Reproductive Controls and Sexual Destiny :: Homosexuality Essays

Reproductive Controls and Sexual Destiny Reproductive Controls and sexual destiny seeks to determine whether ways to manipulate and erase sexual identity of homosexual nature is moral, criminal, and should be government control. She argues, â€Å"Selecting against gay children implies the worthlessness of homosexuality and is therefore insulting to gay people as a degradation of their dignity.† She also believes that in order for the idea to be considered immoral it must bring harm to the child in consideration. It does not. It represents human choice, which is to be preserved and encouraged. She does believe that this decision could be viewed as immoral in that it is in a way selfish. She does believe that to further the argument for a government ban there must be an establishment of a cause of homosexuality that is more concrete than hormonally based. The success of the argument against homosexuality in general can survive if the underlying religious assumption is accepted. If the concept of human nature is accepte d it represents human choice rather than destiny of individual to be heterosexual as the Roman Catholic Church argues that god has purposed humans to be and will be held accountable for by god. In order for a reader to â€Å"buy† this article the world have to be a utopia in which people are accepted for who they are what they believe in; what their religion is and who their friends are. Which brings me to the topic the author is actually â€Å"selling†. The title he uses, Reproductive controls and sexual destiny creates pre reader imagery, if you will. He makes the reader think of his two worse nightmares someone controlling his future involving his/her abilities to bring life into this world. Now after he has gotten the reader in this mode of defense for anything that tries to control his/her reproduction he uses words in his first and second paragraphs such as eradicate and constraining respectively. He has now laid he groundwork for his underlying and implicit argu ment†¦the philosophy of heterosexualism is smothering the gay community from enjoying there own destinies to not only be gay but to condone it as a perfectly valid choice for their offspring or any body else’s. He thinks that anyone should have the opportunity to choose to become gay; people should not choose heterosexuality over homosexuality. In the purpose of his essay the author sates Reproductive Controls and Sexual Destiny :: Homosexuality Essays Reproductive Controls and Sexual Destiny Reproductive Controls and sexual destiny seeks to determine whether ways to manipulate and erase sexual identity of homosexual nature is moral, criminal, and should be government control. She argues, â€Å"Selecting against gay children implies the worthlessness of homosexuality and is therefore insulting to gay people as a degradation of their dignity.† She also believes that in order for the idea to be considered immoral it must bring harm to the child in consideration. It does not. It represents human choice, which is to be preserved and encouraged. She does believe that this decision could be viewed as immoral in that it is in a way selfish. She does believe that to further the argument for a government ban there must be an establishment of a cause of homosexuality that is more concrete than hormonally based. The success of the argument against homosexuality in general can survive if the underlying religious assumption is accepted. If the concept of human nature is accepte d it represents human choice rather than destiny of individual to be heterosexual as the Roman Catholic Church argues that god has purposed humans to be and will be held accountable for by god. In order for a reader to â€Å"buy† this article the world have to be a utopia in which people are accepted for who they are what they believe in; what their religion is and who their friends are. Which brings me to the topic the author is actually â€Å"selling†. The title he uses, Reproductive controls and sexual destiny creates pre reader imagery, if you will. He makes the reader think of his two worse nightmares someone controlling his future involving his/her abilities to bring life into this world. Now after he has gotten the reader in this mode of defense for anything that tries to control his/her reproduction he uses words in his first and second paragraphs such as eradicate and constraining respectively. He has now laid he groundwork for his underlying and implicit argu ment†¦the philosophy of heterosexualism is smothering the gay community from enjoying there own destinies to not only be gay but to condone it as a perfectly valid choice for their offspring or any body else’s. He thinks that anyone should have the opportunity to choose to become gay; people should not choose heterosexuality over homosexuality. In the purpose of his essay the author sates