Corvino on Homosexual Relationships  (in James E. White text) 

Corvino's essay is organized into four parts. He examines homosexual activity from the perspective of "natural" standards, utilitarian standards, religious standards, and the slippery slope problem. 

His argument: if none of these can show why it's wrong for two adult men to have consenting sex, then they are morally free to do so. And, he thinks, none of them can show that it's wrong. So it's morally allowed.

(1) It's wrong because it's not natural.

If we are going to condemn it as unnatural, what do we mean by that? And can we find an analysis that does not prohibit OTHER behavior we find permissible?

• ABNORMAL -- can't mean this, because then playing the mandolin is immoral.

• NOT FOUND IN BEHAVIOR OF NONHUMAN ANIMALS -- can't mean this, because there are lots of "homosexual" pair-bonds in other species.

• NOT BASED ON INNATE DESIRE -- So what? Since people can control their actions more than their "feelings," heterosexuals and homosexuals are equally faced with the choice of how to act. 

• VIOLATES THE NATURAL GOAL/FINALITY OF SEX
  Basically, this means that it is activity that "cannot result in procreation." If you won't condemn contraception and "sterile heterosexual couples," you can't condemn homosexuality. And natural law does NOT condemn sterile hetero couples. So this criterion is an unacceptable double-standard.

• DISGUSTING -- can't mean this, because cleaning toilets is disgusting, but not wrong.

(2) It's wrong because it has too many harmful consequences (UTILITARIAN approach) 

First Response: If the "harm" is AIDS and similar consequences, then lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex. By this argument, heterosexuals are immoral compared to lesbians.

Second Response: We don't require abstinence (celibacy) just because a behavior has SOME harmful consequences. If we are going to say that it is better to be celibate than engage in homosexual activity, the same issue must be raised about heterosexuals. Perhaps many heterosexuals engage in patterns of behavior that are less conducive to happiness that celibacy.

(3)  JUDEO-CHRISTIAN RELIGION CONDEMNS IT

Response: Unless one accepts ALL the prohibitions laid down in Judeo-Christian Scripture, selective attention to Leviticus and Romans is unfair. Both endorse behavior that we now condemn, and condemn behavior that we now allow. WHY? Because we recognize that they were TEMPORARY applications of "enduring moral values." Old prohibitions against a wide range of sexual activity no longer make any more sense than the prohibition against eating pork and shellfish.

(4) The SLIPPERY SLOPE: If we allow this behavior, don't we have to permit "incest, polygamy, and bestiality," too? ARE THERE NO LIMITS ON SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS?

Response: There is no problem in drawing a line. Sex is allowed when it occurs in a context of "mutual communication and respect." When there CANNOT be mutual communication and respect (bestiality, pedophilia) or there is a failure to maintain the proper standard (polygamy), the activity is immoral. But homosexuals are just like heterosexuals in having SOME relationships that adhere to this standard, and some that do not.