Present Levin’s argument which connects the idea of abnormality with ideas about happiness. Levin thinks that this gives us reason to try to prevent people from becoming or acting as homosexuals. Murphy thinks that even if Levin is correct about the normal-to-happiness connections, the appropriate response might be quite different from what Levin contends. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of thesepositions.

The discussion in the modern scientific community about the rights of persons of non-traditional sexual orientation periodically uses arguments that relate to evolutionary theory. At the same time, they are often usedtogether with legal doctrines. The widespread occurrence of same-sex sexual behavior in the animal world is traditionally regarded as an evolutionary paradox. Other researchers conclude that homosexuality is not a paradox that needs a special explanation. They consider it only the result of the socio-cultural evolution of humans as a species. Thus, there are different positions regarding the meaning of the existence of homosexual relationships for the population of Homo sapiens.

Michael Levin in his article “Why homosexuality is abnormal” argues that same-sex marriage is a dead-end branch in the evolution of the family and society. He considers it controlled by natural selection due to the lack of the ability to reproduce. According to Levin, same-sex formsof marriage pose a danger to the demography of society and traditional family values. Timothy F. Murphy in the article “Homosexuality and nature: Happiness and the law at stake“ argues that his opponents forget that the norm is more determined by culture than by the innate nature of a person. Throughout the history of our species and in different societies, the institution of the family has repeatedly adopted features that would seem horrifying and immoral to a modern person.

The strong positions of Levin’s article are the fact that the active development of homosexuality is indeed one of the means of combating the overpopulation of the planet. Same-sex love cannot lead to childbearing, so it really reduces the number of the population growing exponentially. The strong features of Murphy’s article are that in a society striving for the ideal, the interests of all its representatives are really taken into account. This is confirmed by the example of the presence of homosexual members of power in countries with the highest level of happiness. In all these cases, the main criterion for evaluating the qualities of a politician was their professional qualities, and not personal intimate preferences.

The weakness of Levin’s position is due to the fact that homosexuality, in the process of evolution, was necessary for a number of reasons. Homosexual human behavior had an adaptive significance providing strong alliances between men and promoted mutual support and cooperation. In ancient times, this provided more reliable access to resources and increased survival, reduced aggression among men with an increase in population density. The weak features of Murphy’s position are that he does not take into account the phenomenon that it would be appropriate to call forced homosexuality. It is a by-product of the modern global penitentiary system, stay in closed educational institutions, orphanages, socially disadvantaged families (in the latter it is combined with pedophilia and incest).

The world around us is changing, and therefore views on various social phenomena are shifting, old stereotypes are collapsing, and new ones are coming in their place. Thus, the legalization of same-sex marriage is not evidence of society’s rejection of moral values. It is closely connected with the idea of the existence of a state for the sake of a happy life, where the needs of all citizens will be met. In such a state, everyone has the right to life and marriage, regardless of their gender identity. The issue of sexual orientation is purely personal and no one has the right to interfere in private life.