According to Michael Ruse who based his argument on modern philosophy, he dismisses the idea that homosexuality is not natural through exploring the philosophical question if it is a disease and "he concludes that it is not generally". Ruse states that prejudice against homosexuals can only be defended on the grounds of personal aesthetics or religion and from a logical point of view neither of them is justified. Ruse argues that extreme promiscuity is not justified, be it to heterosexuals or homosexuals (Ruse 254-360). On the other hand, Ruse supports the position of utilitarianism that, "provided a person does not abridge the liberty of another" where liberty means, "precisely letting others do what they want to do because they want to do it, not because we approve." Therefore, it is definitely not a sexual perversion.

Conferring to Finnis and Nussbaum, the interest should all be directed towards the common good of the individuals in the relationship. Therefore, marriage is a double blessing, procreation and friendship, and is an actual common good. Additionally, it is a common good that can be realized and practiced in the sexual union of a man and a woman who are united for the common good. Only conjugal sexual activity is free from the shamefulness of instrumentalization, as put across by Plato and Aristotle, Plutarch and Kant.

Finnis argues that in essence homosexuality is degrading and harmful at the same time and, consequently, is unable to participate in the basic human goods it imitates. Therefore, in open-minded democratic societies the political community is justified to discourage homosexuality as a way of life. Finnis, a natural law philosopher, states that homosexual conduct should be discouraged and criminalized. Finnis embraces the liberal tradition of the limited government that is compassionate to plurality but yet rejects "neutrality". The natural law theory according to Finnis claims that it can identify principles and conditions of practical right-mindedness, of proper and good order among men and in individual conduct. He meant that there are human goods that motivate reasonable action on the part of communities, families, individuals, and governments, and the scope and role of the government are restricted. Additionally, Finnis believes that homosexuality is a diversion from some of the basic human goods and detrimental to the individuals who are accomplices. Therefore, Finnis' position is based on the view that sexual activity goes in line with human goods and the benefits of the individual. Finnis maintains his stand that any homosexual demeanor should be discouraged but not justified to criminalize these acts or the participants therein.

Natural law theory by Finnis helps us know whether what we are doing, (decisions and actions) is right or wrong, that is if it is moral. Later this was challenged by the relativism theories which stated that morals are not based on know-how or objective standards and are subjective, hence debates analyzing morality and its place within a formulated state cropped up. It is clearly depicted that according to Finnis, homosexuality is a sexual perversion contrary to Michael Ruse.

According to Thomas Nagel, there is nothing to learn about sex from the fact that we have the concept of sexual perversion, thus bad sex is desirable to no sex at all. He focuses on sexual perversion as a departure from biological or theological approaches. Thomas Nagel argues that a sexual encounter for humans may result in the increasing mutual embodiment of the people involved in reciprocal awareness of their emotional responses. Consequently, curtailed versions of the pattern result in sexual perversions i.e. sex with animals, inanimate objects, and children (Nagel 31-43). Based on the same facts, Nagel argues that homosexual acts are not perverted since they can be psychologically complete as heterosexism. Thomas argues that consistently with psychiatry, perversion lies in the psychology of the person who performs it rather than in the act performed and that a section of sexual perversion exists in his preferring certain acts that are abridged.

Thomas Nagel in his argument contends that sex is an appetite like any other and has a number of ways in which it can be stuffed. None of the ways should be considered unnatural, as irregular or odd as they may seem to be. The argument clearly states that appetites are normal, sex is normal, and it is an appetite. Bestowing to Nagel, sex is a mode of communication thus is the complete conversation between two persons. From the communication concept it can be realized that since sex is a relation between two people, it is reciprocal, and some sexual practices that do not meet the requirements for a normal sexual encounter, therefore, some sexual experiences are perverse. For clarification purposes, Nagel gives certain illustrations; sadism, voyeurism, masochism, and exhibitionism are incomplete forms of communication. Nagel concludes that homosexuality is not perverse since two people thought of the same sex can communicate (Nagel 31-43).

Objectification is viewed as considering a person as an entity with no repute to their dignity. According to Martha Nussbaum, objectification occurs if there is ownership by another, if tolerable to destroy or damage if they do not care about their experiences and feelings, if they lack autonomy, if used as a tool for another's purpose, and if used as if they are substitutable. In most cases, objectification is related to women rather than men. This resulted due to the exposure of men to pornography; women are reduced to the status of mere tools for the measly use by men. Nussbaum argues that objectification is an inevitably negative phenomenon, and she adds on saying that objectification can, in some frameworks, take positive forms and can create an enjoyable and a valuable part of our lives.

Therefore, it is quite in order to say that homosexuality could or could not involve objectification depending on the partakers' intentions and motives. A homosexual relationship can be objectified if either of the persons involved intends to carry out detrimental acts on their partner, if one of the participants lacks autonomy, if they are deemed easily substitutable, if they are treated in a manner likely to suggest that one is owned by the other, and if the experiences or feelings of one party are not taken into account at all.

In some circumstances, one party has power over the other and are, therefore, deemed to be the inferior partner and are meant to follow the directives of the superior one. Based on Nussbaum's argument, it is quite in order to say that objectification to some extent is reflected in homosexual relationships. At times the desire of one party are not met, because of the lack of autonomy as the treatment is identified to their body parts, their appearance, or treating an individual as if they are silent thus no chance to air their views (Nussbaum, Objectification 241-291).

Although, in a homosexual relationship the parties are both men, one of the two is supposed to provide the emotional affirmation of male and physical touch. Moreover, he must be a girl, provide fashion advice, and have all the features of a puppy on happy pills. In order to make matters clear, the ultimate good of a man with same-sex attraction can be achieved by the normalization of the actively homoerotic lifestyle through redefined civil marriage. On the contrary, research proves that some homosexual relationships are not the objective per se. They are a balanced relationship and participants are able to communicate as argued out by Nagel. Therefore, according to Nagel, if the intention of the homosexuals is right then there is communication and no objectification may arise. Based on the views of the various philosophers we have focused on, it is true to say that the question of the morality of homosexuality is highly dependent on the motives of the personalities involved in the relationship. Hence an agreement should be arrived at to know what the intentions of each of the parties involved hence a moral stand is established. (Nussbaum 367-399).

Related essays