John Corvino claims that homosexual people, as well as all people in a relationship, should have sex. Sex allows for the unification of couples by nurturing communication, romantic ties, and happiness within the relationship. Corvino then goes on to defend his claim and homosexuality. One argument that opponents use is that homosexual sex is “unnatural.” If the definition of unnatural means something unusual, homosexual sex could be considered unnatural, however, this is completely untrue. Some people claim homosexuality is immoral because animals do not practice homosexuality. The fact is, there are certain animals that do practice homosexuality, and therefore, that argument is invalid. Proponents of homosexuality often …show more content…
The bible, also, condemns many aspects of our current day society and allows for slavery. Rather than taking the bible literally, one should consider the historical context and then adjust to today’s norms. Corvino is right in defending the morality of homosexuality, because homosexuality is morally sound. This essay has a very sound argument. Majority of the essay is spent pointing flaws in the opposition, rendering the opposing arguments null. I enjoy Corvino’s argument because by making all the opposing arguments invalid, readers are led to one conclusion: Homosexual sex is morally sound. One point that Corvino makes is that even if homosexuality is unnatural, it would not be correct to say homosexuality is immoral. Let’s assume that homosexuality is unnatural in all aspects. Corvino’s claim would still hold true, homosexual sex would be moral. As mentioned in the essay, “unnatural” holds various definitions. Deviating from the norm would still be morally insignificant, innate desires are still not a good judgment or morality, and sex organs continue to serve more of a purpose than just procreation. The only argument of Corvino that would be up for debate would be the comparison to animals. If homosexuality does not occur in the natural world, then humans should not do it and is therefore
Douglass continues to describe the severity of the manipulation of Christianity. Slave owners use generations of slavery and mental control to convert slaves to the belief God sanctions and supports slavery. They teach that, “ man may properly be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained by God” (Douglass 13). In order to justify their own wrongdoings, slaveowners convert the slaves themselves to Christianity, either by force or gentle coercion over generations. The slaves are therefore under the impression that slavery is a necessary evil. With no other source of information other than their slave owners, and no other supernatural explanation for the horrors they face other than the ones provided by Christianity, generations of slaves cannot escape from under the canopy of Christianity. Christianity molded so deeply to the ideals of slavery that it becomes a postmark of America and a shield of steel for American slave owners. Douglass exposes the blatant misuse of the religion. By using Christianity as a vessel of exploitation, they forever modify the connotations of Christianity to that of tyrannical rule and
...ted her case coherently and effectively, she did not address all the concerns surrounding the issue of gender roles and homophobia. For instance, there is an argument for both homophobia and gender roles having a biblical origin, and the author did not mention it. Because of this, if the reader was a homophobic, and he or she deeply rooted his or her views in the bible, he or she would probably not be persuaded by Vàzquez’s essay. However, like a lawyer, covering the opposing side could prove destructive to his or her argument. Carmen Vàzquez’s goal was to show the reader that social reform was the only clear option and her essay accomplishes this coherently and effectively.
Slave-owners forced a perverse form of Christianity, one that condoned slavery, upon slaves. According to this false Christianity the enslavement of “black Africans is justified because they are the descendants of Ham, one of Noah's sons; in one Biblical story, Noah cursed Ham's descendants to be slaves” (Tolson 272). Slavery was further validated by the numerous examples of it within the bible. It was reasoned that these examples were confirmation that God condoned slavery. Douglass’s master...
The slave owners accepted and rationalized slavery through the Holy Bible. The Bible mentions slavery on numerous occasions, and yet none of these passages condemn it. Timothy 6:1-2 states, “Let slaves regard th...
Overall, the fact that their bodies were not their own was perhaps the most terrible component of slavery for women-they were looked upon as sexual objects that existed for their masters to enact their most depraved sexual fantasies upon rather than a human being. Jacobs tries to give full emphasis to this fact in order to sway the sentiments of northern readers, particularly white women who would be most likely empathetic to her predicament. A Christian master knew the word of God or what we would call the teachings of the Bible, so he was able to intentionally misconstrue biblical verses to his advantage. Yet, white southern “Christians” committed these cruel acts, believing their behaviors were neither wrong nor immoral (BN 1).
We can so easily deceive ourselves into believing that what is accepted by the general population as normal behavior is also justifiably correct. Rarely do we, as a society, question our customs as long as this behavior yields such commodities as convenience, profit or social benefit. If contested, our acts become well justified and defended. All components of our lifestyle are purposefully bent to fit around popular beliefs and anything, up to and including the Holy Bible, can be distorted to advance our position. A current example of this is today's Muslim terrorists who are using teachings in their Koran to justify their position saying that the Koran dictates that they must fight a holy war, killing as many Christians and Jews as possible, even going so far as to sacrifice their own lives in the process. This sort of religious distortion, used to justify man's self-serving will, is what writer and former slave, Frederick Douglass exposes in his story of his life which he wrote in 1845.
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.
