo What do people mean when they say homosexuality is unnatural? There is no straightforward connection between something’s being unnatural and it being wrong.- Ex. Mother Theresa There is no straightforward connection between something’s being natural and it being right- Ex. Lying, cheating, stealing The is-ought gap: no moral conclusion follows directly from some natural fact or state of affairs- Levin: “Why Homosexuality is Abnormal”o Overview1. Homosexual acts are a misuse of body parts2. Misusing body parts will lead, on average, to less happiness than using them correctly3. Granting homosexuals basic rights will legitimate homosexual acts, thus leading to more unhappiness4. Therefore, we ought not to extend to homosexuals some basic rights and protectionso 1. Use and Misuse Ex. Using teeth as a necklace is a misuse- The use of an organ is determined in evolutionary terms: An organ is for a given activity. If the organ’s performing that activity, it helps its host/organisms suitably related to its host, and this contribution is how the organ got to and stays where it is. Therefore:- Teeth are for chewing- The penis is for the vagina (only such acts can produce offspring) Question: Is it true that organs have a single evolved use? (Ex. Hand)o 2. Use and Enjoyment The proper use of an organ leads to enjoyment  Those who enjoy the proper use of an organ leave more offspring Misusing and organ leads to less enjoyment Therefore, homosexual acts are less enjoyable than heterosexual acts And therefore, homosexuals are less happy than heterosexuals- Objection: Aren’t homosexuals less happy because of social ostracism?- Levin’s Response: The simplest explanation is that the unhappiness is a result of the misuse of an organ. Question: How is that the simplest explanation?o 3. Think of the Children By granting special protections to homosexuals, we signal that homosexual acts are legitimate  Such a public attitude might put subtle pressures on children to engage in homosexual acts Such acts would make them less happy This would be harm to children Therefore, we out not grants special protections to homosexuals Question: What evidence is there of these subtle pressures?- Murphy, “Homosexuality and Nature”o Overview: Murphy’s argument is based mostly on rebuttal to Levin’s argument1. Homosexual acts are a misuse of body parts2. Misusing body parts will lead, on average, to less happiness than you using them correctly3. Granting rights will legitimate homosexual acts, thus leading to more unhappiness4. Therefore, we ought not grant special rights to homosexualso 1. What is misuse? Levin argues that homosexual acts are a misuse of the penis. Murphy argues that there are 3 problems with this claim:1) Evolution is normative: the fact that something evolved for a certain use gives us no reason for continuing to us it that way (ex. Dogs, yeast, brain)2) Levin understands homosexuality exclusively as same-sex sex acts, not same-sex attraction. It is better to understand homosexuality as same-sex attraction (includes closet and celibate homosexuals)- But extending Levin’s argument means that same-sex attraction is a misuse of the brain.3) Levin’s argument depends on intuitions about the proper use of the penis - Remember the tooth necklace case- There are no good arguments for the claim that gay sex is a misuse of the penis, only intuitions- This is not a proper argumento 2. On happiness Levin claims that homosexuals are less happy than heterosexuals1) Levin’s claim is, in principle, irrefutable- No amount of evidence to the contrary could falsify Levin’s claim- This makes Levin’s claim merely an assertion masquerading as an argument2) Levin claims the unhappiness is inristic to homosexuality, not social ostracism- How could we decide? o Phase I: We would need to eliminate all forms of discrimination at every levelo Phase II: Apply ameliorative measures to ensure proper representationo 3. Social Legitimacy Levin claims that granting homosexuals basic rights and protections would signal an acceptance of homosexuality, and put subtle pressures on children1) Not granting protections also signals something: it signals that the law should render homosexuality invisible (not grant adoption, hospital visitation, etc.)- There is no returning to the status quo2) Levin assumes a developmental picture of homosexuality- How homosexuality is caused is a difficult question- Likely it involves nature and nurture- People do not choose to become (or not) homosexual because of their State’s law- The law will not influence the rate of homosexualityo 4. The Law Levin argues the law should exclude homosexuals from basic right to maximize happiness - Homosexuals would be more happy if the law granted them such protections- Not granting such laws would not influence the number of homosexuals- Therefore, the law should grant basic rights and protections to homosexuals to maximize happinessSchulman “Gay Marriage- and Marriage”o 1. Two Concepts of Marriage Conventionalist: the marriage is whatever the civil laws say that it is. Anyone can be married so long as it satisfies the requirements of law. Essentialist: marriage is an institution that existed prior to civil society. The role of the civil law in this regard is to protect the traditional institution of marriage because marriage is what makes civil society possible.o 2. Two Arguments for Gay Marriage 1. Consequentialist Argument: marriage domesticates men of the male impulse of promiscuity and violence, and creates stable and lasting family units. Allowing homosexuals to marry (especially men) will domesticate them in ways that are vulnerable to society, so we should allow it.- Objections:o Men do not need marriage to be domesticatedo Homosexuality is incompatible with heterosexual norms of marriage 2. Civil Rights Argument: marriage is a legal state that confers real benefits. By denying marriage to homosexuals we deny them real benefits, and thus current law discriminates against homosexuals. As a matter of justice, homosexuals should be allowed to marry.- Objections:o Slippery slope: once we take the 1st step, there is no principled stopping point until we end up with an obviously bad policy, so we must not take the 1st step o 3. What is Essence of Marriage 1. A set of goods: fidelity, mutual support, etc.-