The Moral Defense of Homosexuality Why Every Argument against Gay Rights Fails [Hardcover]

Meyers has written an important, timely study. ?The reasons are two.? First, even with the Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriage, arguments about LGBT rights continue. ?College campuses are no exception. ?Meyers uses logic in examining the issue, forcing readers to confront the fallacies in arguments against LGBT rights and promoting the logic of granting rights to all people, no matter their sexual orientation.? His treatment will prompt thoughtful, non-emotional discussions.??Second, this book is significant in terms of philosophy and logic.? Students studying argumentation will find the book extremely helpful in learning to analyze and evaluate arguments from a logical perspective. ?And it will assist students in learning to avoid logical fallacies in their arguments. ?Valuable in GLBT studies, philosophy, classes in logic and argumentation, and the social sciences in general, the book is also just a good read. Summing Up: Highly recommended. All readers.Chris Meyers amazing book is not only a complete defense of homosexuality; it is also a comprehensive, deep, and competent introduction to ethical philosophy. This combination makes it an ideal book for both scholars and general readers interested in moral theory and its application.This is an informed and sensitive work that should be read by everyone. The authors basic decency shone through again and again and is particularly admirable. Sometimes philosophical arguments are really important, and this is one of those times.With clear and careful philosophical analyses, Meyers systematically debunks the leading arguments against gay rights. Buttressed with evidence from the sciences, this is a superb defense of the view that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.In this book, Chris Meyers takes the reader on a careful, rational, sustained criticism of arguments about the immorality of homosexuality. Meyers refutes anti-gay arguments by showing that they are based on unreasonable or demonstrably falC'