He examines the core arguments against homosexual sex such as: it is abnormal, the idea that homosexuals choose to be that way, it goes against the purpose of our sexual reproductive organs, it is disgusting and how it goes against biblical teachings. He first looks at the meaning of homosexual sex being “unnatural”. It is hard for him to claim that one definition of natural is right compared to another person’s. He does argue against the idea of natural law theorists by saying that many things that are important in our society are not natural, and there are many natural things that people detest. He says, “If the unnaturalness charge is to be more than empty rhetorical flourish, those who levy it must specify what they mean”(Shafer-Landau 239). Disease and death are natural things that people do not like. Cancer is natural but no one believes that it is just or good. Then there are unnatural things people enjoy in life such as medications and a democratic government. These examples refer back to Corvino’s quote, challenging the true intentions of those who argue things based on naturalness. Another challenge to the naturalness of homosexuality is the idea that a homosexual person chooses to live that lifestyle, they were not born that way. It is hard to believe this is true however due to the fact that most heterosexuals cannot
In order to convince the readers of her Appeal of the unlawful nature of slavery, Grimké draws primarily on the two texts that have been the foundation of America: the Declaration of Independence and the Bible. She argues first that slavery is “contrary to the declaration of our independence” (Grimké 798), in that slavery opposes the notion that all men are created equal. She contends that “slavery in America reduces a man to a thing, a ‘chattel personal’, robs him of all his rights as a human being, fetters both his mind and body and… throws him out of the protection of the law” (Grimké 798). As such, she argues that slaves have been denied “the first charter of human rights given to Adam, and renewed to Noah” (Grimké 798). Drawing on the Bible, Grimké suggests to her readers that slavery is sinful, that it is a “crime against God and man” (800), and that nowhere is slavery condoned within the Bible. She does not, however, force her beliefs on her readers, but bids them to read scripture and “Judge for yourselves whether he sanctioned such a system of oppression and crime” (Grimké 800). If they should decide that that slavery is a sin, she urges them to
Milstein, Susan A. Taking Sides Clashing Views in Human Sexuality. Ed. William J. Taverner and Ryan W. McKee. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
John Corvino’s essay “Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex?” address all the reasons of why some individuals believe homosexual relationships are wrong. He begins by addressing one of the most common reason of why homosexual relationships are wrong, which is because homosexual sex is “unnatural”. He went on to explain that there are many things that people do that are also considered unnatural, but are not frowned upon. He also addresses a common argument, which is that since animals do not do it, then humans shouldn’t do it either. I agree with Corvino when he says that this is truly flawed. Animals and humans are completely different. Animals do not believe in religion, yet we do. Does that make practicing
However at the time of its publication circa 1997 I believe that these ideals hold true for a majority of Americans and most other first world nations. So I ask myself what is the purpose of the article and this is where I find Corvino lacking. It is a personal appeal to individuals to debunk their belief that homosexuality is immoral. This I would contend is meant to be a piece centered in cultural relativism, and at least in the case of America his goals are already achieved as the liberties of individuals are already ensured under the law. This is where one would insert gay marriage and adoption as counter arguments. I will not address these arguments to keep this brief, and because Corvino doesn’t himself. Corvino’s appeal is almost wholly personal and catered to ethical subjectivism, in appealing to the individual I believe he hopes to change culture, but sidesteps making that argument clear himself. The validity of his argument is sound, but its goals being unclear leave me wondering whether a piece about homosexuality, and not tolerance is what Corvino should have written. This is where I leave off I find “Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex?” to be a very nice appeal to everyone’s personal predilection or lack thereof of tolerance, but to ultimately fall short of more socially relevant arguments which it intends to support, and yet offers no evidence
Initially, Levin states that homosexuality is abnormal due to the mere fact that it weakens our society and inhibits our evolutionary development, not because it is sinful or immoral. He explains that being homosexual is a waste of bodily parts and a misuse of our genitalia. As a result, Levin argues that our body parts and bodily pleasures are highly related and connected to our happiness. Because homosexuals are misusing their bodies, they are more likely to be less happy on average than those who are straight. And in return, Levin believes that because they are less happy throughout their lives, they receive less out of life than the typical straight person.
Stein, Edward. The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 1999. Print. 20 Oct. 2011
In this way a person can try to push off accusations of bigotry , intolerance , etc. because it’s just a matter of credible observation as to what is and it's not a proper part of the natural order. In real life, claims about the natural order or the natural law only end up being masked for religious, political, or social prejudices. A common and simple meaning is that heterosexual relationships are “natural” because it is what we find in nature, whereas we don’t find homosexual relationships. The last one is therefore unnatural and should not be acknowledged by society. A good example of this attitude toward the “unnaturalness” of homosexuality is expressed by Peter Akinola, Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria. He says that he can not think that a man in the right mind would have a sexual relationship with another man and that even in animals we don't hear things like this.There are a lot of possible objections to this. First, humans are a part of nature, so if humans have homosexual relationships, Secondly, we don’t find dogs, cows, and lions entering into legal marriage contracts with one another. These objections point to the logical flaws in the argument, the argument is factually