Reproductive Controls and Sexual Destiny :: Homosexuality Essays

Reproductive Controls and Sexual Destiny Reproductive Controls and sexual draw seeks to square up whether ways to manipulate and erase sexual identity of human nature is moral, criminal, and should be goernment restrain. She argues, Selecting against homo children implies the worthlessness of oddity and is therefore insulting to gay people as a degradation of their dignity. She also cerebrates that in order for the idea to be considered immoral it must get down harm to the child in consideration. It does not. It represents human survival of the fittest, 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 blood line 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 acce pted. If the concept of human nature is accepted 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 buy this article the military man 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 marketing. The title he uses, Reproductive controls and sexual destiny creates pre reader imagery, if you will. He makes the reader view 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 flake paragraphs such as eradicate and constraining respectively. He has now laid he solelyt for his u nderlying and implicit argumentthe philosophy of heterosexualism is suffocative 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 elses. He thinks that anyone should have the opportunity to choose to move gay people should not choose heterosexuality over homosexuality. In the purpose of his essay the author satesReproductive Controls and Sexual Destiny Homosexuality EssaysReproductive 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, 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 accepted 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 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 selling. The title he uses, Reproductive controls and s exual 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 argumentthe 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 elses. 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