Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic Church
Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic Church
Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic Church
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic Church
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”.
In the debate over homosexuality, Christian ethicists have many authorities to draw from. From the mixture of biblical sources, traditional authorities, empirical and descriptive accounts, and cultural norms, Cahill chooses general biblical themes and modern culture as the primary authorities for her ethic. This departure from traditional Roman Catholic teaching implies some flaw in the connection between the Holy Spirit, the church, and common believers. Cahill’s decision is her method of fixing this disconnect and reuniting Christ’s message with all believers.
The essay, Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex? A Defense of Homosexuality by John Corvino addresses a topic that has long been controversial for more years than people can count. This topic, like a never-stopping debate, often brings various opinions onto the table, including religious morals, human future and procreation. Homosexuality has been seen as a serious sin through many people’s eyes and is often accused by others of being “immoral” and “unnatural” (Corvino). People often have a hard time accepting couples who practice relationship with the same sex. In the article, Corvino rejects the idea that homosexual sex is unnatural and immoral. He defended for his gay friend’s rights throughtout
Society is created with both homosexual and heterosexual individuals. Previously when certain laws discriminated against others, such as law for women's rights to vote, these laws were changed. Changing the traditions of the country does not mean that it will lead to the legalization of other extreme issues. Each ...
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
From the two prompts of "Prop 8 Hurt My Family-Ask Me How" and Theodore B. Olson's "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage", the second article provides a deeper and more rational attempt on explaining why gay marriage is an essential right for every individual to acquire, and is also the ultimate sign of American Principle. Unlike the first prompt, which mainly consists of emotional appeal, Theodore B. Olson uses logical and ethical rhetorical strategies to convey the reader of his viewpoint. Coming from a standpoint of it not being a "liberal or conservative issue, but an American one."(82)
The committee makes several recommendations in regards to changing the laws and legislations surrounding the incrimination of homosexuals for what had previously been considered sodomy. The basic premise being that “homosexual behaviour betwe...
...were initially skeptical, until gradually, the weight of scientific fact has shifted the opinion to the belief in these views. As seen in the film, Paris is Burning, homosexuality is not much of a choice, but a way of life that not many would chose living unless biologically destined to be. We must trust that the very knowledge of the natural and biological springs of sexual abnormality will bring about the recognition that the syndrome is natural, and may change our perceptions of what is normal. After all, the problem, such as Bornstein stated, is with our intolerance that they do not conform with what we think is 'normal' gender identity and sexual behavior. Though it is our biologically wired mind that makes us intolerable and aggressive to the 'outsider', it is our duty as a society to erase this ignorance by education of the genetically sexual 'deviant' ones.
In Daniel Karslake’s documentary, For the Bible Tells Me So, he examines the intersection between Christianity and homosexuality. Karslake uses parallelism, appeal to emotion, and appeal to logic to highlight how the religious right has used its interpretation of the bible to stigmatize the gay community. With the use of these rhetorical devices, he is able to auspiciously convey his argument that there can be a healthy relationship amongst the opposing side of this belief. He attempts to enlighten the viewer with the thought that Christianity's homophobia represents a misreading of scripture, a denial of science, and an embrace of fake psychology. The families call for love.
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
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
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.
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:
Homosexuality is a sensitive topic and often avoided in conversation. For centuries the human race has oppressed and persecuted others strictly because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual etc. Although it is disturbing to most of us, these actions still occur in our society today, as many believe that homosexuality is abnormal and disgraceful. One supporter of this belief is Michael Levin, who strongly believes that homosexuality is highly abnormal and thus, undesirable. Although his beliefs and theories supporting this claim are subjective, there is evidence that can support his stance on this topic; we will analyze this claim in further detail and how it relates to his other views mentioned in this essay.
The issues of sexual ethics in relation to morality and perversion have been addressed in depth by each of the gentleman at this table. Sexual activity as described by Solomon and Nagle is comprised of a moral standard and ‘naturalness’ aspect. So, in claiming an act is perverted we must first examine it through a moral framework and understand how this interacts with the ‘naturalness’ of a particular act. Solomon makes the distinction as follows “Perversion is an insidious concept…To describe an activity as perverse is not yet a full blown moral condemnation, for it need not entail that one ought not to indulge in such activities.” Along with the examination of the nature of an act, there must be clear justification as to why sexual acts deserve special separate ethical principles. The question arises: does an act simply due to its sexual nature deserve a separate form of moral inquisition than other acts that occur in nature? In this essay I shall argue that perversion and immorality are not mutually exclusive. By this I mean that a sexual act that is, by my definition, immoral must also be perverted. It is also my contention that if an act is perverted we must also define it as immoral. This second part of the argument is contrary to what many of you have claimed. At the outset of this paper I would also like to state my support of Thomas Nagel’s argument holding that the connection between sex and reproduction has no bearing on sexual perversion. (Nagel 105)
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.