John Corvino's Argument Analysis

Good Essays
In this Essay I will be analyzing and discussing John Corvino's argument on whether his homosexual friends Tommy and Jim should have gay sex. Corvino begins his paper by describing normal things about the two men, essentially making them sound like regular normal happy people, in a happy and healthy relationship. Corvino goes on to "assume" that they have sex. This is where Corvino's argument begins: "Why shouldn't Tommy and Jim have sex?" Corvino's full argument is as follows: 1. Tommy and Jim have very good reasons to have sex with each other. 2. There are no better reasons for Tommy and Jim to not have sex with each other. 3. Therefore, Tommy and Jim should have sex with each other. Corvino defends the first premise by explaining that…show more content…
It can be an avenue of growth, of communication, and of lasting interpersonal fulfillment. These are reasons why most heterosexual couples have sex even if they don't want children, don't want children yet, or don't want additional children. And if these are good enough for most heterosexual couples, then they should be good enough for Tommy and Jim" (1). Corvino is basically stating the reasoning behind having sex whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual: they both have sex for the same, good, reasons. Corvino then goes on to his second reasoning: there are no better reasons for Tommy and Jim to not have sex with each other. He defends his reasoning by bringing up reasons why people are against homosexual sex. For example, one of the arguments against gay sex is that it is "unnatural." He goes on to consider what the term unnatural actually means. Corvino states in his argument that "Many things that people value - clothing, houses, medicine, and government, for example - are unnatural in some sense." (1). These are technically "unnatural" because they are not found in nature; however, these things are very common in the human lifestyle, therefore becoming normalized and considered okay in society. Without government, there would be no order. Without clothing, everyone would
Get Access