Summary Of Why Shouldn T Tommy And Jim Have Sex By Corvino

In “Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex”, Corvino argues that homosexual sex is as morally correct as heterosexual sex. In support of this stance he firstly contends that sexual relationships in general, “...can unite two people in a way that virtually nothing else can. It can be an avenue of growth, of communication, and of lasting interpersonal fulfillment.” (1). Having explained his stance on why Tommy and Jim should have sex, he then refutes 2 reasons that others may object, those being that:

1. Homosexual sex is “Unnatural”, arguing that many things that are unnatural are not morally wrong, and thusly that even if homosexuality fits into someone’s definition of unnatural it does not make it wrong.

2. Homosexuality violates biblical teaching:

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