John Corvino Analysis

John Corvino provides many different arguments in support of sexually active homosexual relationships. Corvino’s following arguments support his thesis, that there is no moral objection based on biblical teaching or naturality to participate in a sexually active same sex relationship. Some of the many arguments Corvino provides state that acts cannot be moral or immoral based on: what is disgusting, unnatural, practiced in other species or proceeds from innate desires. The final argument Corvino presents, is that homosexuality doesn’t violate biblical teaching because of the Bible’s historical context. I will argue that there is no moral objection to a homosexually active relationship based on naturality, and critic Corvino’s arguments, which …show more content…
However, he failed to present comprehensive examples, from both the New and Old Testament, in support of homosexually active relationships. Having examples from both halves of the Bible is crucial, when creating a valid argument, that homosexually active relationships are morally permissible, from a biblical Christian perspective. As previously stated, Christians view biblical rules differently based on whether they are from the Old or New Testament. When presenting a philosophical argument, from a Christian perspective you need to provide consistent support or opposition from both places. To strengthen his argument, Corvino needed to find an example in the New Testament, in support of homosexual intercourse or relationships. By understanding the nuances within a Christian perspective, the author could have presented a stronger …show more content…
The mistakes in Corvino’s arguments do not aid in a productive debate of the moral implications of a same-sex relationship. Corvino presented a false comparison, ignorance of the ideological nuance within an opposing perspective and made a huge assumption of his audience. Instead he should have slowed down to accurately think about all of the potential problems with his arguments, consulted someone with knowledge of this opposing viewpoint then strengthened his argument and proceeded