Nature Morality Essay Research Paper Moral or

Nature Morality Essay, Research Paper

Moral or Immoral?

 People consider nature morality. They associate nature as being pure and good. Unnatural as being corrupt and evil.

 Morality is based on spiritual and personal beliefs and on accepted standards for the respect of others.

 Good judgment should not equate what’s common with what’s right or good. Nonconformity is not the same as immoral.

 Some people confuse what “is” with what they “think” ought to be.

 Nature is a moral. Not moral or immoral. There’s sunshine, flowers, and sea breeze, but on the other hand there’s diseases, earthquakes, and hurricanes.

Immoral

 Some people think that you must be married in order to have sex; and because homosexuals are not married, they are wrong.

 Many people think that homosexual marriages would destroy families, and that it is a threat to society and its children. Children are vulnerable and impresstional.

 Many say it is also a threat to tradition. No change in tradition is wanted. It would lead society corruption. (Wasn’t slavery and segregation tradition?)

 Many people say it’s not natural. God created “Adam and Eve” NOT “Adam and Steve.”

 “What if everyone were homosexual? The whole human species would be wiped out in a few decades!” But on the other hand what if everyone had 8 children?

 In the Institute for Sex Research Survey, 49% said gay marriages would lead to society corruption. 63% considered it harmful to the American life.

 In 1981 there was no doubt that being homosexual was considered immoral. 71% population said that it was wrong. 295 considered homosexual not immoral. (10% of, which was made up by the homosexuals themselves.)

 Later in the Institute for Sex Research, 78% people felt homosexual acts were always wrong. 81% of people claimed not to know a gay person.

 Homosexual can be considered inherently (existing) immoral, for there is no “act” saying that it is moral or immoral.

Moral

 Denial of marriage to homosexual people is an ex. of double standard. (Homosexuals can’t marry, but heterosexuals can?)

 Sex was around before marriage. The original drive for marriage was secular, not religious, economic, not moral. Old-style of marriage was polygamy. When fathers gave away daughters, at the end of the ceremony we have a man (the important one) and his wife (his new “possession.”) Now days we have gotten rid of traditional wedding lines.

 Many points of false notions of prohibiting gay marriages because of “tradition” have been brought up.

 In the 16-century, many gay couples got married in churches. The focus on marriage is counterproductive. People should define morality for gay relationships. The obvious alternate is marriage.

 Father Charles Curren defines morality for gay marriages as striving for love and permanency. The church is an appropriate place to begin a reform to show society that homosexuality is not immoral because of tradition or religious beliefs.

Still Immoral or Moral?

 Whether a man/woman loves a man/woman is not a moral issue but a personal matter.

 Is being homosexual immoral? No! Are some gay relationships sinful? Definitely! But so are some heterosexual relationships.

 While dealing with a homosexual matter, replace heterosexual with homosexual. Will the claim hold up if the issue is considered on a context of heterosexuality?