Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex? An Essay by John Corvino

According to the text book Some opponents of gay marriage will claim that sexuality is a matter of choice and that individuals Simply ought to choose traditional heterosexual relationships. Some proponents of Gay marriage will claim that individuals should be free to choose to marry whomever they want. Other defenders of gay marriage will argue that since homosexual attraction is not a matter of choice but, rather, a natural disposition over which individuals have no control, homosexuals should be free to engage in relationships that are natural and rewarding for them. From a consequentialist point of view, there is nothing in the nature of sex itself that requires that it be heterosexual or for reproductive purposes. In this view, the sexual

“One meaning of “unnatural” refers to that which deviates from the norm, that is, from what most people do.” (96) Corvino politely clarifies why homosexuality is natural, even though homosexuality reviewed as unnatural in the sense that it is unusual he disputes it by saying that the fact is morally irrelevant. His reason for making that statement is because you cannot say something is unnatural because it is unusual then you would say that being able to

    In contrast to our contemporary understandings, back in the late nineteenth and twentieth century sexology had just emerged and cast a new way of understanding. There were controversial views on sex and its benefits or dangerous. Our view of sexuality was quite intertwined with biblical and religious inputs. At this time understandings and terminology of same-sex sexual relations were linked with mental illness or considered sinful. Laws were in place to criminalize male sexual activity.

Many scientists have a difficult time understanding homosexuality on the evolutionary aspect. They believe a human beings’ main purpose is reproduction, which makes the sexual relationship between two males a confusing concept for most evolutionary thinkers (McKnight 1). Evolutionary thinkers believe that the less desirable genes are removed from the system when they are not breed as often, but this cannot be said for homosexual males who have been a continuing presence in most societies over numerous generations (McKnight 1). These evolutionary thinkers, like most humans, have a need to place others into

He contradicted the argument that homosexual behaviour is related to genetic, hormonal or biological disorder. To abolish these views, the author mentions that ‘no school of medicine, medical journal or professional organization has ever recognized such claims (p. 2) - at least at the time he wrote the article in 1994.

“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

Corvino defends homosexuality by comparing it to other “natural” occurrences. If Corvino defended homosexuality with many good points in his argument couldn’t it have been the same if it was biologically-full siblings? He counter-attacks arguments that say homosexuality is disgusting, unusual, pro-choice,harmful, violates the natural act of sexual organs,etc. Although biologically-full siblings may be unnatural and disgusting, he would say that these grown adults who are sterile cannot be harmful since they cannot pro-create which would have lead to a deformity of a child created from incest. Corvino makes you realize how dumb you are if you believe in everything else, but homosexuality. In Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim have Sex? he states, “But

Robert George is a Princeton professor, an adamant dissenter of same-sex marriage, and was a strong supporter of Proposition 8. One of the most prevalent arguments used by Robert George to combat same-sex marriage was the “’common procreation’ rationale” which was the idea that marriage should strictly be heterosexual due to the ability to procreate (401). On December 13, 2010, Slate.com published an article called “The Best Argument Against Gay Marriage: And Why It Fails.” This article was a counterargument made by Kenji Yoshino, a New York University Law professor. In this article, Yoshino states that Robert George and his co-authors’ argument that gay marriage should be banned due to same-sex couples’ inability to procreate is invalid because it is statistically flawed and it makes unintentional attacks on certain groups of opposite-sex couples.

Jones observe (2002: 15). In these ways, institutionalized heterosexuality is central to some of the key motivation(s) behind and design of public policy frameworks in the United States. By “institutionalized heterosexuality” I am referring to the set of ideas, institutions and relationships that make the heterosexual family the societal norm, while rendering homosexual/queer families “abnormal” or “deviant” (Ingraham 1999). My queer analysis of social welfare involves examining how sexuality and gender can be rethought and reorganized in economic and social policy frameworks, theories and practices. Throughout the article I examine how heterosexuality is assumed to be the natural basis for defining the family, and by extension, society, both explicitly (by excluding LGBT people from the analysis and by stigmatizing certain individuals as “non-family” or “anti-family”) and implicitly (by assuming that all people are heterosexual, that marriage is a given and exists only between a traditionally-defined man and woman, and that all people fit more or less into traditional gender roles; see Foucault 1978; Fraser and Gordon 1994; Ingraham 1999; Phelan 2001;

Strongly against gay marriage is the central theme of Louis P. Sheldon’s article Gay Marriage “Unnatural”. According to the author’s views, gay marriage is ‘unnatural’, and

I believe that through his analogies of the misuse of body parts, counter arguments and his response to them, as well as the logical implications, Michael Levin poses a strong case that homosexuality is abnormal. With that said, the purpose of this paper is to analyze Levin’s argument, to do that I will address the parts previously mentioned, analogies, a counter argument, and logical implications.

Under circumstances, such as same-sex marriage, Jeff Jordan claims it is morally wrong. In his essay “Is It Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality”, Jordan analysis how such rights would go against others views and public policy ramifications. To make it apparent that his claims about same-sex marriages are correct Jordan states what the two conflicting sides argue.

He states his contempt for these views and states a detailed reason why gay marriage makes sense. He makes it known that he feels that gay marriage should be viewed as normal and gay marriage should be held to a similar standard. He feels that this union would help in domesticating men and make them reliable caregivers. In his article, he concludes by articulating that he is gay and would be ashamed if other homosexual individuals would not push for their right to marry (Rauch, p. 23).

When a man and a woman engage in unprotected sexual intercourse, the end result tends to be life, as a child is born nine months later. Only once a man’s sperm reaches the eggs of a woman is this possible. Clearly, life and the existence of the human species as a whole is the product of sex between a man and a woman. The norm of reproduction then, is the aforementioned union between man and woman in heterosexual intercourse. Heterosexuality is viewed as the norm of most societies. This norm creates controversy regarding homosexuality, as it [homosexualism] is considered deviant and against societal norms. The topic of homosexuality is important and worth further investigation because it is surrounded by controversial issues

The realization of the homosexuality in the modern western world as a cultural, sexual and a social category has been a result of complex power relations that surround sexuality and gender. The acceptance of homosexuality in the society has met its fair share of resistance and skepticism. The view that homosexuality can be in the same league as heterosexual has led it to be viewed as a normal behavioral and moral standard (Gallagher & Baker, 2006). Inasmuch as the skeptics may not want to accept the existence of homosexuality studies show that the habit is rampant today with many gay people coming out in the open. Of interest is the political acceptance of homosexuality with passing gay rights so that it can be recognized by law. This move has given homosexuals the ability to engage in legal entities like marriage (Gallagher & Baker, 2006).