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
All citations from Cahill, Lisa. “Homosexuality: A Case Study in Moral Argument.” Homosexuality in the Church. Ed. By Jeffrey Siker. Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, 1994. 61-75.
She confirms her authority on the topic by revealing, very early on, that she has contracted the disease herself. She states, “Though I am female and contracted this disease in marriage, and enjoy the warm support of my family, I am one with the lonely gay man sheltering a flickering candle from the cold wind of his family's rejection.” She purposefully conveys to her conservative audience that she is not gay, is married, a mother and contracted her disease in marriage, not with a random partner. Here she is playing up her personal experience to support her argument. Fisher’s inclusions of these social facts are added to acquire the sympathy of her traditional audience. Likening herself to the hypothetical “lonely gay man” draws sympathy from the assembly for a hypothetical character in her rhetoric. These inclusions of speculative illusions strengthen the rhetorical appeal of her argument. Fisher specifically includes certain information to develop an understanding from a conservative audience that may need
...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.
While reading “ Into the Wild” by Jon Krakauer, many opinions can be formed of Chris McCandless. One, in particular, was the author's opinion which he blatantly stated on page 85. He didn't think that Chris was some reckless foolish insane idiot. He believed that competent otherwise he wouldn't have lasted so long. I agree with Krakauer, things Chris did on this journey did not show signs of some careless person. Chris was just an adventurer looking to get away from the expectations society had of him to see the world for what it really was.
In John Leo’s “The Beauty of Argument”, Leo discusses how discussion and debate has changed drastically over time.
My English 1310 course was taught by Professor Daniel Stuart. He taught us the concept of academic writing and why it is important. Academic writing is the process of down ideas, using a formal tone, deductive reasoning and third person. Writing done to carry out the requirements of a college or university on a research based level. It requires a starting point or introduction, followed by a thesis on the preferred topic, then comes proving and disproving of the evidence based arguments. Learning academic writing is important because it is a way to communicate our thoughts clearly and originality. It helps us think and see what evidence we can come up to contribute to that thinking. This course approached this idea of academic writing by
Héctor L Carral, a multimedia engineer wrote an article titled Stop Saying Technology is causing Social Isolation for The Huffington Post. The author of the article has a biased option, therefore does not include any research that would refute his argument. Carral states “it’s only obvious to blame them [technology] for some of society’s problems. Carral also states I believe that accusing technology (and, again, especially smartphones) of ruining social interaction and even all kinds of experiences is, to say the least, quite wrong and misguided. There was an obvious division between the commenters who agree with Carral and those who disagree with his argument. The demographics of commentators. From observing the occupations that the commenters listed, it was apparent the people who were against Hector Carral’s article were parents and educators while the people who agreed with his
On December 2,2015 I went to to the Lynnhaven building to receive some feedback on my agreement paper for English 111. It was a very rainy day after running through the rain when I reached the writing center room. There was a yellow note saying that the writing center was in the student center until December 4,2015. After reading the note I ran back in the rain to my car.It was to cold to walk it was raining. As I approached the student center I was told by a security guard that the tutoring lab was located on the third floor. I had walked up three flights of stairs. When I had finally reached the third floor,I walk into the tutoring lab. There were about eight tables, but only four staff members and one student. Amen had approached me asking what did I need help with today. I replied saying that I would like some feedback on my paper for English. He then pointed to the writing table and said “she can assist you with your paper”.
... It causes identity problems, confidence issues, and keeps people from experimenting with their true selves. Sullivan properly allows the reader to look at that point of view, and too understand walking in his shoes as a child. His explanation of self-difference explains why homosexuals contain themselves in order to live a normal lifestyles away from the negative views of our world. “It is not something genetically homosexual; it is something environmentally homosexual. And it begins young.” (Sullivan)
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.
Jonathan Katz talks about the initial creation of the term “heterosexuality” and how it was used to classify certain groups of people’s way of practicing sex. Along with the negative ideology the term reflected upon society. The author talks about the early definition of the term “heterosexuality”. Katz closely examines the different cultures and what sex meant to them prior to the term and over all labeling of “heterosexual” and what become of them after the fact. Katz illustrates the many faces of the term “heterosexual” starting with the early definition of the word, which was at the
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
Milstein, Susan A. Taking Sides Clashing Views in Human Sexuality. Ed. William J. Taverner and Ryan W. McKee. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
“Being gay is much more profound than simply a sexual relationship; being gay is part of that person’s core identity, and goes right to the very center of his being. It’s like being black in s society of whites, or a blonde European in a nation of black Asians” (Tamara L. Roleff). Although marriage, cohabitation and parenting styles of homosexual families pose no threats to the heterosexual society; many still believe same-sex marriage goes against its true purpose. “At the national level, American public opinion on the issue remains split (44 percent support legalizing same-sex marriage; 53 percent oppose same-sex marriage in a May 2010 Gallup Poll) even as opposition toward legalizing same-sex marriage is at its lowest point in decades (Jones, 2010)” (Amy B. Becker). Also to one’s surprise, among the vast amount of psychological disorders, homosexuality is not one. Homosexuals are just as capable of sustaining stable and successful relationships and families just as heterosexuals.
My arguments will be ignoring a major element in factoring the morality of homosexuality, the law. Yes, many people know that stealing and murder are both wrong, but this is based on socialization and learning passed down from previous generations. The aim isn’t to ignore the rules, but examples from history relating to homosexuality will not aid in proving ground for its ethics. A rational, autonomous decision making process must be used in order to decipher right from wrong, which can lead to solid, concrete answers.