For the Homosexuality Group Project in PHIL 111: Contemporary Moral Issues at TAMU

1. Alex Hodgson
Ricardo
Espinosa
Logan Brandt
HOMOSEXUALITY Collin Brewer
Steven Mar tinez
Hannah Welch

2. Our group would like to point
out that the arguments in
this slideshow are not
necessarily reflections of the
personal feelings of this
group.
Enjoy the presentation. 

3. Alex Hodgson
ARGUMENTS
Ricardo
SUPPORTING Espinosa
HOMOSEXUALITY Logan Brandt

4. HAPPINESS ARGUMENT
 Premise 1
 Granting gays the right to marry would cause them to settle down
 Premise 2
 Settling down causes a more stable emotional and financial outlook
 Premise 3
 A more stable emotional and financial outlook fosters happiness
 Premise 4
 It is wrong to restrict rights that would foster happiness
 Conclusion
 It is wrong to restrict gay marriage
Evolution Argument
 Premise 1
 Science is coming up with more and more evidence supporting that homosexuality is
caused by biological factors rather than environmental factors
 Premise 2
 It is wrong to discourage a person’s acknowledgment of their inherent genetic makeup
 Conclusion
 It is wrong to discourage homosexuality

5. SETTLING DOWN ARGUMENT
 Premise 1
 Couples that are allowed to marry will marry.
 Premise 2
 Married couples have fewer sexual partners than those in
uncommitted relationships.
 Premise 3
 Fewer sexual partners means a lower-risk sex life.
 Conclusion
Allowing homosexual marriage would lower high -risk gay sexual
encounters

6. MYOB ARGUMENT
 Premise 1
 Allowing homosexuals to participate in sexual activities in private
does not harm anyone
 Premise 2
 Allowing homosexuals to participate in sexual activities in private
causes happiness for those participating
 Premise 3
 Restricting activities that cause happiness to others and no harm to
anyone else is wrong
 Conclusion
 Restricting homosexual behavior is wrong

7. MINORIT Y DISCRIMINATION ARGUMENT
 Premise 1
 Not allowing people to love who they want to love is discrimination.
 Premise 2
 Discriminating against minorities is wrong.
 Premise 3
 Homosexuals are a minority
 Conclusion:
 Restricting homosexual activity is wrong.

8. ADOPTION ARGUMENT
 Premise 1
 Gay couples cannot reproduce
 Premise 2
 Couples who cannot reproduce are more likely to adopt children
 Premise 3
 Adoption agencies are more likely to grant a child to couples who are
legally committed to their relationship (A.K.A. married)
 Premise 4
 It is wrong to restrict couples who would like to adopt a child and can
financially support one
 Conclusion
It is wrong to restrict gay marriage

9. Collin Brewer
ARGUMENTS AGAINST Steven
Martinez
HOMOSEXUALITY
Hannah
Welch

10. LEVIN’S UNHAPPINESS ARGUMENT
 Premise 1
 Homosexuality is a misuse of an organ that by its nature
has a specific use.
 Premise 2
 Misuse of an organ that has a specific use has a tendency
to lead to unhappiness.
 Conclusion
Homosexuality will eventually lead to unhappiness.

11. LUBRICATION ARGUMENT
 Premise 1
 Homosexual men require store bought lubrication
 Premise 2
 Store bought lubrication is not natural
 Conclusion
It is not natural for men to have sex with other men
 Premise 1
 It is not natural for men to have sex with other men
 Premise 2
 It is wrong to use organs for an unnatural use
 Conclusion
It is wrong to be homosexual

12. SOCIAL DISDAIN ARGUMENT
 Premise 1
 People tend to avoid or even harass those people they find to be
strange, including homosexuals .
 Premise 2
 Society’s avoidance can lead to despair and unhappiness of a
person.
 Conclusion
 Homosexuality can lead to despair and unhappiness of a person.

13. FAMILY VALUES ARGUMENT
 Premise 1
 Family values are highly based upon a delicate balance of
discipline and allowing a child to explore their options.
 Premise 2
 Homosexuality disrupts a parent’s ability to allow a child to
explore their options and tips the balance of parenthood.
 Conclusion
 Homosexuality can destroy family values.
 Adopted Child Argument

14. DEPRIVATION ARGUMENT
 Premise 1
 Potentiality of life begins at the sperm.
 Premise 2
 It is wrong to deprive a potential per son of life.
 Premise 3
 Homosexual s do not reproduce and thus deprive a potential per son from
life.
 Conclusion
 Homosexuality is wrong.
 Evolution Argument

15. Alex Hodgson
REBUTTAL FROM GROUP
SUPPORTING Ricardo
Espinosa
HOMOSEXUALITY Logan Brandt

16. Collin Brewer
REBUTTAL FROM GROUP
AGAINST Steven
Martinez
HOMOSEXUALITY Hannah Welch