Gay Rights (Essay Sample)

Gay Rights
An Assignment Submitted by
Name of Student
Name of Establishment
Class XXXX, Section XXXX, Fall 2011
Gay Rights
In response to J. Finnis, M. Nussbaum and R. Mohr's essays.
One of the basic natures of humans is to solve problems. As Bugelski argues in his book "Psychology in common cause", many of these problems have nothing to do with survival or reason, but are just our way to fulfil this basic need. One can easily speculate so far, that social gay rights are of this kind of problem, and are not a purely social, political or religious issue, but rather something that emerges at the interaction of these, and many other interested parties. To a rational, practical (and especially non-gay) person, discussing this issue or fighting (as they call it) for these rights is as meaningless as finding their purpose in life, answering why Universe exists or in a similar way, looking for sense in any place, where it was never present per se.
Most arguments against gay marriage take the absolutely irrational, judgemental and rudimentary stupid form, like that of J. Finnis. He states that single-gender sex is similar to masturbation and is viewed as instrumentation to one's desires, as opposed to marriage that is filled with some metaphysical sense of these acts. He also looks down on adultery, though, functionally, it's not that much different from sex within marriage. Finnis' argumentation is almost entirely based on what is called "moral reasoning", being filled with emotions that are a reflection of some basic instincts within his body, that oppose homosexuality and attract heterosexual monogamy. Not that only are moral emotions irrational in common sense, they also absolutely don't appeal to a psychopath - here without any negative sense - a person, who's not sensitive to any kind of moral sentiments. His historical examples are also misleading, since it's commonly known that gay relationships (especially among men) as well as sodomy against children was widely practised at that times (for which there's evidence in many sources, including the answer to Finnis by M. Nussbaum), so, probably, the Ancient Greek works meant are more like a public campaign against an uncontrolled fashion of these practices, done by inventing some sort of difference, between the "right" and "wrong" conducts of person-to-person commitment. And, finally, my latest and biggest argument against statements made in this paper, which will be based on eastern religions and their perception of sexuality. Sex with contraceptives (chemical or mechanical) can be seen as instrumental, even inside marriage. Taoism and other oriental religions find ejaculatory sex instrumental, as opposed to esoteric and meditative orgasmic sex that does not end in ejaculation and can proceed virtually forever (note that this distinction is not related to contraception). In their religion, man's seed is the vital energy of life (which can be backed up by modern biological aging theories and stem cells research), and losing it, being driven by animal desires in search for a short-term gain in reinforcement and reward, is an equivalent of "killing of a Buddha" or "little death". For women there exists an analogy for this sort of instrumentation, though matters are a little bit complicated, because no actual seed is being expelled from the body (this also explains longer lifespan for women). So, in oriental religions, the "right" kind of sex is the one that's centered around sexual energy exchange and reaching ultimate orgasm. For an enlightened person (in oriental sense) there is no difference between ejaculatory sex inside or outside marriage, or whether it's among men or women; furthermore for a Taoist gay intimacy can not be called "unnatural", because it already exists within the nature (Tao).
Unfortunately, the paper by R. Mohr, which seems to be a pro-gay one, doesn't lack emotional baggage as well, for example it makes an overwhelming comparison of unreported discrimination against gays with unreported rape. Not that these simply can't be compared because obviously they are entirely different in their nature, Mohr should know better that if some kind of social judgement, a stigma, exists upon certain kind of incidents with people (like a raped girl), there's a functional reason for it, in this case balancing the number of cases, keeping it within a specific range. Mohr also makes an argument similar to ours, that "condemnation of homosexuality is merely a quirk of history and rhetoric rather than a moral precept", which is quite coherent with the theory of public management campaigns expressed earlier, as well as he states that "homosexuality is a mean by which people adapt nature to fulfil their desires and needs" and can't be called unnatural, in union with the Taoist account on it.
But, probably the best argument by Mohr is that organs aren't single-purpose, each of it is universal, so I'd like to devote a paragraph to discussing this statement. Yes, probably there's no organ in our body that serves one single purpose, and if you take sexual intercourse as a process, it's functional purpose is never limited to procreation only, but rather it's an essential part of what's called "sexual behavior", in either humans or non-human animals. Sexual behavior includes obvious items like mating rituals, child care as well as hidden ones, which span basically through entire life, including childhood. Following our integrationist approach, let us explain why genitals seem to be single-purpose to so many people, or even why this idea seems plausible. In Christianity and communities based on it, genitals and sexuality are usually hidden from the society, these parts of the body are covered most of the time, and even when they aren't, children are taught not to look very much at them, even their own. All other kind of experiments, like touching, etc., are also discouraged. So, in a Piagetian sense, when developing, people from Christian communities usually develop a poor body map that's related to sexual feelings and emotions, as well as they have little chances of discovering some uses for their genitals. For example, a penis could be (hypothetically) especially useful when opening beer cans, but it's impossible to find out unless one (or anyone at all) tries, du...