Homosexuality is being hotly debated today in society. When the case is made for the legitimacy of same-sex love, critics rush in with four main defenses: 1) It is contrary to nature. 2) It is condemned in Bible. 3) Its acceptance would ruin society. 4) It is harmful. John decided not to attack the morality of homosexuality but support those above four arguments. Let's take one of the arguments.
             Homosexuality is unnatural. What is unnatural in world? Left-handed people are unnatural in world but we except them. We wear clothes or drive the cars that are also unnatural. The lecturer thinks that such arguments as A person was born this way; therefore it is natural; therefore it is OK, or it is a life style matter; therefore is unnatural; therefore it is wrong are "crappy" because you do not remember the way life was when we were born. You also cannot say "I have feelings for this for a long time" because if everybody would have feelings for a long time then it would be OK to be violent and say "He was born this way; it is natural; it is OK." You do not judge the moral value of the activity by looking at the cause or origin towards of disposition of that activity.
             What he said on that lecture depends on moral convictions: convictions about fairness, convictions about justice, convictions about how we need to treat to each other. He thinks that how gay and lesbian are treated in our society is morally wrong. Morality is not private matter. Morality is how we teat one another. Morality is about what kind of standards we want to use not just private preferences but as public standards for the behavior. He is not asking to judge people. Rather, he wants us to have the supportive reasons when we judge something. He is asking to put ourselves in the shoes before judgment. This is his moral issue, his agenda.
             The policy and legal debates surrounding homosexuality involve fundamental issues of morality...