John Corvino discusses different aspects of homosexuality defense, including the rare or pathological nature of homosexuality. As a result, he claims that homosexuality’s uncommon nature cannot be equated with immorality since individuals will participate in other unusual behaviors as well. Another argument discussed is the idea that since animals do not practice homosexuality, it is not meant to be practiced by humans, and that there are other things that humans do not reciprocate animal behavior, and that animals should not be allowed to influence human decision-making. Furthermore, the innate desires are not the main motivation behind homosexuality since some consider it as a matter of choice: a notion that Corvino disagrees with.
Other aspects that are incorporated in the article includes sexual organ as well as the natural section along with the disgusting idea that people normally associated homosexuality with. However, an individual can use any part of the body in order to portray a sense of love. The suicide, as well as the depressing aspects, is also covered by the notion that engaging in homosexuality is harmful which is opposed by Corvino in the article. Other issues that Corvino addresses is the idea that HIV/AIDS is higher among those who practice homosexuality where he agrees with the idea, but indicates that when the care is taken, and one is faithful, this may not occur. Another element’s that the author cites the argument that heterosexual relationships have better and more superior rewards when compared to the homosexual relationship where he indicates that others such as Celibacy are even less rewarding than homosexuals. Lastly, John Corvino argues against the ideas that procreation is inhibited by homosexuality given that he argues that people ignore the aspect of celibacy. Lastly, the author addresses the bible contribution to the discussion on the issue of homosexuality.
Fallacies and rhetorical statement
John Corvino constantly uses Fallacies and rhetorical statements which include
One rhetorical statement that the author highlights is that people who are often born with violence-related issues do not have a right to take away other peoples’ lives (464)
Another rhetorical statement is the part, whether the author asks whether people choose to be born homosexuals? (464)
Another rhetorical question is the situation where he covers the aspects of the depression. In this case, he asks whether one is more likely to face cases of depression, especially when overcoming the challenges that have been set out by the society (467).
Another fallacy that is covered by the author is the point where he compares having sex with Jim and with a woman who is HIV- Negative. The authors indicate that homosexuality is not harmful rather than it is HIV aids to support his argument (468).
This is the wrong comparison considering that comparing having a woman with HIV Negative with homosexuality is wrong and the main focus, in this case, should be morality and proving that it is right to engage in homosexuality
The argument that penile-vaginal intercourse is a contributor to the cervical cancer is wrong, which the author uses to support the homosexuality among women
The statement where the author indicates that the critics should proof that Jim and Tommy would better if they were celibate (471)
The question such as the doesn’t homosexuality threaten society (472)
Another rhetorical is when the author cites various passages against the homosexuality and at the same time cites passages that condemn other activities that people do including eating pork and asks the reason as to why people should maintain inerrancy after such passages.
Questions such as whether people should close their savings account since Bible objects against loaning money at interest? Then proceeds to answer
The point where he claims that the Bible is wrong on some of the issues such as homosexuality
The point where homosexuality is compared to the celibacy by saying that if all people were celibate, then the society would collapse in a similar manner if the organization promoted homosexuality (472)
Some of the fallacies are identified as a part of the slippery slope argument which normally tries to the compared phenomenon that does not have the direct relationship. For instance, most of the arguments by the John Corvino do not directly support homosexuality, but uses other aspects to help in supporting his arguments. The author mainly focuses on arguing against another form of relationship, such as celibacy instead of putting more focus on addressing the reason as to why the society should embrace homosexuality. The woman with HIV AIDS and the homosexuality comparison is wrong. This claim is flawed and does not strengthen the author’s arguments. Using celibacy as the base for comparing the morality of the homosexuality does not help in defending homosexuality since more arguments should focus more on why it should be allowed, but not focusing more on why others are allowed, and homosexuality is not. The argument that penile-vaginal intercourse is a contributor to the cervical cancer is wrong considering the number of men to women relationship and the propensity of cervical cancer against women.
The statement that the Bible is wrong on some issues is not true. It is true that some of the activities that individuals engage in may go against the biblical teachings, especially since we operate in a multicultural environment, but it is important to note that the teachings of the bible are based on the historical setting. Furthermore, other religions do not rely on the Biblical teachings, but this does not mean that the bible is wrong and at the same time one does not have to question their faith. This also includes the rhetorical question of whether we should close bank accounts due to the interest issue covered in the bible. At some point, he uses the notion of writing with the left hand instead of the right hand when questioning the immorality of the homosexuality which is a rhetorical statement. Other statements that are used include the idea that animals do not engage in activities that human being often engage in including undergoing surgery, brushing teeth as well as wearing clothes by the animals. The author cannot rely on such statement to provide a definition of what is natural or unusual given that many elements can be incorporated in such. As a result, there is no clear definition of what can be considered as natural or unusual given that we live in multi-cultural societies where people have different practices.
Conclusion and Recommendation
One of the main issues that John Corvino addresses is that relationships are strengthened by sex and concept that should be one of the basis or the principle of his arguments. Most people who are happily married or are in the healthy relationship often engaging in sexual activities which further strengthens their relationship. One of the significant weaknesses in his argument is when defining the unnatural concept where he uses the animal-based comparison to support his argument. The HIV aids argument can also be approached differently given that the spread of HIV is often determined by whether people practice safe sex or are faithful to their partners but not because of the individual’s sexuality. Furthermore, the available data on homosexuality cannot be considered as conclusive given that people fear coming out especially due to social segregation and another form of discrimination they undergo and as a result most often live a private life something that statistics do not show which is one of the strongest arguments that the author uses. Homosexuality does not affect the procreation given that whether people are public with their sexuality or not does change the rate of procreation.
Furthermore, if the homosexuality were deemed appropriate the only major change would be the people that would be willing to come out, but this would not convert others to a gay relationship. Furthermore, if individuals are not allowed to express themselves by not coming out, they often live a stressful life. In the long run, may cause cases of depression or even suicide due to the feeling that they are discriminated against, but this would not be the case if they were allowed to live a productive life. The religion aspect can also be broadened given that people have a different approach to the biblical teachings. There are different elements in the bible that when approached literally than most things that we may consider as immoral are not. For instance, they are aspects of the Bible that indicate that people should consider enslaving others and when one dies the same is transferred to the children. However, in the current environment, one would consider restraining immoral and against human rights. This is the same case with the homosexuality given that times have changed and the society approaches various issues differently than in the past especially during the times that the bible was written.
A Defense of Homosexuality” by John Corvino (pp. 462-474).