Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex? An Essay by John Corvino

In John Corvino’s essay, “Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex?” he advocates his argument that gay sex is not “unnatural” in any moral way. However, this argument is easy to critique when considering opposition from natural law theorists, democracy, and other perspective ideas.
In order for Corvino to make his position that gay sex is not morally “unnatural”, he must first respond to several arguments. Many natural law theorists believe that sexual organs should only be used for three distinct purposes; reproduction, making a home for children through marriage, and emotional bonds. However, Corvino responds to this by arguing many of the human organs can be used for different functions, therefore we cannot make an argument defending only sexual organs. In his work he refers to this principle of what can be considered natural and unnatural when stating, “If the unnaturalness charge is to be more than empty rhetorical flourish, those who levy it must specify what they mean” (Corvino 84). He uses this statement to support his claim that gay sex is morally natural by proving that society often claims many “unnaturally” processed goods as being natural. If this is the case then we cannot define a human function as “unnatural” with any moral justification.
Although Corvino is commonly persecuted by for his beliefs, he continues to justify his reasoning for gay sex by arguing against societies inconsistency in condemnation for sexual acts. By this he means that society condemns sexuality that does not aid in assisting what natural law theorists find most important, reproduction. However, he disputes that non-reproductive homosexual relationships are immoral and unnatural, because the Catholic Church allows sex with sterile, pregnant...

... middle of paper ...

...e same sex, regardless of race or the other characteristics provided, will never be able to fulfill this biological and societal expectation of the word “marriage.” Marriage was not created just for any relationship between humans, but is considered something governed by human nature and therefore natural law. Each of these valid reasons contradicts Corvino’s response that gay sex is not “unnatural,” proving that they clearly violate natural law.
As Corvino’s discussion with the naturalness of gay sex suggests, it is plausible to suppose that the relationships do not violate what constitutes sexual ethics. However, as I have argued, we cannot over-generalize sexual ethics, encompassing gay sex as moral in the areas of marriage, reproduction, and creating a home. Thus, Corvino fails to provide an adequate reason to believe his claim that gay sex is not “unnatural”.